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
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
British armed forces personnel in Scotland play a crucial role in defending the whole UK, and my Department meets regularly with the Ministry of Defence to help raise concerns that are specific to Scotland. I feel particularly indebted to the armed forces in Scotland, who keep us safe at home and abroad and who assisted with such dedication at the height of this covid pandemic.
Joy Morrissey
The SNP Government’s decision to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the UK has threatened to put the many brave troops based there out of pocket through no fault of their own. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because our armed forces serve the whole UK, it is only right that they are treated equally and fairly wherever they are based?
Mr Jack
I absolutely agree. Our armed forces perform a hugely important task in their service of the United Kingdom, and it is unacceptable that any member of them should be subject to discriminatory taxation. That is why the United Kingdom Government took the decision to make an annual payment to protect them from the Scottish Government’s decision to make Scotland the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom.
Mark Jenkinson
British armed forces have contributed enormously to the national response to the covid-19 outbreak, supporting the distribution of personal protective equipment, assisting with testing facilities and transporting patients, for which Cumbria and my constituency of Workington are grateful. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the armed forces for all their work during the pandemic, and can he confirm that every part of our United Kingdom will continue to benefit from their hard work?
Mr Jack
Our armed forces have been instrumental in the Government’s response to the pandemic, and I give my deep thanks to them for that work. In Scotland, that has included military planning personnel for the Scottish Government’s emergency co-ordination centre, Puma helicopters deployed to Kinloss to support the NHS in medical transport and airlift critically ill patients from the Scottish highlands, and the operating of pop-up mobile testing sites across Scotland.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The Government and this Prime Minister are passionate about the Union, and the strength of the Union has never been more important or more evident. The UK has the economic strength to support jobs and businesses with generous financial packages, and it is the strength of the Union that will enable us to rebuild our economy and swiftly respond to any emerging threats to our prosperity.
Bob Blackman [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Figures released by the Scottish Government demonstrate that the cost to Scotland of leaving the United Kingdom and becoming independent would be £15.1 billion a year. We know that those figures must be true, because they were released by the SNP Government. Does he agree that, far from creating an economic case for leaving the United Kingdom, that demonstrates the strength of the Union and why Scotland is far better off being in the United Kingdom?
Mr Jack
Yes, absolutely. The Scottish Government’s own figures show clearly how much Scotland benefits from being part of a strong United Kingdom, with the pooling and sharing of resources. Year after year, people in Scotland benefit from levels of public spending substantially above the United Kingdom’s average, and that Union dividend is worth almost £2,000 per person to everyone in Scotland.
Alexander Stafford
Last month’s figures from the Scottish Government confirmed that our Union is worth nearly £2,000 a year for every man, woman and child in Scotland. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we not only benefit from being one Union and one happy family together, but that the economic benefits for Scotland from the Union are huge?
Mr Jack
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The benefits of the Union go way beyond public spending. The strength and size of the UK economy creates opportunities for Scottish businesses, and around 60% of Scotland’s exports currently go to the rest of the UK. That is more than she trades with the rest of the world.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) [V]
The Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Health and Social Care have confirmed that the Government will break the law by overriding the Northern Ireland protocol. That would mean reneging on the withdrawal agreement—an agreement that the Prime Minister himself negotiated, brought to this House, voted for, ratified and campaigned on at the general election. This reckless move reignites the prospect of us crashing out of the European Union with no deal. The Prime Minister promised the British people an oven-ready deal. It now looks like an oven-ready no-deal. The Secretary of State himself has said previously that a no-deal outcome would “create damaging uncertainty” for the country and that he would never vote for anything that threatened or undermined the integrity of our United Kingdom. Does he think that reneging on an international treaty, breaking their promise on a deal and putting no-deal firmly back on the table strengthens or weakens the Union?
Mr Jack
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his partner on the birth of their baby daughter, Zola, which is why he is currently on paternity leave.
I hope that I face even questions such as that from the hon. Gentleman for some time to come, because he is honourable, which is a lot more than can be said for many in his party—the hard left of his party—who have sought to smear and undermine him in recent days. In answer to his question, we absolutely do want a deal. We are in serious negotiations again this week because we want to get a deal, and that is our intention, but the withdrawal agreement was written on the basis that subsequent agreements could be reached through the Joint Committee, and that Joint Committee process is ongoing and we are committed to it. None the less, in the event that it cannot deal with any adverse implications for the Good Friday agreement, it is important that we have a position that creates a safety net to uphold our commitments to the members of Northern Ireland.
Ian Murray
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for his kind words about Zola, and if his Government could legislate for a minimum of six hours’ sleep for new parents, I certainly would be the first person in the Aye Lobby to support them.
The Secretary of State’s Conservative colleague and prominent constitutional expert, Adam Tomkins MSP, his own—now resigned—most senior Government lawyer and many on his own Back Benches disagree with him. He must surely realise that the UK Government’s recklessness only benefits those who want to break up the UK and the consequences of breaking up the UK would be dire for all of our constituents. As has already been mentioned, the Scottish Government’s own figures last week showed that the UK dividend to Scotland is an extra £15 billion a year—the entire budget of the Scottish NHS. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the focus of both the Scottish and UK Governments must be to protect public health, invest in our economy, and secure jobs and not to continue with this endless paralysing constitutional division?
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]
I echo the congratulations to the shadow Secretary of State. However, I will not echo the congratulations to the Union. Today, the UK Government have published their United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I want to ask specifically about clause 46, which states that any UK Minister of the Crown may promote and directly provide economic development, effectively allowing the UK Government the powers to legislate in the following devolved areas: health; education; water; electricity; courts and pension facilities; housing; and the list goes on. Am I correct in my understanding that when the Government says that they are strengthening the Union, what they really mean is dismantling devolution?
Mr Jack
Absolutely not. We are strengthening devolution. We are bringing a power surge to Scotland—more than 100 new powers. We are not taking a single power away, and I invite the hon. Lady to name one that we are. I say that we are the party that backs devolution. The SNP is the party that wants to destroy devolution by leaving the United Kingdom.
Mhairi Black
Will the Secretary of State tell me, if he is not dismantling devolution, specifically where in the Bill does it say that the UK Government must acquire the consent of the devolved Administrations?
Mr Jack
The UK Government would like to get a legislative consent motion from the devolved Administrations, but we are quite clear that we need to bring forward this UK legislation to protect jobs, to protect producers, to protect manufacturers and to protect consumers. This is a piece of legislation that, through mutual recognition and non-discrimination, strengthens our United Kingdom economy. That is important to Scotland because over £50 billion of trade is done with the rest of the UK—more than Scotland does with the rest of the world.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Further talk of constitutional wrangling is deeply unhelpful at a time when we continue to fight the coronavirus pandemic in Scotland and across much of the world. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that the SNP has got its priorities completely wrong by finding time to bring forward another referendum Bill as we have seen spikes in coronavirus in Scotland and across the UK?
Mr Jack
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as leader of the Scottish Conservatives. I was sorry to lose him as a Minister, but I got to know him well, and I know very well that he will do an excellent job. He does make a very good point. It is important that we come together to fight this virus and not go back into division and constitutional wrangling. That just basically creates uncertainty and is bad for the Scottish economy and bad for Scottish jobs.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
May I just say ever so gently and candidly to the right hon. Gentleman that he is not presiding over the strengthening of the Union—he is presiding over its demise? Support for independence is now at an all-time high at 55%—but after today it is going to get a lot, lot worse for him. If there was ever any doubt that this Government were determined to override the authority of the Scottish Parliament, it is clause 46 of this disgraceful Bill today. Why does he not man up? Why does he not confess and be honest with the Scottish people and tell them that this is an unadulterated power grab?
Mr Jack
For the very simple reason that it is not—and still the SNP cannot tell us one power that is being grabbed, not one single power. It is quite the contrary—more powers are being delivered to the Scottish Parliament, strengthening devolution. SNP Members do not like that. They do not like the UKIM legislation because it strengthens the United Kingdom economy, and that does not fit into their plans either.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
In response to the fact that a majority of people in Scotland, in all recent polls, want Scotland to be independent, the Secretary of State’s Government will today set out steps that betray the fact that they want to fatally undermine devolution, while declaring that they will break international law with malice aforethought. Does he believe that in being an accomplice to this, he will strengthen the Union?
Mr Jack
We have been very clear about our position. These are contingent powers that will be exercised only in cases where the Joint Committee cannot be formed or operate, or cannot come to a view at a particular time, to prevent—it is important to understand this—adverse implications for the Good Friday agreement. Our responsibility, first and foremost, is to the people of Northern Ireland. For the SNP, it is always, “Britain second, Brussels first.”
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Historically, the role of Secretary of State for Scotland has been to argue for more decisions to be made in Scotland. Does the current Secretary of State not feel ashamed and embarrassed to be the first incumbent of this office to actually argue for things to happen the other way around? Does he not realise that by so doing, he will make the argument for political independence for Scotland far better that those of us on the SNP Benches can?
Mr Jack
I utterly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. This legislation strengthens the United Kingdom. Scotland does 60% of her trade with the rest of the UK—over £50 billion. We want to protect that trade. We want to improve the Scottish economy. In no way is a single power being removed from the Scottish Government. It is quite the contrary: powers are being increased.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have frequent discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of matters relating to the UK internal market. The UK internal market is vitally important for our economy. As I have said a number of times over the past five minutes, sales produced in Scotland to the rest of the UK are £51.2 billion per year and over 60% of our exports.
Angela Crawley
By contrast to the Secretary of State’s power surge, the European single market’s principles, for example, are based on equality, co-operation and consent, with agreed standards for all member states. If he claims that the policy on the UK internal market is not a power grab, will he guarantee a mechanism for negotiation, agreement and consent between the four nations of the UK?
Mr Jack
The hon. Lady points towards frameworks, which is exactly what we are doing. For standards, frameworks will be by consent across the United Kingdom. There is the opportunity for parties to opt out. As a safety net for business, we are introducing mutual recognition, which underpins the European single market, and we are introducing non-discrimination.
Stewart Hosie
The gravity analysis published in the internal market Command Paper suggests that a border effected between Scotland and the rest of the UK would have an impact of about 1.1% of Scottish GDP. Brexit will have an impact seven times greater—a loss of GDP growth in Scotland of about 8%. When the Secretary of State has discussions with the Scottish Government, will he commit to bring forward another Command Paper insisting that Scotland remains part of the European Union single market?
Mr Jack
We are leaving the EU—I do not know if that point has been wasted on the hon. Gentleman. When we were on the Treasury Committee, we saw many projections about what would happen if the UK voted for Brexit, and all those projections had one thing in common: they were wrong. I do not recognise his figures. I believe that with good trade deals and this UK legislation, we will strengthen the Scottish economy.
Ruth Jones
Like many people in Newport West, I was astonished by the comments of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at the Dispatch Box yesterday in relation to the Government’s willingness to break international law. Legislation is important and so is the Government’s ability to obey it, so will the Secretary of State commit to a UK-wide framework that protects workers’ rights and environmental standards within the internal market, and will he pledge to stick to it?
Mr Jack
There are over 42 frameworks—I have not studied them all in detail, but I am sure that those subjects will be covered. When we have frameworks, it is by consensus. It is up to each member state of the United Kingdom—the four nations—to adhere to those. They do have an opt-out and, as I say, the UKIM legislation underpins that and protects producers, suppliers, manufacturers and consumers alike.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleagues, including the Chancellor, on all aspects of the impact of coronavirus in Scotland. The unprecedented actions we have taken have supported over 930,000 jobs and more than 65,000 businesses in Scotland. Over £2.3 billion of support for business is being given through the Government-supported loan schemes.
Andrew Griffith
With its abundant renewable resources, Scotland has the opportunity to be a world leader in hydrogen technology, a $2.5 trillion global market. Will the Minister inform the House what conversations are taking place between the Government and Scotland to ensure that we seize this opportunity together as a Union?
Iain Stewart
The Government are absolutely committed to the development of hydrogen as part of our decarbonisation strategy. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that in July, the Government launched the Hydrogen Advisory Council, where Government and UK industry will work together to identify and promote the supply of low-carbon hydrogen at scale across the energy system. Scottish companies are members of this council.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and Mariam on the birth of their baby daughter, Zola. The House will be pleased to hear that she has very robust lungs and her father’s cheeks—that is how it has been put to me. [Interruption.] These cheeks, Mr Speaker!
The Minister knows that businesses across Scotland are in desperate need of additional support specifically in relation to the furlough scheme. The UK Government have in place one of the shortest furlough schemes of any country in Europe. Will he please today, ahead of the Opposition day debate, announce that we will extend the furlough scheme for those businesses that need it most, and particularly in Scotland for the hospitality and accommodation sectors, because they need help from this Government?
Iain Stewart
I should also add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on the birth of his daughter. I am delighted to hear that her vocal contributions will be as strong as his.
The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) highlights the furlough scheme, which has been a very valuable tool in our economic response to coronavirus, but I point out to him that it is about giving the right support at the right time. The Chancellor is correct to move us towards supporting people returning to work through schemes such as the job retention scheme and many of the other packages that we are putting in place to support all sectors of the economy.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Many local newspapers in Scotland were pleased to get UK Government advertising business at the start of lockdown and agreed heavily discounted rates for it. Many of them were surprised then, after invoices had been issued, to get requests from the UK Government for further discounts. Is the Minister content that his Government should be treating Scotland’s local newspapers in that way?
Iain Stewart
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. This is a unique partnership to support the newspaper industry. It was agreed by Newsworks on behalf of all publications and the terms of the agreement are commercially confidential. I can tell him that at least 60% of the funding is supporting smaller local titles. If he has any specific issues with titles in his constituency, I am more than happy to explore them with him and raise them with my colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
We can respond effectively to covid-19 only if we have a UK-wide approach. Pooling resources and using the strength of the UK economy enables the Government to support jobs and business and to provide the extra funding and other resources to the devolved Administrations to help them combat the virus.
Suzanne Webb
The UK Government have delivered an extra £12.7 billion to the devolved Administrations throughout this pandemic, including £6.5 billion for the Scottish Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the enormous level of financial support that has already been provided showcases the strength and value of this great and united Union?
Iain Stewart
I very much agree with my hon. Friend; the strength of the UK economy and the Treasury’s international standing means that we have been able to fund the covid-19 response across all parts of the UK. Given those facts, it is worth considering the point made last week by Alex Salmond’s former adviser:
“Thirteen years in government and the SNP have yet to show their workings”
on how a separate Scotland would manage financially.
Martin Vickers
There is no doubt that some confusion is caused when the different Administrations come to different conclusions based on our advice about quarantine, numbers of people who can gather together and so on. The Minister has just spoken about a UK-wide approach. Would it not be better if some of these regulations were decisions for the UK Government?
Iain Stewart
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. We have already had examples of collaboration during this period. For example, on 23 August, the chief medical officers for all parts of the UK issued a joint statement on the current evidence of the risks and benefits to health from schools and childcare settings reopening. UK and devolved Administration Ministers meet regularly to explore and discuss these issues. Although it is right that across the UK different authorities should be able to respond to specific circumstances, I hope that political considerations do not lead to this being difference just for the sake of it.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend expand on the success and the effectiveness of the Joint Biosecurity Centre in informing decision makers around the UK on our best way to combat coronavirus?
Iain Stewart
My hon. Friend highlights just another example of where working together strengthens our response. I am delighted that legislation has been passed enabling the Scottish Government and the UK Government to allow the JBC to provide services to Ministers and officials in both Administrations.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
The UK Government and the devolved Administrations regularly discuss all aspects of the coronavirus response. Public health and social care are devolved matters for the Scottish Government, but we do provide support to the devolved Administrations where necessary, including increasing testing capacity.
Mr Dhesi
My brother-in-law’s father somehow contracted covid in a care home and, sadly, passed away. Like us, many families will have had to bear the tragedy of not being able to comfort their loved ones as they grieved their loss. Scotland has the highest care home death rate in the UK, and last month it was revealed that at least 37 hospital patients who had tested positive for coronavirus were discharged into care homes, which helped to turn them into breeding grounds for the virus, resulting in the loss of invaluable lives. So what discussions has the Minister had with Scottish Ministers about why that was allowed to happen?
Iain Stewart
First, may I extend my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman for his family’s loss? There are so many examples where families are grieving because of the loss of loved ones. He raises a devolved matter, and I know that Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport is looking at what caused this situation and that there will be an inquiry into it. This Government stand ready and we do help the Scottish Government in increasing testing capacity so that these instances are not repeated.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
We left the EU on 31 January, and negotiations for a future trade partnership are ongoing. Over time, the economic benefits of departing from EU law will clearly offset any short-run and often hypothetical problems, and those benefits will be felt both in Scotland and across the UK.
Bambos Charalambous
Yesterday’s admission by the Northern Ireland Secretary that the Internal Market Bill would be breaking international law will make many countries question the trustworthiness of the UK’s trade negotiations and the reliability of any deals. What impact does this Minister think that will have on the Scottish economy?
Iain Stewart
I simply point the hon. Gentleman to the development today that will help the UK join the trans-Pacific trade partnership, which will benefit companies in Scotland and across the whole UK.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
It is clear that the black community has been disproportionately affected by covid-19, and action is under way to determine what is driving these disparities. We continue to work closely with the Scottish Government and the Department of Health and Social Care on a range of issues related to covid-19, and will continue to do so to address the impact on the black community across the whole of the UK.
Kim Johnson
Findings from three Edinburgh University surveys of Scottish ethnic minorities show that, from 2015 to 2019, between 18% and 20% of respondents said they experienced racial discrimination in using health services. Will the Minister’s Department commit to investigating this further and to taking steps to eliminate all kinds of racial discrimination in health services?
David Duguid
I recognise that the hon. Lady is an ardent campaigner for equality in the black community. The UK Government are keenly aware of the continuing discrimination ethnic minorities face in the United Kingdom today and take seriously their obligation to secure equality for all. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities on 16 June.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Munira Wilson
If Ministers think it is acceptable for this Government to not obey the law, how on earth can the Prime Minister expect the public at home to do so?
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the continual support he gives to the people of Gibraltar and to Gibraltar. I can assure him that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is inviolable, and I join him, as I hope all Members join him, in wishing the people of Gibraltar a very happy national day on Thursday.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Leader of the Opposition, with the first of six questions.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Yesterday, I spoke to a mum who lives in London. She has a four-year-old daughter, who had a very high temperature yesterday morning. She phoned 111, and was told to get a test. She tried to book, and was told the nearest was Romford. That was 9 o’clock in the morning. She explored that, but there were no tests there. She was then told Haywards Heath, halfway to Brighton—on exploration, no tests there. By lunch time, this mum was told the nearest place was Telford or Inverness. A slot became available in Lee Valley in the afternoon—one slot—but, unfortunately, that was being offered across the country, including to people in Manchester, and it was impossible to book. At 9 o’clock last night, she was told the nearest centre was Swansea. This is, frankly, ridiculous. Who does the Prime Minister think is responsible for this?
The Prime Minister
Clearly, I take responsibility, as I have done throughout, for the entire handling of the coronavirus crisis, but I would just say to those who attack NHS Test and Trace, and those who deprecate the efforts of the people who are doing their level best to keep us safe, that it is precisely because of the success of test and trace that capacity has gone up from 2,000 a month in March to 320,000 a day. We know, thanks to NHS Test and Trace, in granular detail, in a way that we did not earlier this year, about what is happening with this pandemic. We know the groups that are suffering, the extent of the infection rates, and we have been able, thanks to NHS Test and Trace, to do the local lockdowns that have been working. We also know that, alas, some people have not been following the guidance in the way that they should and, therefore, we are seeing a rise in infections, and that is why today we are taking decisive steps to intensify our social distancing measures—the rule of six that will be familiar to the country—in order that we can keep our economy going, that we can keep our schools open and keep this virus under control. I hope that he will support those measures and, indeed, support NHS Test and Trace.
Keir Starmer
I will hear the measures later on, but we will in principle support them, as I have supported all the measures the Prime Minister has introduced, as he well knows. It is the right thing to do, and I have asked people to follow Government advice at every opportunity.
Nobody is attacking here. The Prime Minister needs to know how anxious hundreds of families are. In the past few weeks, they have been sent all over the country or told there are no tests. It cannot be brushed off. Earlier this year, the Health Secretary said:
“Anybody who needs a test can get a test, and it’s the most important thing that you can do to stop the spread of this virus.”
This is a very serious issue, but the Government line on it seems to be changing all the time. Yesterday, the director of NHS Test and Trace said,
“Can I…offer my…apologies to anyone who cannot get a covid test...it’s our laboratory processing”
that is the problem. This morning, the Health Secretary changed tack and appeared to blame the public. I note that he made a statement yesterday and faced questions but he did not say anything about the excuse that he puts forward this morning that emerged overnight. So who is right—the director of Test and Trace, who says it is a laboratory problem, or the Health Secretary, who says it is the public’s fault?
The Prime Minister
I, of course, sympathise with all those who are facing difficulties getting a test as fast as they want, but demand is at an unprecedented high, particularly because of demand for asymptomatic patients, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that this country has done more tests—17.6 million—than any other country in Europe. He likes international comparisons. That is thanks to the efforts of NHS Test and Trace, which is, in my view, doing an absolutely heroic job in spite of the difficulties that it faces. It has massively raised its output and it will be up to 500,000 tests a day by the end of October. This is an organisation that is working heroically to contain the spread of the disease, and it requires the public to trust the organisation and to participate. Yesterday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was on the verge of collapse. I think that those were ill-chosen words. I think he now regrets those words. I think he should reflect and he should take them back.
Keir Starmer
Hundreds of families have been trying to get a test in the last week, and they cannot get one. I do acknowledge the number of tests overall, but this is basic stuff. People who have got covid symptoms are very anxious about themselves, their children, their families and what to do. It means they cannot go to work and they cannot send their children to school. It matters, and if they cannot get tests the Prime Minister needs to take responsibility and not just tell us about the future or something else, but address this problem.
I want to take it further, because it is not just that people are being told to go hundreds of miles. Somebody contacted me yesterday and said: “My wife has a temperature and they said we needed to isolate and get a test done. I have been trying to book a test”. This is yesterday, Prime Minister. They continued: “the site says, ‘No capacity’. Then I tried for a home test kit and they are telling me that there are no kits available at present.” That is the situation yesterday. Yesterday, there were no tests available in London and it was the same the day before. Prime Minister, what is happening?
The Prime Minister
I note that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not take back his criticism and his attack on NHS Test and Trace, and I regret that. I gave him the opportunity to withdraw his verdict that it was on the verge of collapse: it is not. It is doing a heroic job and testing hundreds of thousands of people. Yes, we will do more, and the world we want to move to as fast as possible is a world in which everybody can take enabling tests at the beginning of the day and antigen tests to identify whether or not we have the virus., like a pregnancy test, within 15 minutes or so, so that we know whether we are able to live our lives as normally as possible. That is the vision that the Health Secretary and others have been sketching out over the last few days and that is where we intend to get to.
In the meantime, NHS Test and Trace is doing a heroic job, and today I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that most people get an in-person test result within 24 hours, and the median journey is under 10 miles if someone has to take a journey to get one.
Keir Starmer
We all want test, trace and isolate to succeed, and I have offered my support before. The Prime Minister is ignoring the problem: if people are being told to go hundreds of miles, something is wrong. This has got a lot worse in the past week or two—all Members of the House know that, because they have all had constituents telling them that. The Prime Minister talks about capacity. The latest Government figures were updated last night. They show that, on average, 75,000 tests are not being used every day. If 75,000 tests are not being used, why yesterday were people being told to go hundreds of miles for a test? Why yesterday were people being told that there is no capacity?
The Prime Minister
The issue at the moment is that there has been a massive increase in the number of people who need or want tests, particularly people who do not have symptoms. We need—I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman agrees—to prioritise people such as NHS front-line staff and our care workers who urgently need those tests. As we massively increase the number of tests, it is those groups who are getting priority.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong in what he says about the failure of NHS Test and Trace, so let me tell him that of those contacts who supply details, 80% are reached, and 320,000 people have been persuaded to self-isolate and stop the spread of the disease. That is the British people ignoring the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s attempt to undermine confidence in test and trace. They are ignoring his attempt to undermine confidence, and working together to get this disease defeated.
Keir Starmer
I am listening carefully to what the Prime Minister says, and what is undermining confidence is families being told to go hundreds of miles and they cannot get a test. That is undermining confidence. I just want this fixed. We do not need to have an argument. What is the problem? The Prime Minister should accept that there is a problem, tell us what the solution is, and we will all muck in, try to make it better, and tell our constituents.
I have been listening. Is the Prime Minister saying that too many people are coming forward for tests and that it is a capacity problem, or not? People are trying to do the right thing. They want to go back to work. We want children back in schools. The Prime Minister is encouraging that—quite right too—and we understand and support that. The Government side of the bargain was to deliver an effective test, trace and isolate scheme, but two weeks into September there is a glaring hole. Will the Prime Minister tell the House when he first knew about this particular problem of people having to go hundreds of miles, or that tests were not going to be available? It is in the last week that this issue has arisen. When did he first know that that was a problem?
The Prime Minister
It is obviously a function of the growing demand and growing public confidence in NHS Test and Trace that we have to supply more and more tests, and that is what we have been doing. I do not know whether you have been listening, Mr Speaker, but I have been trying to give the House the figures. Thanks to the heroic efforts of NHS Test and Trace, we have gone up from 2,000 tests a day in March to 320,000 a day today. That is thanks to the efforts of thousands of people, who are listening keenly to the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman for some support, encouragement or belief in what they are trying to do. Thanks to them, on average, people have to travel less than 10 miles, and thanks to them, 80% of the contacts that they or a coronavirus patient identify are reached and told to self-isolate. That is what we are trying to do. It is hard work. It is a big job, and they are doing a fantastic job. I think that what they would like to hear is some praise, encouragement and support from the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Keir Starmer
Why can we not just hear from the Prime Minister an honest answer? If he stood at the Dispatch Box and said, “I know something’s gone wrong in the last couple of weeks. We have been getting hundreds of examples of people being sent all over the place or being told there is no test. I have looked into it. I have worked out what the problem is and here is my plan”, people might be reassured. But, as ever, he pretends the problem is not there. The infection rate is rising. This is the very point at which we need a functioning testing regime. Far from the “world-beating” system we were promised, the Government cannot even get the basics right. The Government are lurching from crisis to crisis. They still lack even basic incompetence—[Interruption.] They lack competence. [Interruption.] Yes, Prime Minister, they lack competence, and that is what is holding Britain back. My final question is this: when is the problem with test, trace and isolate going to be fixed?
The Prime Minister
I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman was on the money when he said that this Government lacked incompetence. I just say to him that we are working flat out to address all the issues confronting us today, including trying to get the infection rate down, and we are getting on with taking the tough decisions and making the tough calls that will take this country forward.
When it came to saying schools were safe, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was silent because he did not want to offend his union bosses. When left-wing anarchists tried to destroy the freedom of the press, he was silent because for some reason he did not want to offend crusty left-wing anarchists. When it comes, by the way, to sticking up for our UK internal market and for delivering on the will of the British people—one of the most important issues facing us today—he is totally silent on the Bill that obsesses the rest of his Back Benchers. He is totally silent. A great ox once again has stood on his tongue. He has nothing at all to say about that subject today, because he does not want to offend the huge number of his Back Benchers who want to overturn the verdict of the people and take us back into the EU, which is of course what he wants to do himself.
This Government get on and take the tough decisions on behalf of the British people, delivering thousands of jobs through our kickstart scheme, record-breaking investment in affordable housing with a £12 billion programme, and getting on with all our work, working with the British people and working with the right hon. and learned Gentleman—if he would only do so—to get coronavirus defeated and to take our country forward. We make the tough calls; all he does is sit on the sidelines and carp.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I indeed recognise the importance of the Clare Street barracks. Indeed, I salute the work of the entire armed services in what they have done across the whole of our United Kingdom to help us fight coronavirus.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Shortly, the Government will publish their internal market proposals. I have seen them. They are nothing short of an attack on Scotland’s Parliament and an affront to the people of Scotland. As we have already heard, this legislation breaks international law, but it also breaks domestic law. The Prime Minister and his friends—a parcel o’ rogues—are creating a rogue state where the rule of law does not apply. Why does the Prime Minister think that he and his friends are above the law?
The Prime Minister
On the contrary, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is about protecting jobs, protecting growth and ensuring the fluidity and safety of our UK internal market and prosperity throughout the United Kingdom. It should be welcomed, I believe, in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and throughout the whole country.
Ian Blackford
Of course, we saw the Prime Minister breaking the law last year with the Prorogation of Parliament. We have seen the behaviour of Dominic Cummings, and we know that the Government are prepared to break their international obligations. What the Prime Minister said is complete rubbish, and the Prime Minister knows it. His own White Paper was clear that state aid is going to be grabbed back from Scotland and handed to Westminster. If the Prime Minister will not listen to the Scottish Government, will he listen to the National Farmers Union Scotland president, who warned that the proposals “limit” the devolved Administrations? The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee warned that they will
“create new reservations in areas of devolved competence.”
The General Teaching Council for Scotland has warned that the proposals undermine devolved education functions. That, Mr Speaker, is the reality.
Scotland is speaking out, and I state that the Scottish Parliament will reject this attack on devolution, so the question is: will the Prime Minister break domestic law, disregard the settled will of the Scottish people, ignore the concerns of Scotland’s communities and press ahead with this Bill? The time for Scotland’s place as an independent, international, law-abiding nation is almost here. Our time has come.
The Prime Minister
The answer is that yes, indeed, we will press on with the Bill, because I believe that the right hon. Gentleman’s attacks on it are totally illogical. It actually represents a substantial transfer of powers and of sovereignty to Scotland, to Wales, to Northern—it is a massive devolutionary act. What it also does is—I believe this is common ground across the Dispatch Box—[Interruption.] It also ensures the integrity of the UK internal market. He speaks of a transfer of powers to the UK Government. On the contrary, what he would do is transfer powers back to Brussels not just over competition and state aid but, of course, over fisheries too. That is the policy of the Scottish nationalist party, and it would be a disaster for our country. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the leader of the SNP would like to withdraw that last comment about being a liar. No hon. Member would do that. Please withdraw it.
Ian Blackford
Mr Speaker, it is on the face of the Bill that the Government of the UK are going to trample over devolution. That is not a lie.
Mr Speaker
Mr Blackford, you are a great Member of this House. You do the right things by this House, and I have accepted that you have withdrawn it.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Every suicide is an absolute tragedy, and my hon. Friend is right to focus on that issue in the way that he does. I am proud that the Government are rolling out record investments in suicide prevention. I also pay tribute to the charitable sector—to Mind, ENGAGE and Davy Orr—for the fantastic work it does to make a difference at that crucial moment and to prevent suicide.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is entirely right to draw attention to the plight of the Uyghurs, as both I and the Foreign Secretary have done. We raise these concerns directly with the Chinese authorities and will continue to do so in the G20, the UN and every other context.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I understand that the council concerned has acknowledged the failures and the improvements that are needed. For our part, we are reviewing the oversight of special educational needs schools and will be commissioning a new round of inspections by Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission. I am happy to write to my hon. Friend further about that issue.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I know that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Mercy Baguma. We take very seriously the wellbeing of all who are in the asylum system, and I can assure him that the relevant Minister will take up that particular case with him.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I draw a sharp distinction and contrast between the civilised approach of my right hon. Friend to environmental protest and that taken by those who tried in vain to frustrate the freedom of the press. I must say that I was struck by the silence of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) when he had an opportunity to condemn it. To answer my right hon. Friend’s point directly, I do think it is important now, given the weight of the economic interests that were under threat and the threat to the freedom of the press, that we look at what we can do under public order and, indeed, under the law on nuisance. That is what we will do.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I have every sympathy with those who now want to get tests, and the demand is very acute, partly because so many people who do not have symptoms want a test. Our view is that the priority should be those who do have symptoms, and the groups that I mentioned earlier. We will do everything we can to address the issues in Jarrow and across the country. I remind the hon. Lady that NHS Test and Trace has so far conducted 17.6 million tests, which is more than any other European country, so she should take at least some pride in that.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, and I thank the people of Dewsbury for their fortitude in doing what they have done and the local action that they are taking to defeat the virus. Of course, as soon as we see results in the case of a local lockdown, we do take that area out of lockdown. I have no doubt that the same will happen in Dewsbury and elsewhere.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It was this Government that introduced the living wage, and I am proud that we have so far delivered a record increase in the living wage and supported families throughout the crisis, not just with the living wage but with a huge £160 billion package of support. This is a Government who put their arms around the people of the country and help them through tough times.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to champion Burnley College and the cutting edge education in the technologies of the future that this Government support. I welcome all the plans that Burnley College has for capital investment to develop its campus.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This Government have already built far more council homes, as far as I can remember, than Labour did in 13 years when they were last in office, and we will go on. You have just heard, Mr Speaker, about the huge £12 billion investment in affordable homes that are making this week, and we will deliver beautiful new homes across the country, building on brownfield sites in a way that is affordable and helps young people on to the housing ladder in the way that they need, either through affordable rent or through part-buy, part-rent schemes, which are immensely attractive. That is the way forward for our country.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
King’s Lynn will benefit from the Government’s levelling up agenda with £25 million through the towns fund. Will my right hon. Friend encourage Ministers to look favourably at proposals for a school of nursing at the College of West Anglia, to help to kickstart local training and job opportunities for the people of west Norfolk?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is an excellent champion for his area, and if he can just contain his impatience a little bit, he may hear something to his advantage and to the advantage of his constituency from his right hon. Friend and mine, the Communities Secretary.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The £150 million spent on faulty masks, the £120 million spent on contracts awarded to a Tory council and the staggering £1 billion-worth of contracts awarded without proper due diligence—where has the money gone, Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
All I can tell the hon. Lady is that there has been a massive investment in PPE throughout this pandemic, and billions of items have been supplied. If she has a particular anxiety about some particular contract, I am more than happy to address that if she will take the trouble to write to me.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As somebody who grew up on a farm many years ago, I am thrilled to support Back British Farming Day. It is thanks to them that we have fantastic food on our plates every day, and also that we have an amazing opportunity to increase our agricultural exports around the world. That is why I am so much looking forward to that period, which comes at the end of this year, when we will be able to take advantage of the freedoms that Brexit brings, and I hope very much that Opposition Members will join the whole House in pushing through the valuable United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which will help to support UK farming across the whole country and build a stronger agricultural industry for our whole country.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Prime Minister may be aware that there are some Scottish nationalists who want Scotland to follow the example of Catalonia and have a wildcat independence referendum. I oppose that because it would be illegal. If the Prime Minister thinks it is acceptable for his Government to ignore international law, on what basis would he oppose it?
The Prime Minister
I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman. Let me just say this, because the Leader of the Opposition in my view neglected to raise this important subject. My job is to uphold the integrity of the UK, but also to protect the Northern Irish peace process and the Good Friday agreement. To do that, we need a legal safety net to protect our country against extreme or irrational interpretations of the protocol that could lead to a border down the Irish sea in a way that I believe, and I think Members around the House believe, would be prejudicial to the interests of the Good Friday agreement and prejudicial to the interests of peace in our country. That has to be our priority.
Points of Order
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Had the Secretary of State for Health given notice of the Government’s intention to further restrict our liberty to meet with one another in his statement yesterday, at least some of us would have been able to question him about it. What remedy is there for those of us who enthusiastically support the Prime Minister, but nevertheless want to restrain the Government’s ability to govern by order without debate?
Mr Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for giving me notice. I am very sympathetic to the main point he makes. I accept that decisions have been taken in a fast-moving situation, but timings for statements are known to Ministers. It is really not good enough for the Government to make decisions of this kind in a way that shows insufficient regard to the importance of major policy announcements being made first to this House and to Members of this House wherever possible. I have already sent a letter to the Secretary of State. I think the total disregard for this Chamber is not acceptable. I know that the Prime Minister is a Member of Parliament as well and that he will ensure that statements should be made here first, especially as this particular Secretary of State requests statements. To then ignore the major fact that he wanted to put to the country, and not put it before this House, is not acceptable and I hope he will apologise to Members.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Not only did we not get a convincing explanation yesterday from the Secretary of State on the ongoing testing fiasco, but in fact Mr Robert Peston of ITV wrote on Twitter, ahead of the Secretary of State’s statement, that the Government were planning to shift the regulations down from 30 people to six. There was no reason why the Secretary of State could not have told the House yesterday that that was the Government’s plan. Has the Secretary of State given you, Mr Speaker, notice that he is coming to the House to update MPs on that change in policy, or should we assume that Ministers do not know what they are doing from one day to the next?
Mr Speaker
What I would take on board is the fact that it was all over Twitter as this was going on. Obviously, somebody decided to tell the media rather than this House. What I would say is that I expect the Secretary of State to apologise to Members and make sure that this Chamber knows first. He was fully aware—fully aware—of what was going to be said later. Let me say that if this Minister wants to run this Chamber ragged, I can assure you now that I am sure an urgent question every day might just begin to run him ragged.
I am now going to suspend the House. 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.
Houses in Multiple Occupation
Wednesday 9th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Houses in Multiple Occupation Bill 2019-21 View all Houses in Multiple Occupation 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
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the licensing of Houses in Multiple Occupation; to increase penalties for the contravention of such licences; and for connected purposes.
The private rented sector is an important part of our housing market. As we see large premises in town centres being vacated by businesses, there is a growing demand for them to be turned into housing. The introduction of high-quality residential units to town centres may be a great way to bring life back into town centres, but a worrying trend is developing in such units: they are subdivided into poor-quality houses of multiple occupancy, which are aimed at the very poorest and most vulnerable in society. The problem affects not only my constituency in Blyth Valley, but other towns up and down this wonderful country of ours.
Houses in multiple occupancy, or HMOs as they have become known, are a useful part of the housing sector, providing cheap accommodation for people whose housing options are limited. Although standards need to be met in large HMOs, these mainly relate to fire and building safety, as well as ensuring that facilities such as bathrooms are available. However, no consideration is given as part of the regime for the welfare of the residents or the impact that subdividing large properties into HMOs can have on the local community.
The standards set out a minimum accommodation size, but this makes appalling reading. Two adults are permitted to live in a space of just 10.22 square metres, which is nothing—the size of a reasonably-sized garden shed. According to the regulations, a child under 10 requires an additional 4.6 metres, or the size of a double bed—space not merely to sleep in, but to live, play, learn and eat in. Even more appalling is that, until the last Conservative Government introduced it in 2018, there was no minimum room size at all. The mental welfare of those forced to live in such conditions must be a concern for us all in 2020.
But however woeful the standards required for licensing HMOs across the country, in my home town of Blyth only one such premises is licensed as a house of multiple occupancy. Others are listed as hotels or marketed as Airbnbs or bed and breakfasts, creating a multitude of problems. When a property is not registered as a house in multiple occupancy, it falls through the gap, which means that local authorities such as the council and the police do not have the right of access and cannot implement boundaries, restrictions or measures to support the safeguarding of the clients living there.
The very nature of the accommodation provided by HMOs often means that those living in them have fallen on hard times or are suffering from mental health issues, drug and alcohol abuse, and, in a lot of cases, as reported to me by the police, domestic abuse. These are vulnerable people, whom we have a duty to safeguard. Allowing HMOs to exist by disguising them as hostels, hotels or bed and breakfasts not only denies tenants security of tenure, but means that the accommodation does not face the true scrutiny it should. With no help or support, living in a community can be hard for people who are not well equipped to live on their own.
Many of these are young people. I worked for years in the NHS in a mental health capacity, and on a few really sad occasions I heard of clients forcibly being taken to cashpoints by drug dealers or loan sharks, where they were forced to empty their bank accounts of the benefits that had been paid in. This would leave the vulnerable client with no money left in their account to buy the basics to live for the next two weeks. Alone in a room with no support is no way for our vulnerable people to live in 2020.
You and I, Mr Speaker—and, I am sure, everybody in this House—are fortunate that we can take for granted being able to go to the fridge and have fresh milk, along with food to make a sandwich, clothing to put on our backs and a warm bed to sleep in. But when people are in a vulnerable position, it is hard when their finances are taken away from them. Just getting by, day to day, impacts on the trauma that some of these vulnerable people are already having to deal with.
It is vital that a stricter regime of checks and measures is imposed on landlords to ensure that safeguarding of clients is kept at the forefront. However, there are other issues that need to be addressed. For example, I find it concerning that, as things stand, the police are not consulted on planning applications for large HMOs. However, they are often called upon to deal with the issues that can arise from such dwellings. These houses cause concern in local communities that the inhabitants are likely to cause problems due to antisocial behaviour and other social problems. It is vital that the public living in and around the vicinity feel that they can live and integrate with the residents of houses in multiple occupancy safely and that community values are respected.
I would like to see, as a result of this legislation, greater powers to local authorities to deal with both the development and governance of houses in multiple occupancy. Requiring large HMOs to provide a nominated person to be responsible for the residents living there on a 24/7 basis would allow a point of contact for the authorities and the local community to highlight issues and, where possible, address them in a way that safeguards both the individuals and the local community.
I understand that not all HMOs exploit their tenants, and I also understand that there are other reasons why, for people wanting to live in small, cheap units close to facilities, they may be attractive. But I wish to ensure that they are not used as a method of housing vulnerable people in substandard accommodation with no regard for their mental or physical wellbeing or the needs of the local community. I want to ensure that someone being able to buy a house in a sub-prime area and divide it into multiple bedrooms, while showing absolutely no care for the individual or the local residents, becomes a thing of the past. I would like to see a balance given to the community, so that clients feel safe and part of that community, and the public living in and around the vicinities of houses of multiple occupancy feel that they can live and integrate with the clients, with respect and safeguarding for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ian Levy, Duncan Baker, Paula Barker, Dehenna Davison, Katherine Fletcher, Peter Gibson, James Grundy, Paul Howell, Marco Longhi, Rob Roberts and Matt Vickers, present the Bill.
Ian Levy accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February, and to be printed (Bill 178).
Opposition Day
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Protection of Jobs and Businesses
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 249 / Noes: 329 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 320 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House calls for the Government to abandon its one-size-fits-all withdrawal of the Coronavirus Job Retention and Self-Employment Income Support Schemes, and instead offer targeted income support to businesses and self-employed people in those sectors of the economy that have been hardest hit by the virus and are most in need of continuing assistance, and in those areas of the country which have been placed under local restrictions due to rising rates of infection.
Our country is in the grip of a jobs crisis—a crisis that will intensify if the Conservative Government do not change course. Between April and June this year, the number of people in work fell by the largest amount in over a decade. By July, there were nearly three quarters of a million fewer employees on the payroll than there were just four months earlier. We know that these are extraordinary times. That is why Labour has acted as a constructive Opposition, working with the Government, businesses and trade unions to do all we can to save lives and livelihoods. But it is not enough for the Government now to say simply that this is an unprecedented crisis and that only so much can be done to mitigate the damage. In their amendment to this Opposition day motion, the Conservatives maintain that
“any deviation”—
I repeat, any—
“from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy.”
Some humility, willingness to listen and flexibility is desperately required here.
Under this Government, the UK has suffered the highest number of excess deaths in Europe. It has experienced both the worst quarterly fall in GDP in Europe and the worst quarterly fall among all G7 nations. The evidence suggests that the number of job vacancies in the UK has fallen further than in any comparable economy and that it will take us many months to get back to pre-crisis levels.
Our people have suffered a double whammy: a health crisis coupled with a jobs crisis, both made worse, I regret to say, by the Government’s unwillingness to listen, learn and accept that they do not always know best. But there is still time to change course. Around 4 million people are still furloughed under the Government’s coronavirus job retention scheme. Another 2.7 million people have so far made claims under the self-employment income support scheme, the second and final phase of which has just opened. Many more people have not yet had any support from this Government at all and have fallen through the gaps between the various schemes.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Member is making a really powerful point. Does she agree that a huge injustice is being done to the self-employed, many of whom have gone for six months without any support whatsoever? These are our small business owners who take some of their salary and dividends for perfectly good reason. Does she agree that the Government should take their fingers out of their ears and start listening to the self-employed?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that intervention. I agree with her. We have repeatedly raised that issue with the Government. Repeatedly we have been told that the computer says no—that no response is possible. That does not appear to be the case given the evidence. There would be means to assess people’s previous income. If there is a concern around fraud, ultimately additional deterrents can be added to the system to prevent any such fraud.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Anneliese Dodds
I will give way, but I am aware that there are many, many speakers for this debate, so I wish not to do that too frequently.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Given the importance of the aviation sector, which has been particularly hard hit, the likes of myself have been calling for an extension of the furlough scheme and a sector-specific deal. However, due to Government inaction and procrastination, thousands of individuals within my Slough constituency are now being made redundant, or are on the verge of being made redundant. Does she agree that it is now time for the Government to act before we lose those jobs for good?
Anneliese Dodds
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The jobs crisis that we are talking about is particularly intense in many of those communities impacted by the withdrawal of support for industries critical for the future of our country. Of course, as he mentioned, we were promised a sector-specific deal for aviation. We have not received it. We have not had the Government sitting down with the sector to work through the different scenarios and how we can plan for the future in that case. And we are not seeing the targeted wage support in aviation or, indeed, in other industries critical for the economic future that we desperately need.
Anneliese Dodds
I will take one final intervention, given that it is from the Government Benches, but then I will make some progress.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am grateful. On a sector-based approach, I think that, in an interview with The Guardian, the hon. Member said that such an approach would pose challenges. Has she yet published the solution to those challenges?
Anneliese Dodds
I fear that the hon. Member may have missed off the end of the sentence, which is that, while it poses challenges, ultimately that does not mean that those challenges should not be stepped up to—they should be faced up to by the Government. His Government have accepted the need for some targeted support for hospitality and retail with the grants. There is also the Eat Out to Help Out scheme. Yes, there will be boundary issues. We fully accept that, but, ultimately, to govern is to lead. It is to take difficult decisions. The Government trumpet the fact that they worked with industry, with trade unions and with other stakeholders in creating the furlough scheme. They need to do that again to work through these challenges and to create the targeted system of support that is needed.
Anneliese Dodds
I will make some progress if the Member will permit me. He may find the answers to his questions—any further ones—in what I am going on to say.
In addition to those groups of people who I have just mentioned, we know that there are many others who are concerned about their futures working in parts of the UK that are still subject to local restrictions, or that may be subject to additional restrictions in the future. We also have huge numbers of people, as we have just been discussing, who work in sectors that are still not back to business as usual, despite their critical importance for our economic future—whether we are talking about highly skilled manufacturing or the creative industries—yet the Chancellor is ploughing ahead with this one-size-fits-all withdrawal of the income support schemes, pulling the rug from under thousands of businesses and millions of workers all at the same time, irrespective of their situation. He is doing so without any analysis, it appears, of the impact of this withdrawal on unemployment levels and the enormous long-term costs of so many people being driven out of work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One of the categories that comes under severe pressures, as the shadow Minister and others in this House will know, is local councils. Their staff have been furloughed and they are having to take them back but their budgets are squeezed. Does she support my plea that additional help must be given to those councils to protect and retain jobs, because people are operating as a skeleton staff for almost a standard level of service provision, and it is just not possible to deliver that?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. The Government promised local authorities that they would meet their calls to back-fill not just the spending that they have incurred during this period but the income that was lost. What do we have instead? We have a resiling from that promise. That is problematic because of the huge impact it will have on employment in different areas—local authority employment can be a critical part of many economies—but it is also an enormous issue for the economic development in those areas, where ultimately the lack of local leadership will be a huge problem. The Government need to hold to their promise in that regard.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The shadow Chancellor says that she wants to extend the furlough scheme, but the key question is: how long for? The Chancellor said when he announced it that it would end in October. If it is October, the shadow Chancellor says it should be November; if it is November, then she says December. If she wants a sector-specific scheme, when does it end—at the end of the crisis, as some of her colleagues have said? Is that when the virus is eradicated? What is the solution?
Anneliese Dodds
With all due respect to the hon. Member, he may have missed what I said. We believe that the Government need to sit down and talk to exactly the stakeholders they trumpeted so much about working with when they created the furlough scheme, so that it can provide the system of support that is necessary to protect jobs and protect our economic capacity. As I have said time and again, we do not believe that a continuation of the furlough scheme precisely as it stands now is what is required. We need a targeted wage support scheme, which is exactly the approach being taken by huge numbers of other countries but which this Government are turning their face against.
Several hon. Members rose—
Anneliese Dodds
I will make some progress because I am aware that so many Members want to speak on this critical subject.
For some businesses and staff well on their way back to normal, it is absolutely right and proper that wage support ends. As I said, we are not arguing for a continuation of the furlough scheme exactly as it stands across every sector of the economy, but for others, many of which are sectors crucial to our country’s economic future, additional targeted support could be the difference between survival and going under.
The Chancellor says that he wants to pick winners, but the necessary public health measures that his Government have enacted have created losers. Across the economy as a whole, about one in 10 workers are still furloughed. For the transport sector, it is closer to one in five. For arts and entertainment, it is one in two. Yet he is stubbornly insisting on treating every part of the economy as if it is in exactly the same situation, and in doing so putting the recovery and millions of people’s livelihoods at risk. A targeted extension of Government wage support to enable short-hours working does not mean extending support for everyone forever; it means targeting it at where it is needed most.
Several hon. Members rose—
Anneliese Dodds
With respect, I will not give way as I have done so many times and I am aware of the time pressure with many Members wishing to participate in this debate.
We need support that is targeted to the sectors of our economy that have been hardest hit by the virus but are critical to our country’s economic future; to areas of the country that are subject to local restrictions because of this Government’s failure to get a proper grip on the health crisis; and to businesses that would be viable in ordinary times, employing people doing jobs they love, but just need a little more help to get through this crisis. These are people like those I spoke to over the summer in north Wales working in advanced manufacturing. They do not want a permanent handout from Government, just more support while the economy is still in dire straits to help them get back on their feet. Without that support now, jobs like theirs will take years to come back. Jobs in the supply chain linked to their plant will vanish too, and with them the economic prospects for their communities.
I called on the Chancellor to be more flexible when he gave his summer economic statement in this House two months ago. What do we get instead? A panicked handout of £1,000 bonuses to any business, anywhere, that brought back a furloughed employee. That is too much public money to dole out to a business that was going to bring back workers anyway. The Chancellor allocated £9.4 billion for that bonus scheme. Let us just imagine how much more effectively that money could be spent if only he had thought flexibly about how to respond to the crisis. Let us imagine how many of those at-risk jobs could be saved. The economic reality simply does not support the approach the Chancellor is taking, and he should have the courage to recognise that and change course.
The Chancellor may not wish to take our word for it that a targeted, flexible form of wage support is the right way to go, but he could at least be persuaded by the examples of other countries, such as Germany and France, which have each extended their schemes to last for two years; the Netherlands, which has extended its scheme for a further nine months; or Australia and Ireland, both of which have committed to support furloughed workers until March next year. Of course, in our own United Kingdom the devolved Governments have called for targeted wage support to be continued, not snatched away at the same pace across all sectors of our economy.
If that is not good enough for the Chancellor, he could listen to trade unions or think-tanks—after all, he trumpeted working with trade unions to create the furlough scheme in the first place. He could listen to the TUC, which has proposed a job retention and upskilling scheme; the Institute for Public Policy Research, which has advocated a coronavirus work sharing scheme; or the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has suggested a covid-19 job support scheme.
If that is not compelling enough, perhaps the Chancellor could heed the voice of business. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that
“businesses across the UK are going to need further support to weather uncertainty over the coming months.”
Make UK has called for
“an extension of the Job Retention Scheme to those sectors which are not just our most important but who have been hit hardest.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Anneliese Dodds
If I may, I will finish this point and then take one more intervention; I do not want to frustrate all those colleagues who wish to speak in this debate. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that
“it is time for the Government to bring forward a rescue package for those who have been left out.”
The Institute of Directors has said that the Chancellor’s bonus scheme would
“do little to prevent job losses”—
and that—
“some form of an extension to the furlough scheme should remain on the table.”
The CBI has been clear:
“It’s too soon to pull business support away at the end of October.”
The Chancellor likes to think that he has the ear of business, but it is clear that he is just not listening when business tells him to change course.
Kevin Hollinrake
The shadow Chancellor makes some fair points, particularly about working constructively with government. On that basis, should she not constructively set out her solution to these problems, rather than simply saying that the Government should solve them? Obviously, she has ideas of how to solve them, so why does she not publish solutions?
Anneliese Dodds
I would love it, frankly, if the Chancellor and his team wished to open talks with the Opposition, with business, with trade unions, looking at the different options that I have just set out. I know the hon. Gentleman is one who does look at detail. I have just set out a variety of different models that have been set out by business, trade unions and think tanks. We want to work with government on this. If he is signalling that he wishes that discussion to happen, I hope that his Front-Bench colleagues will take that invitation up as well. It is not just he who wishes to have that discussion with his Front-Bench team. I note that a huge number of Conservative Members want to participate in this debate, and I am keen to hear their thoughts on it. Some of their colleagues have already pronounced on it. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) has said that there should be
“targeted extensions to the furlough scheme beyond October.”
The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has said that he can see the case for it, too. How many more Conservative Members are worried, privately, about the impact on their constituents of this Chancellor pushing stubbornly ahead with his plan to take support away from everyone, all at once?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I recall the Chancellor saying that he would do “whatever it takes”. The hospitality and tourism sector, which covers a quarter of the jobs in my constituency, is now entering its third winter in a row, as the sector puts it. Should not support be targeted at that sector, too?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend has been such a champion for those jobs in York and, indeed, for jobs throughout the country. I say to her exactly what businesses in tourism right across the UK have been saying to me when I have spoken to them: they do not want a handout; they just want a fair chance. If they end up having to close their businesses—if they end up having to lay off staff—it will take a very long time to build those businesses back up again. The Government should be listening to them.
Indeed, the Government should be listening, as I said, to the Government Members who are concerned about the withdrawal of the scheme. More than half a million at-risk jobs belong to people living in the constituencies of the Chancellor’s newest colleagues on the Government Benches—over 18,000 in Burton, more than 20,000 in Watford and in excess of 21,000 in Milton Keynes North—but so far, the Chancellor is not listening. Of course, he has not come to the Chamber today to hear what Members have to say about the very real fears of their constituents. We have not heard him speak in the House since the summer recess, despite the fact that our country is in the grip of a jobs crisis.
The Labour party, trade unions, think-tanks, business and even the Chancellor’s own Back Benchers can all see that what the Government are doing will make our jobs crisis worse and lead to untold misery for millions of people, as well as reducing our economic capacity for the future. We are all sounding the alarm; the question is: what will it take for this Government to listen?
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the Government’s response to Covid-19 which has already protected the livelihoods of over 12 million people through the eight-month long Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and Self-Employment Income Support Scheme; acknowledges the support for hundreds of thousands of businesses up and down the country through unprecedented loan schemes, business grants and tax cuts; further welcomes the help to support, create, and protect jobs through measures such as the Eat Out to Help Out scheme, a temporary cut to VAT and stamp duty, increased incentives for apprenticeships, and the new Kickstart Scheme, as set out in the Government’s ‘Plan for Jobs’ policy paper published in July; and further acknowledges that any deviation from this Government’s proposed plan will cause damage to the United Kingdom economy.”
The House needs no reminding of the scale of the economic challenge facing our country. Recent GDP figures confirm that we have entered an acute recession on a speed and scale that we have never seen before. An economic crisis on this scale means that whatever the Government do, jobs will be lost, businesses will close and, as the Chancellor said last month, “hard times are here”. We should not underestimate the challenge ahead, but neither should we underestimate the Government’s resolve or that of the British people.
From the outset of this pandemic, the Government have acted decisively to protect people’s livelihoods, with one of the most generous and comprehensive packages of support anywhere in the world. We are doing everything we can to recover our economy, support businesses and give everyone the opportunity of good and secure work. Our economic response is moving through a careful, co-ordinated plan, in three phases: first, the immediate response, which started with the Budget in March; secondly, the specific plan for jobs announced in July, to protect, create and support jobs; and thirdly, rebuilding, on which we will say more in the autumn Budget and the comprehensive spending review. Let me take this opportunity to thank the many people—including Members from all parties—businesses and other organisations that have brought forward ideas and suggestions to help us to shape that plan.
Jim Shannon
I put on the record my thanks for all that the Government have done through the schemes that have helped many of my constituents. One thing needed to make this situation work is the co-operation and help of the banks. Will the Minister consider extending freezes on cards and loans for businesses, especially those in the retail and hospitality sectors? Discussions with the banks and credit card providers are critical to help companies to get over the line. We should extend that period to help them to recover.
Steve Barclay
As the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has regular discussions with the financial institutions; he will have heard the concerns set out by the hon. Gentleman and will be happy to take them forward in terms of how the banks respond. In some of the other measures the Government have taken—for example, on mortgage holidays—we have seen a recognition of and response to the concerns we have heard about from our constituents.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Haribo in Pontefract has announced that it is consulting on over 200 redundancies and proposing to move some of its production back to Germany. This is devastating for the hard-working workforce. Will the Chief Secretary urge Haribo to work with the GMB trade union and Wakefield Council to look at alternative plans to prevent huge job losses in the middle of a recession, and will the Government stand ready to help them to do so? Does the Chief Secretary accept that manufacturing industry needs support if we are to prevent deeply damaging mass redundancies?
Steve Barclay
I absolutely share the concern set out by the right hon. Lady. From conversations that we have had in previous roles, I know how much she advocates for her constituency, and I support that business engaging with her, the council, trade unions and others. I will come on to a number of measures that the Government have taken, and some further measures that we will take, regarding our wider support package to the business community.
This should be set in the context of the three-phase approach. In the first phase of this crisis, the Government introduced measures to halt the spread of the disease. That included protecting our public services with more than £49 billion of funding for the NHS, schools, local authorities and other front-line services. The Chancellor said that he would do whatever is needed to support our NHS, and that is what he delivered. Our plan supported people, with the furlough scheme supporting nearly 10 million jobs—jobs that might otherwise have been lost.
The self-employed scheme provided 2.6 million people with £7.6 billion of support, and mortgage and credit payment holidays helped 1.9 million people to manage their finances—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to that earlier. For those who are out of work, we made welfare support more supportive and easier to access, and we introduced a hardship fund to help up to 3 million of the most vulnerable people. Of course our plan backed business, because we know that only by supporting businesses can we create sustainable jobs.
Steve Barclay
Sustainability is an issue dear to the priorities of the hon. Lady, so of course I will give way.
Caroline Lucas
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I pay credit to the Government because they have supported a number of different groups very well. There is, however, one group who they have not supported: the self-employed, who are falling between the gaps. He will have heard about the very real hardship that they are facing right now. They, and the Excluded UK all-party group, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), have been asking for a meeting with the Treasury team, but they have not heard back. Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to meet them and hear directly about the scale of the difficulties they are facing?
Steve Barclay
I am very familiar with this issue. We covered it in my appearance before the Treasury Committee some months ago, and the Chancellor has repeatedly addressed it. As the hon. Lady will know, the shadow Chancellor referred to part of those concerns, and just yesterday there was discussion in the media about concerns regarding fraud in other Government schemes. Part of the challenge and the constraints on this issue is concern about the level of fraud. We have already set out the Government’s position on the issue. I do not think there is further to add in that respect, because those concerns have been well articulated.
Several hon. Members rose—
Steve Barclay
I will make some progress.
In addition to our support for businesses, we have provided nearly £40 billion of support through the tax system, with tax cuts, tax deferrals and the time to pay scheme. We have provided direct cash grants of £10,000 and £25,000 for small businesses and an extensive range of loan programmes, including dedicated investments for innovative tech firms through our Future Fund, and 100% Government guaranteed loans for the smallest businesses through the bounce back loan scheme. The shadow Chancellor said that she wanted the Government to listen, and bounce back loans are a good illustration of how the Government listened to concerns and changed the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme to include that additional measure. That scheme has benefited 1.1 million businesses. The House does not need to take just my word for it, because the chief economist at the CBI described the Chancellor as
“standing shoulder to shoulder with small businesses to help them through this crisis.”
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the CBIL scheme, but many medium-sized and larger businesses in my constituency have struggled to get the loans they require. Lloyds Banking Group in particular has been poor at making positive lending decisions. What are the right hon. Gentleman and his Government doing about that?
Steve Barclay
I can give a clear and direct answer to that because, together with UK Finance, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has discussed bounce back loans, CBILS and larger business interruption loans. Those were targeted at up to £200 million for that mid-tier category of businesses, and I know from discussions with colleagues that a lot of regional businesses in that mid-tier category have been particularly impacted. The point is that this is about the package of Government schemes. Where there are individual constituency cases, we are, of course, always happy to look at them and UK Finance does a very good job in terms of its response.
I have set out the first phase. The second phase of the extraordinary support given relates to our plan for jobs. As part of protecting jobs, we have temporarily applied a reduced rate to VAT for tourism and hospitality, supporting over 150,000 businesses and protecting 2.4 million jobs. I do not know whether you, Mr Speaker, had an opportunity to benefit, but you will be familiar with the popular eat out to help out scheme, which has been a real success. The latest figures—only the one course, clearly, Mr Speaker—show that 100 million covers have been claimed, helping to support 130,000 businesses and protect almost 2 million jobs in a sector which, very seriously, has been particularly acutely hit by the covid pandemic.
Our plans also create new jobs, injecting new certainty and confidence in the housing market by increasing the stamp duty threshold to £500,000 for first-time buyers. That will drive growth and support across housebuilding and property sectors. It also builds on other schemes, such as creating green jobs through a £2 billion green homes grant, saving households hundreds of pounds a year on their energy bills, and through our £1 billion programme to make public buildings, including schools and hospitals, decarbonised. Together, they are all a part of the £640 billion capital investment in economic recovery, job creation and revitalising our national infrastructure over the next five years.
Kevin Hollinrake
Earlier, my right hon. Friend pointed to the success of bounce back loans. There is no doubt that they have been a huge success, but some businesses who have taken out those loans will hit trouble in terms of making repayments. Will he support a programme of best practice across the banking sector to ensure that those businesses have every chance of getting through this, perhaps with different payment plans?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an important point. From other parliamentary campaigns he has been closely involved in, I know how much he values best practice in the financial services sector. As a former financial services Minister, I share that objective, which is why I am so grateful for the work he has been doing to ensure that best practice is followed to address the specific issue he brings before the House. Of course, the best thing to enable businesses to pay loans back is to get the economy as a whole motoring. That is why we are redoubling our efforts to get on with that now and why the Prime Minister announced that £5 billion of capital investment will be brought forward as part of giving a boost to businesses, so they can indeed meet the requirements of those loans as they arise.
Our plan supports jobs, creates jobs and protects jobs. That supporting of jobs is really the third component. It includes the announcement of the £2 billion kickstart scheme set out by the Chancellor, which will subsidise hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs for unemployed young people, allowing young people to gain experience that will improve their chances of going on to find long-term and sustainable work. We are also investing a total of £1.6 billion in scaling up employment support schemes, training and apprenticeships to help those of our constituents who are looking for a job.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary will be aware that companies such as British Airways have used the furlough scheme to facilitate mass redundancy programmes for their staff. In fact, BA has also implemented the firing and rehiring of its remaining 30,000 staff, often on massively reduced wages. Does he think that that is fair?
Steve Barclay
That is exquisite timing, because I was just about to turn to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises about that use of furlough and the question that the shadow Chancellor raised about whether the scheme should be extended. I want to address head-on the concerns I have heard about that decision.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Steve Barclay
I was just going to answer the question, but I will give way.
Jamie Stone
The Chief Secretary is very gracious for giving way. This is possibly not the intervention he expects. When we get through all this, and when we have time and peace and quiet, may I urge him and the Chancellor to carry out some sort of audit of how the furlough scheme worked? There have been newspaper stories of inappropriate furloughing of employees, and for any Government of any colour, we need to get to the bottom of that when we have time to do so.
Steve Barclay
Having been Brexit Secretary over the previous year and Chief Secretary during this economic challenge, I can say that we will come through this, as the Chancellor has set out, and we will come to a time when we can look at the scheme in the way that the hon. Gentleman refers to.
The scheme has protected up to 10 million jobs. The shadow Chancellor raised the duration of the scheme, and I understand those concerns. It has been one of the most difficult decisions that the Government have taken, but it is the right one. I remind the House of the extent of the support that we have offered. First, the furlough is already over eight months. It is one of the most generous schemes in the world, and we have been contributing at a higher rate of people’s wages than in Spain. We are supporting a wider range of businesses than in New Zealand, and our scheme will run for twice as long as in Denmark.
I remind the House that our support for furloughed employees does not end in October, as has been suggested in some interventions. In the Chancellor’s summer statement, he announced the new job retention bonus, which will pay employers £1,000 for every employee still in post by the end of January. For an average employee, that is a subsidy worth 20% of their salary—nearly double the amount of subsidy that a cut in employer’s national insurance would have provided, which I know some people were calling for prior to the Chancellor’s announcement of the bonus. I further remind the House that most people on furlough are employed by very small businesses where £1,000 is a significant and welcome boost.
While we will continue to support furloughed employees through the job retention bonus, it is right that the main scheme comes to an end. We need to focus now on providing people with new opportunities, rather than offering false hope that they will always be able to return to the same job they had before. It is in no one’s long-term interests for the scheme to continue, least of all those trapped in a job that only exists because of the furlough scheme.
To those calling for a new targeted or sector-based furlough, I simply pose three questions that I have still not heard answered satisfactorily today. First, which sectors would we not provide support for? Secondly, what would we do about the supply chains of those sectors on furlough, which can reach across the whole economy? Thirdly, most observers have accepted that the furlough cannot last forever, so how long would we extend it for? Without being able to answer those questions, any proposal for a sector-specific furlough cannot be seen as a serious one—
Steve Barclay
But perhaps we have an answer to the three questions coming—I will happily take the intervention.
Matt Western
The Chief Secretary is being generous in giving way; I thank him for that. He will be disappointed to hear that I do not have the answer. However, I want to ask him a simple question. Germany has a much more advantageous scheme, which lasts until 2022. It has been described by industry bodies in the automotive sector and elsewhere as giving them a competitive advantage. Does he agree with that?
Steve Barclay
The German scheme sits within a very different landscape. It is not actually administered by the Government. It is a long-standing scheme; it has not been set up as a response to covid specifically. I just gave some illustrations of where the UK’s furlough measures stand internationally. This needs to be seen as part of the wider package of support that the Government have set out. Again, the UK package as a whole stands comprehensively as one of the best international schemes on offer.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Steve Barclay
I will not, because I am conscious that a lot of Members want to speak in the debate.
It is important to note that providing such a comprehensive and decisive economic response has, in common with every advanced economy in the world, dramatically increased public borrowing and debt. In the short run, that has been the right strategy, so that we can protect jobs and incomes, support businesses and drive the recovery. Indeed, the OBR has said that if we had not provided the financial support, the situation would have been far worse. But over the medium term, it is clearly not sustainable to continue borrowing at these levels. Yes, clearly, interest rates right now are at historic lows, which means our cost of borrowing is cheap, but with the Government debt exceeding the size of the UK economy for the first time in more than 50 years, even small changes in interest rates would have a very big impact on our public finances.
Thankfully, we were in a strong fiscal position coming into this crisis, which allowed us to act quickly to support jobs and businesses, but having seen two supposedly once-in-a-generation economic events in just 10 years, we are reminded once again that we cannot know what is around the corner. We will need to return to a position of strong and sustainable public finances.
Let me make one further point this afternoon. While we have made great strides in tackling coronavirus, it may continue to be necessary to take targeted local action to keep the virus under control. We know the impact these local measures have on people and businesses. Since 1 September, we have been trialling support for individuals in Blackburn with Darwen, Pendle and Oldham. Eligible individuals who test positive with the virus will receive £130 for their 10-day period of self-isolation, with higher payments of up to £182 for members of the household or other contacts who need to self-isolate.
Today, I can announce further new measures to support businesses. The Government will provide direct cash grants to businesses that have been ordered to close.
Closed businesses with a rateable value of £51,000 or less will receive a cash grant of £1,000 for each three-week period they are closed. For closed businesses with a rateable value higher than £51,000, the grants will be £1,500. The grants will cover each additional three-week period, so if a small business is closed for six weeks, it will receive £2,000. This new support will give closed businesses a lifeline through the difficult but temporary experience of lockdown—an important next step in our economic plan to protect jobs and businesses against coronavirus. I am grateful for everything my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has done to develop this scheme, and he will bring forward further details shortly.
Let me close with one final observation. In the first phase of our economic response to coronavirus, we supported people, businesses and public services, with support totalling £190 billion. In the second phase, our plan for jobs is protecting, supporting and creating jobs, and as we enter the third phase our economic policy will be driven not just by responding to the immediate crisis, but by ensuring that we level up, spread opportunity, tackle climate change and make sure our response to the pandemic is not just about recovery but renewal. I commend the amendment to the House.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
People across these islands are going through the most difficult of times. In the past six months, people have lost loved ones; they have not been able to have the human contact we all need; and they have struggled to keep themselves and their families going. Communities have pulled together admirably to help their neighbours, but businesses of all sizes have found it difficult, and an estimated 730,000 jobs have been lost so far. Ending the employment support schemes prematurely could cost 3 million jobs. The SNP fully supports the motion tabled by the Labour party today.
On 17 March, the Chancellor made a promise in this House. He said:
“I promised to do whatever it takes to support our economy through this crisis and that, if the situation changed, I would not hesitate to take further action.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 931.]
On these Benches, we welcomed the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment support scheme. The economic powers to create such schemes rest in the hands of the UK Government. That has nothing to do with the strength of the Union: it is merely a reflection of where the economic powers lie.
The Scottish Government’s programme for government shows that where we do have the powers, Scotland has an ambitious and comprehensive plan for sustainable economic recovery, and 71% of Scots now think that Holyrood should have the financial powers required to protect our economy.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The hon. Lady mentioned the SNP’s programme for government. Does she agree with the SNP Scottish Government adviser who has said that the programme for government announced by Nicola Sturgeon lacks ambition for business and economic recovery in Scotland?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Member ignores the fact that the SNP Government do not have the full range of powers that we need to protect our economy and which only independence can give us. He knows that is the case.
This is no ordinary economic downturn. The UK Government, on clear and urgent public health grounds, instructed and required many profitable, productive and sustainable firms to close. In sectors, such as hospitality, events, tourism, aviation, culture and the arts, these limitations will remain for the foreseeable future.
Jim Shannon
One thing we have not yet considered in this debate is the proposal for a four-day working week. Does the hon. Lady think a four-day working week could enable the economy to maintain its position and get beyond the dark spots of next January, February and March?
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Member makes a very good and well-considered point. There are lots of opportunities the Government have not considered for how we might spread around the limited and reducing number of jobs we have in order to keep people in employment.
The Federation of Small Businesses has noted that tourism and retail account for nearly half a million jobs in Scotland, many of them seasonal and rural, and many of them now facing the furlough scheme’s winding down at the very time business is at its quietest. As we have seen from local lockdowns, such as those in Leicester, Aberdeen and Greater Manchester, there is an urgent need to put in place more flexible and enduring support—exactly the type of further action the Chancellor promised he would take. Aberdeen, for example, only managed to raise £232,000 via the “eat out to help out” scheme because of the local lockdown imposed on hospitality there. That compares with over £1 million each in Glasgow and Edinburgh. We need to look at whether the schemes in place are flexible enough when local lockdowns happen.
A further spike and further local restrictions seem inevitable, so ending support now is incredibly short-sighted. Until public health grounds for closure are removed, the SNP believes that the Government have a clear responsibility to assist and support wherever they can. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury mentioned some additional schemes at the tail end of his remarks, but I would ask him to think very carefully: could he live on the money he proposes for those asked to self-isolate? If he ran a business, could he survive and pay wages, pay for stock, the rent and all the bills on the grants he has announced? He probably could not, and many businesses cannot and will fold as a result without support.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury talked about phases of this crisis. The coronavirus is not done with us yet. Life is not going back to normal any time soon. The British Chambers of Commerce’s quarterly recruitment outlook revealed that 29% of firms expect to axe jobs over the third quarter—a record high. At the same time, the number of new job opportunities is also depressed across almost all sectors, as is reflected in the various vacancies data. For example, the Office for National Statistics and Adzuna data show the number of online job vacancies for Scotland for the week to 21 August to be almost half the 2019 average—down 49 percentage points—and the Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that UK unemployment could surpass the peaks of the 1980s after weaker than expected economic growth. The Chancellor and his Treasury team have a duty to prevent this kind of economic scarring. The devastation of the 1980s still haunts many communities, and I urge them not to gamble with the life chances of the people we are here to represent.
Jamie Stone
I give credit where it is due to the Government: the assistance afforded to the tourism industry has saved it in my constituency, which relies hugely on tourism. God forbid that the second spike gets worse than it is, but if it does and we have to close things down again, frankly that will ruin some of those businesses permanently. I make a plea to the Scottish Government and Her Majesty’s Government in Westminster to work together as closely as possible. I hope that this eventuality does not happen, but if it does, we will all need to put our shoulder to the wheel.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Member is absolutely correct. A second spike does not seem to be on the Government’s agenda, and it should be. The measures put in place were put in place at speed, at haste, and the Government should be learning from this and preparing for that second spike now. I would be incredibly grateful if at some point a Minister confirmed that they are doing that, because it is absolutely necessary. We cannot ignore the risk of a second spike, given how the figures have been creeping up in recent days.
The IPPR has said that ending the furlough scheme will lead to unemployment
“not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s”,
with the loss of 3 million jobs, 2 million of which would be viable in the longer term if it were continued. The furlough scheme should be continued for at least two years, or for as long as we need it—perhaps we will not need it for two years, which would be a good eventuality—as is being done in Germany and France. Independent Ireland is keeping its scheme going for a year. No employee or employer should be forced to decide between their health and their income.
The self-employment support scheme should also have been continued. In addition, a basic temporary income scheme should have been introduced to protect anyone falling through the gaps in support. There is still time for the Treasury to step in and make that commitment, because the lack of parity between those in the different schemes is completely unjustifiable. I remain deeply disappointed that the recommendations of the Treasury Committee to address the gaps in support have not been taken up by the Treasury. The ExcludedUK group, representing at the least 3 million people who have been denied any UK Government support—these include the newly self-employed, freelancers, limited company directors, those on short-term PAYE contracts and many others—is still being ignored by the Chancellor, despite having presented the Treasury with viable solutions.
The situation facing women requiring maternity leave has also been incredibly stressful and unfair, with many finding themselves ineligible and some who were forced to take maternity leave early now struggling to get the childcare they need to even attempt to go back to work. It is hugely disappointing to hear that the UK Government have rejected the very reasonable request by the 226,000 maternity petitioners to extend maternity leave for three months. I hope the Government will reconsider that. I am led to wonder whether different decisions might be made if there were more women on the UK Government Benches.
When we see Jim Harra, head of HMRC, admit this week that £3.5 billion of furlough cash has been lost in fraudulent claims or error, it is even more galling to those who have no support whatsoever. There have also been errors in my constituency on HMRC’s part. Its inflexibility and inability to deal with MP requests on this issue has also been hugely frustrating for those whose businesses are on the brink.
The take-up of the coronavirus job retention scheme has been significant, as has been said, with 9.6 million workers furloughed by 1.2 million employers since March. Those employers had made £34.7 billion of furlough claims by 9 August. The scheme will cost the UK Government an estimated £80 billion in total, but we should not forget that this cost is an investment in people and in public health. The cost of not acting would be far greater.
The figures published by the Treasury demonstrating the sectoral impact of the furlough scheme are interesting. They show only 2% of employees in public administration and defence and 7% of those in finance and insurance being placed on furlough, compared with 77% of those in accommodation and food services—some 1,693,600 employees—and 70% of those working in the arts, entertainment, recreation and other services, amounting to 474,300 employees across the UK. This of course reflects the different nature of the jobs in those sectors and whether it has been possible for people to work.
The sectors in which furlough take-up has been high are not suddenly going to be able to return to pre-covid business, and there is a real argument for sectoral extensions if the Government will not consider a wholesale extension. The ability of these businesses and organisations to generate income will continue to be hampered by the need to impose public health restrictions. For example, how would a national arts company or a full-scale production be able to get a theatre performance up and running? How would that theatre be able to turn a profit at 40% capacity? What about the restaurant next door, which theatre goers might usually have gone to for a pre-theatre meal, or the pub they might have gone to afterwards, where nobody will be allowed to stand at the bar and that will not have outdoor seating in the depths of a Scottish winter, or even a Scottish autumn?
How does the Chancellor expect such firms to bear the cost of staffing, rent and other outgoings when they will not see a corresponding increase in income? The short answer is that those costs cannot be borne. The CBI’s head, Carolyn Fairbairn, has warned that
“it’s too soon to pull business support away at the end of October”.
The Fraser of Allander Scottish business monitor for quarter 2 this year reported that 55% of businesses that have made use of the job retention scheme expect to decrease their staffing numbers when the scheme is phased out.
Gavin Newlands
My hon. Friend will have heard me raise with the Chief Secretary those companies that have abused the furlough by using it to pay for mass redundancies—British Airways is not alone; Centrica and others have followed suit. However, he failed to answer the question about the firing and rehiring of staff at massively reduced wages. Does she think that is fair?
Alison Thewliss
It absolutely is not fair. The scheme is being abused by businesses, and that should not be allowed to happen. I commend to the Government my hon. Friend’s Bill on fire and rehire. If they wanted to do anything at all to help, they would take on the recommendations in his Bill, because they would make a huge difference to people. People should not be expected to do the same job on vastly reduced terms and conditions, under pain of losing their job altogether. It is exploitation pure and simple, and the Government should not accept it.
The Chief Secretary talked about new opportunities for those in industries that could not continue, but that fails to recognise the reality that there might not be enough jobs for those who are laid off to go into, and that what jobs there are might not be at the same wage level as the jobs they are in now. The cost will be met by the UK Government in one way or another—in employment benefits if not in extending furlough.
The end of furlough coincides with the end of the period for which people have been granted bill payment holidays. The Standard Life Foundation report, “Emerging from lockdown”, highlights that
“of the 3.7 million households across the UK granted a bill ‘payment holiday’, over 6 in 10 are already facing financial difficulties and will struggle to repay their debts when these arrangements end. For many, these payment holidays will cease on 31 October 2020—the same date the government’s job retention schemes end, leaving many facing job losses and crippling financial strain.”
The effect could be devastating: people laid off because their employers cannot afford to keep them on, with debt mounting, and all this among people who are already finding life difficult. The drop in income if people move on to universal credit—if, indeed, they are eligible, which many people are not—will push many families over the brink. I fear that the UK Government are not looking at the bigger picture in the choices they are making.
The kickstart scheme is not available easily to small employers, which could have a disproportionate impact on the rural economy in places where there are not enough employers to club together to make up the minimum 30 employees. To return to a theme I have spoken about before, there is a risk of young workers being exploited and not being paid a living wage. Nobody in this House would want to live on the wages that young people are expected to work for in this country. I ask the Chief Secretary to reconsider and to pay a real living wage to the young people on the scheme. They deserve nothing less.
I also raise caution about relating the scheme to universal credit, because many people are not able to access universal credit, as I have said. If the scheme runs only through universal credit, many young people who might otherwise have benefited from the scheme, such as it is, will not be eligible.
Where the Scottish Government have the power, they have acted. The Scottish Government have spent £4 billion on covid, with over £2.3 billion for businesses. That is above the Barnett consequentials allocated to us. The Scottish Government published their response to the recommendations of the Advisory Group on Economic Recovery on 5 August. They are acting to protect jobs by developing and delivering sector-led recovery plans, working with industry leadership groups, trade unions and others, starting with the construction sector, which is coming back from its furlough period. They are supporting jobs through the covid-19 transition training fund. Through the programme for government, they are supporting a national mission to create new jobs, good jobs and green jobs, which includes investing £60 million to support up to 20,000 young people into jobs. There is the £100-million green jobs fund, investment in decarbonisation and the Unlocking Ambition programme. They are also using the national performance framework to promote equality and to respect, protect and fulfil human rights.
The Scottish Government have made an extra £330 million of funding available this financial year specifically to support Scotland’s economic recovery. That includes £230 million of economic recovery stimulus to invest in capital projects and a £100 million package of funding focused on protecting jobs and supporting those who have been made redundant or whose jobs are at risk.
I would dearly love the Scottish Government to do more, given the scale of the crisis, but their hands are tied. The Fraser of Allander Institute is clear that
“the Scottish Government can borrow up to £450m per annum for capital investment (a cap of £3bn). On resource spending, they can borrow up to £600m per annum (a cap of £1.75bn), but only for ‘forecast error’ and ‘cash management’. They cannot borrow to fund discretionary resource spending.”
That is the crucial point. We urgently need more financial powers in Scotland. If the UK Government will not act on the things we have asked them to act on, they should not stand in Scotland’s way when we have a desire to support our people and businesses. Powers must be devolved to let the Scottish Government get on with the job.
All of this stands in the context of the looming threat of a no-deal, chaotic and damaging Brexit, with the UK Government gleefully breaking international agreements they themselves signed up to and the outrageous proposals today in clause 46 of the Tories’ United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The UK Government’s power grab over economic development and infrastructure plans cannot be allowed to stand. The Tories speak of a power surge, but the last time I checked, a power surge was a dangerous thing that usually lasts only a few seconds, but that results in serious damage to valuable appliances. For once, the Tories might be telling the truth when they say that that is what is coming to Scotland under their plans.
Westminster and the Tories cannot be trusted with our economy. What we see today is not “whatever it takes”. Winding up the furlough scheme and allowing so many people to fall through the support net will cause lasting harm to so many people with businesses and to the wider economy. We must have the full powers of a normal independent country to meet the needs of our economy and, most importantly, of the people of Scotland.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It will be obvious to anyone who has looked at today’s call list that 90 Back Benchers are hoping to participate. I have to intimate that it is unlikely everybody will be called; indeed, it is impossible. I will leave it up to individual Members to do their own arithmetic, but I am afraid that I will have to impose an immediate time limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes. I call Caroline Nokes.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that might mean some of the niceties go out of the window.
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is absolutely right to have identified the great long list of support that has gone to business, and I thank him for doing so because I now do not have to. I welcome the presence on the Front Bench of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I would like to pay particular tribute to him for the help he has given me with individual constituency cases, particularly, I note, with one small business and Lloyds Banking Group. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has just left—in time for me to make that point.
I want to put on record some local perspective of where businesses in Romsey and Southampton North have had assistance: over 10,000 jobs protected by the furlough scheme; £9.5 million to self-employed people; more than £42 million of bounce back loans; and £17.5 million in business grants. Those are very significant figures. The borough council has worked hand in hand with the Government in reaching out to small businesses, making sure all those who are eligible applied and received assistance. Some 47,000 meals have been eaten via eat out to help out. Could my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pass on to the Chancellor the particular thanks of the lady I met in the Cromwell Arms in Romsey who wanted to talk about the “lovely local lad” who is of course my right hon. Friend the Chancellor?
Turning to the issue of ongoing support for local businesses, I was pleased to hear this week from Simon Parkes of Elumin8, a Romsey-based business making advanced lighting systems for the automotive industry. He is looking to recruit between three and five new employees—young employees—as soon as possible, and is keen to make the kickstart scheme work not just for his business, but for the benefit of such unemployed young people. Both he and the local council are working with the local enterprise partnership to bring together the minimum number of 30 needed so that more local businesses will be able to benefit. It is great to see the determination to make schemes work and get young people into real jobs who will then enable his business, even in difficult economic times, to thrive and grow.
I commend the support that has gone to hospitality. We know it is a sector that employs many young people and, indeed, many women—an interest I have particularly. I pay tribute to the Four Horseshoes in Nursling, which is continuing the scheme on its own terms, and I know across the country many are doing the same. However, it would be remiss of me not to return to a sector that I have raised many times in this House and will continue to champion. The beauty industry employs over 370,000 people, over 90% of whom are women. They have stayed locked down longer than other industries, and in some parts of the country they remain locked down, so I welcome the grants that my right hon. Friend has mentioned.
The green homes scheme is a great scheme and one that can provide energy efficiency and jobs, but please can we make it as wide as possible, so that companies such as Kelda Technology in my constituency, which makes showers, can also benefit from it, reducing energy costs through reducing water heating costs?
Finally, on those in the events industry, my right hon Friend the Chancellor is working really hard to rebalance the economy, but these are small businesses which, if allowed to thrive, will in turn be paying tax in years to come, enabling us to rebalance the economy.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
My simple request of Ministers today is that they summon the confidence to target support where it is needed most. The Chief Secretary said today to the House that he would not do that because a number of questions need answering. I may be old-fashioned—I hope he listens, as he leaves the Chamber—but I am sure it is for Ministers to answer the questions, not to sit back and wait for others to do their homework for them. If the Chief Secretary is not willing to provide sector-specific support, perhaps he could set out at the Dispatch Box why he is not willing to do that, as opposed to posing questions to Members in this House and deflecting from the call to arms.
Supporting the industrial foundations needed for our recovery and our future growth is right not just in terms of industrial policy, but in terms of spending taxpayers’ money.
The Government are understandably borrowing significant amounts of money, but they must spend every pound prudently. Wasting a few billion here and a few billion there is not acceptable when there are so many jobs and businesses on the line.
Ministers today might refer to HMRC reports that an estimated £3.5 billion has been fraudulently claimed from the furlough scheme, but that is the obvious pitfall of an open-to-all scheme. Bespoke packages of support to strategically important sectors would be negotiated directly with those businesses, with the due diligence and obligations that come with that. I hope that Ministers, too, will have the sophistication to differentiate support for the strategically important sectors—important for the foundations of our economy and our future growth—and the vast number of jobs in the broader economy that fish around them. If strategically important sectors cannot reopen or get back to work, the knock-on effect for bus drivers, security guards, coffee shops and the like, as well as the hospitality, creative and tourism sectors that rely on workers having money to spend, is clearly significant.
I have confidence that the Government are able to meet those challenges. In addition to sector-specific support, including for sectors that will take longer to reopen, that means two things. First, we need to ensure that we have an adequate test and trace system that gives employers, workers and unions the confidence to return to the workplace. It is not working; getting it right is crucial to retaining jobs in the economy. Secondly, we need the Chancellor to bring forward a fiscal investment in people, as well as a fiscal investment in infrastructure, with proper redundancy support services attached to skills and training opportunities in every part of the country.
British businesses are up for that challenge, from bringing forward R&D projects and decarbonising to pulling together in the national interest. This pandemic has shown the powerful partnership that can be formed between Government, businesses, workers and unions during times of crisis. We should try to hold on to that collective endeavour as we seek to recover and build the British economy, but that requires Ministers to step up to that challenge, to answer the questions that are being posed of them, and to take the necessary action to protect jobs and businesses across the whole of the country.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Across the House today, we have heard recognition of the extraordinary support that the Government have put in place for the economy and British businesses. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), I pay tribute to the Treasury team and the Parliamentary Private Secretaries who have been supporting us and many of our businesses with queries.
It has been mentioned that nationally, we are paying the wages of 9.6 million people. Of course, people find national statistics very difficult to relate to, so in Wimbledon, 12,100 people were furloughed, 4,200 people have benefited from the self-employed scheme, there has been £76.8 million of bounce back loans, which have helped over 2,000 businesses, and CBILS has helped 99 businesses. Inevitably, as the country returns to work and the post-economy starts to revive, we will see a very different mixture in the economy. Some industries and sectors will inevitably be impacted on in a way that we had not expected and there will be an adjustment. We would be wrong to try to pretend that that is not going to happen. Surely, therefore, a plan for jobs and a kickstart scheme is right, rather than a continuation of the furlough scheme, and the plan for jobs must look at protecting and creating jobs.
On the protection of jobs, I spoke about the arts sector in the pre-recess debate, and I hope that the announcement today from the Chief Secretary will extend to the arts sector. On the plan for jobs and where we are looking to create them, there must be a mixture of skills programmes to equip people coming into the workforce with skills for the future. The future is key, both in the Government’s announcement, rightly, about the acceleration of capital investment and in the £600 billion that they are talking about in terms of future prosperity. Certainly, in terms of infrastructure investment, I urge Treasury Ministers to look at what is fibre investment and what is iron investment—we need more fibre and less iron.
Finally, as we look to the future, it must be right in the short term that we concentrate our efforts on the growth programme. That is entirely right in terms of infrastructure. However, if we look to the medium term, beyond the growth ideas coming from many parts of the House—I commend for some notable growth ideas the One Nation Conservatives caucus group paper, which, surprisingly, I edited and authored, along with many other colleagues —we must put our economy and finances on a sound basis. I urge the Treasury, as we look to the medium term, not to rule out any of the economic levers that we are looking at to support the economy now in order to restore sound finances in the future.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
In my constituency of Birmingham, Ladywood up to 8,600 jobs are at risk if the Chancellor presses ahead with the removal of the furlough scheme and the self-employed income support scheme in October and if he does not change course and adopt a targeted continuation of both schemes for particularly hard hit sectors. My constituency already had one of the highest unemployment rates in the country before the pandemic hit. My fear is that if many of the jobs of those currently on wage support schemes go, then my area and my city will take much longer to recover than other parts of the country.
I want to make the case for the arts and entertainment sector. I know that many are making cases for different sectors in this debate, but there are 60,000 jobs in the arts and entertainment sector in my region of the west midlands, and Birmingham is at the heart of many of those jobs. My constituency encompasses the whole of the city centre, which is home to many of the venues and therefore the jobs in the sector. It is therefore crucial to my area and the social, cultural and economic life of Birmingham.
The sector is struggling because it cannot get back up and running like other sectors can. The public health advice and the laws that are in place because of public health mean that its businesses cannot get back to normal. In those circumstances, it is unconscionable that economic support does not follow where the public health rules lead us.
Everything we heard from those on the Treasury Bench today about the challenges in continuing a sector-specific wage support scheme sounds very hollow to all those who are desperately trying to save their jobs. The Government have shown real creativity in coming up with economic policy to deal with the impact of the pandemic, and that should not stop now. They should overcome the hurdles that are in place to adopt a sector-specific approach, because every job in every sector that is saved today or in the next few months will decrease the scale of the bills we will all face when we ultimately have to pay off the costs of this pandemic. The cost of supporting jobs and sectors facing total collapse—those businesses are going to go to the wall—will be cheaper than the cost of inaction, which will be much more expensive in the long run. The Government’s current approach, I am afraid to say, not only does not make economic sense, but fails the test of fairness, too.
In the short time left to me, I wish to make the case for Birmingham in particular, because we are due to host the Commonwealth games in 2022. If the heart of our arts and entertainment sector is ripped out from our city, we will not be able to see the full benefits of what the Commonwealth games could bring to the brilliant city of Birmingham. I urge the Treasury to take a region-specific approach and take into account factors such as international events, so that we can have the full benefits for all our constituents—benefits envisaged when we win such bids in the first place.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I, for one, really think that the Government deserve enormous credit, not just for the sheer scale of the financial response to the pandemic, but for the speed with which key parts of the safety net were put in place really early on as the crisis unfolded. I say that first of all as a Welsh Member of Parliament who sat and listened to a near constant stream of criticism from Welsh Labour Government Ministers about our actions here as a Government, and something similar could be said for the Scottish nationalist Government in Edinburgh. I am really proud that we were able to support so many families and businesses in every part of the United Kingdom. The question those politicians need to confront is how on earth those businesses and families could have been supported in a similar way without the strong intervention of the United Kingdom Treasury. That is an important point.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Stephen Crabb
I am not going to give way—forgive me. For me, the subject we are discussing today is about two things. One is how we support livelihoods. How do we support families and help keep them afloat during this crisis? There is a point I would like to make, which has not yet been made, about the strengthening of our social security system. Alongside the schemes to support businesses and jobs early on in the crisis, the Treasury took the very important decision to put extra money into universal credit as a temporary measure. If I may make one plea to those on the Treasury Bench this afternoon, it is that they need to decide very quickly that that increase should stay in place for next spring for those families, many of whom will still be adjusting to having lost their jobs and having perhaps moved from furlough to benefits, and many of them will find that a very hard landing indeed. Any prospect that we are going to remove that additional money next spring is for me unthinkable.
This debate is also about how we protect key strategic parts of our economy and our national life, and how we ensure that they come through this crisis without too much irreparable damage. I confess that I have some sympathy for some of the opinions that have been expressed on both sides of the House this afternoon. I have talked about extending furlough in a targeted way previously, but I absolutely do recognise from the conversations that I have had with trade bodies and with Ministers in recent days and weeks just how difficult it is to pin down and define a targeted extension of furlough. None the less, I plead with Ministers to keep an open mind when we talk about these sectors. I think about the enormous manufacturing operation of Airbus in north Wales and how strategically important it is for Wales and the United Kingdom. I also think about all those padlocked theatres a short walk from here in the west end and in every city centre up and down the country.
We want to protect key parts of our economy and our national life, and I really urge Ministers to keep an open mind about how we do that. They need to think flexibly and work collaboratively with unions and trade bodies on getting our economy through this crisis.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
The UK is facing a jobs crisis unlike any experienced in living memory. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. The UK is facing the worst recession of any advanced economy. Many people’s hopes and aspirations for the future are now in question, but the worst is yet to come.
Last week, the Trades Union Congress warned of a possible tsunami of redundancies when the furlough scheme and other support measures are wound down. The Office for Budget Responsibility has similarly warned that, by 2021, unemployment could rise to 3.5 million—just over 10% of the UK total workforce. This jobs crisis has been keenly felt in almost every part of our economy from aerospace to retail to the creative industries. In the short time available to me, however, I want to focus on the devastation that UK manufacturing faces if the Government do not urgently change course and extend the furlough scheme.
I should first declare an interest. For four years, I proudly served as a regional secretary of Unite the Union, of which I continue to be a member. In that role, I was privileged to represent tens of thousands of people working in the manufacturing sector, including more than 20,000 workers in shipbuilding and aerospace. I know just how rare these well-paid, high-skilled jobs are in the modern economy and how much pride these workers have in their work. I also know how vital these jobs are to some of the most deprived and left-behind communities in our country—the very communities that this Government promised to level up.
In the third quarter of 2019, there were more than 345,000 manufacturing jobs in the north-west. Research commissioned by Make UK showed that output and other levels in the region reached -60% and -65% during the height of the pandemic. This economic disruption will far outlast the current set of lockdown measures within the sector, which is set to contract by 9.4% in 2020. Job losses in this sector do not just impact those who find themselves suddenly unemployed—perhaps for the first time in their lives—but have a disproportionate and devastating impact on local economies. For every job lost at a private aerospace company, four more are lost in the wider supply chain and countless others in local shops, restaurants and independent businesses.
In short, the Government’s failure to extend the furlough scheme is nothing short of wanton economic vandalism. It risks not only devastating the manufacturing sector, but laying waste to some of the most marginalised and deprived communities in which manufacturing companies are based. With furlough schemes across Europe set to last until at least March 2021, it also risks seriously undermining the competitiveness of British manufacturing at a time when it could not be more vital to our long-term economic prosperity.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in this debate and place on record my thanks to the Government for the incredible support that they have provided to my constituents in Darlington. The unprecedented challenges that my constituents face have been met with measures ensuring that they had the security of income for their families and that their businesses were able to survive. The coronavirus job retention scheme ensured that 12,300 of my constituents were supported. This represents almost a third of the entire workforce in Darlington. This scheme alone made funds of up to £184 million available to the furloughed employees of Darlington. The self-employed income scheme was accessed by 2,500 self-employed people, enabling them to access up to £2,500 per month. That support was worth more than £6 million per month.
Businesses across Darlington have benefited from a variety of business grants, business rates holidays and tax deferral schemes. Business rates relief in Darlington totalled over £12 million, and the Government have distributed 1,581 grants to small and medium-sized enterprises in Darlington with a value of almost £16 million. I would like to pay tribute to the efforts of my colleagues at Darlington Borough Council, who made sure that their distribution of the grants was one of the swiftest in the country. I also pay tribute to the work of Ben Houchen, the Tees Valley Mayor, for the local support that he has given to businesses in Darlington. The phenomenal eat out to help out scheme, enabling the hospitality sector to bounce back, was enjoyed by 62 establishments in Darlington, which have served more than 50,000 meals, and I want to pay tribute to the Tomahawk Steakhouse for its fantastic steaks. Darlington businesses have applied and been accepted for over £33 million-worth of bounce back loans.
Furlough, grants, tax extensions, bounce back loans and rates holidays—these measures have been truly extra ordinary, but this emergency safety net needs to come to an end. It cannot be extended indefinitely. I know, and the hard-working people of Darlington know, that we need to get back to standing on our own two feet. We have protected the NHS, we have supported our employees and we have cradled our businesses, but we need to move forward, creating jobs and levelling up on investment in places such as Darlington to truly unlock the potential that I know the north-east has.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House would like to join me in congratulating and sending best wishes to Jack Booth, a world war two veteran who celebrates his 100th birthday on Friday.
At the beginning of this week, parts of Blackburn were still under local lockdown. Swimming pools, gyms, bowling alleys and wedding venues were all closed. That changed yesterday, when they were allowed to reopen, but it means that further restrictions were placed on Blackburn for nearly eight weeks. The impact of the pandemic has taken its toll on local residents and businesses, and of course, the council, which is predicting a £19.5 million deficit, despite the Government saying that they would do “whatever it takes”. The Government are refusing to recognise that additional support is needed in areas with additional lockdowns. I am not sure whether they are incompetent or wilfully neglecting areas in local lockdown. They provide support to some areas, but it is very sparse across east Lancashire. It is also nonsense to say that specific sectors, some of which have only just opened and others that have opened in a limited capacity, do not require additional support.
The Chancellor’s decision to withdraw wage support for jobs, particularly in Blackburn, is making matters worse. It is clear that the Government’s one-size-fits-all approach does not work, and the CBI, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have said as much. Instead, the Government should be giving support where it is needed most, not withdrawing it in one go. No one here is asking for a permanent handout, but cutting off support for every worker in the country from October—no matter whether they are back at work or not, or under local restrictions—is equivalent to pulling the plug at the worst possible time. We have just heard the Prime Minister say that his priority is to protect jobs, but too many people have already been excluded from the support. If the Government are serious about protecting jobs, high streets, councils and services, they need a targeted approach to further support in areas such as Blackburn that are still suffering additional lockdowns.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Our Chancellor said he would do “whatever it takes” and the support that has been provided has been unprecedented. I have always said that there is no such thing as Government money, just taxpayers’ money, and we need sustainable public finances, but this programme was the right thing to do. In my constituency and up and down the country, high streets have struggled as more people shop online and visit out-of-town retail parks. The last thing they needed were the extra challenges posed by covid-19, having to close down and facing the prospect of making staff redundant. The small business grants, about £28 million in the first instance and then an additional £1.18 million in discretionary grants, have saved many businesses. The furlough scheme, used by 13,900 people in Bassetlaw, has no doubt saved many jobs too. We are talking about people who, through no fault of their own, suddenly found themselves unable to pay their household bills, mortgages and other living expenses. The scheme gave them the means to do that. Now we need to get people back to work.
The construction scheme has been able to start up again, get staff off furlough and back into work to build the homes we need. Many people have been able to move once more, aided by the Chancellor’s stamp duty measures. As a newly adopted Retfordian, I have seen at first hand the growing recovery in the town centre. We owe a debt of gratitude to businesses and local volunteers who have helped to create the conditions where people can again use our shops, hairdressers, pubs and restaurants safely. In Bassetlaw alone, the Eat Out to Help Out scheme has been used for up to 72,000 meals. In a post on my Facebook page, the owners of the Shireoaks Inn in Worksop said, “This scheme has given my pub a massive boost and has secured the jobs for all my staff for the foreseeable future”.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I know the hon. Gentleman is short of time, so I thank him for giving way. Does he not agree that we should use every tool available to beat this virus, including extending the furlough? Does he not think that we should take the advice of the Bank of England and treat the debt accrued as war debt?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, which takes us back to the point about sustainable public finances. That is the key to all of this, and furlough should fit in with that as well. At some point, we actually must get back to work.
I was setting out why the support we provided was the right thing to do. We have also managed to support some tremendous community assets, such as the North Notts Community Arena, with things such as furloughing, bounce back loans and business rates relief—that was worth £11.9 million in Bassetlaw. Although the arena was unable to secure the discretionary grant from the council, it has been saved with funding from other sources, such as the big lottery community fund. I wish to thank Severn Trent Water and Sport England for supporting this wonderful facility, and community champion and manager Nigel Turner for driving it forward.
In addition to the £9.3 million given out for those who are self-employed, we now have a great scheme, in kickstart, which will help to benefit youngsters in the area and in their quest to find work. Although we still face many challenges ahead, our plan for jobs provides the basis for a strong recovery and bright future.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I wish to acknowledge the tremendous campaigning efforts by members of Unite the union, my own trade union as a Unite MP, who have come down today from the aerospace, aviation and manufacturing sectors, and a variety of others, to express their concerns for their own jobs when the furlough scheme comes to an end. Those are real concerns, and those people are demanding that the Government take action now to protect workers, businesses and the wider economy from the wider economic effects of covid.
In the short time I have, I wish to talk a little about the importance of sector-specific support. Some Members may know that I am on the Transport Committee. I wish to mention one sector in particular, the coach sector. I thank TM Travel, Northeast Coachways and the Honk for Hope campaign for furnishing me with information for this debate and for their efforts to safeguard the coach industry. I wish to highlight to Members early-day motion 851, which is on the Honk for Hope campaign to protect jobs and businesses. They are trying to safeguard the long-term future of coach travel, and I want the Government to take note of that.
The sector has been sadly neglected, and specific asks are being made of Ministers. The first is that they extend finance holidays—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—by 12 months to ensure that no coaches are repossessed during the winter period, so that businesses can bounce back if there is a recovery from covid in 2021. The second ask is to designate the coach sector as part of the leisure industry to enable access to support and grants that have been made available to other leisure businesses. The third ask is to introduce a freeze on lenders seeking to repossess family homes as a result of the collapse of a coach company. The fall in demand in this sector has resulted in 98% of coaches being parked up and left in their depots off the road. The level of loss is simply unsustainable for the sector, which employs over 40,000 people, unless the Government get out of neutral and into top gear—if you will excuse the pun—and provide some sector-specific support.
The end of the furlough scheme is clearly going to cause a wave of redundancies, but coach operators, in particular, may well have to close their doors for the final time. I urge Ministers on the Treasury Bench to please look at some sector-specific support for the coach sector.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton South West, employment has been high on the agenda for me from the outset. For decades, Wolverhampton has been above the national average on unemployment. Economic opportunity for our great city was really championed when the Prime Minister said that he was going to level up the country, and areas like St Peter’s, Graiseley and the rest of Wolverhampton were given hope. Then covid hit and the world as we knew it changed. In dark times, I was able to see a city come together in unity, regardless of party, beliefs or views, and do what was right for the city. Businesses were repurposed or adjusted to serve the community, from the amazing Jim Gough’s of Tettenhall to Grill-It in Newbridge. Key workers went over and above in a time of crisis.
As lockdown was eased, I was able to get out and see these businesses face to face to see what they were doing. Simply put, it was hard for them. Footfall is down and the future of business looks more challenging than ever before. The market traders of Wolverhampton trade on with steely determination in a difficult climate. There are businesses such as EcoWulf in Chapel Ash, which was set up one year ago and had to deal with covid in its first year but trades on with a great product. Malik Butchers of Whitmore Reans has used this time to repurpose its business to provide some truly amazing halal street food.
Without a doubt, business in Wolverhampton will be concerned about paying the bills and keeping their employees in jobs, but what has made a difference in this unprecedented time is the support the Government have provided. From the job retention scheme to business grants, it has all made a huge difference to people. I have heard this from so many; it has been well received. It has been a lifeline that has saved many jobs and businesses throughout our great city. However, it does have to end.
It is never good to see someone lose a job or a business go under. This I know from experience having gone through it: the sadness you feel when you make people redundant; the numbness you feel when you tell your family you cannot put food on the table. Nobody wants this. But we have to look forward. We must make sure that we provide the best circumstances to safely get the economy moving forward and create sustainable public finances. We need to empower businesses to give them the opportunities to fulfil the visions that they have. We must move forward in supporting them as we are through the kickstart scheme and other great opportunities. We have to support businesses moving forward, but we cannot keep the furlough scheme going forever and a day.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
We stand in this country at a crossroads in our economy, with profound implications for future generations. That is why I support, and my party supports, the Labour party in its call for an extension of the furlough scheme—but more, we would like it to cover all sectors, incentivise flexibility and be guaranteed until at least June 2021. This is a scheme that the Liberal Democrats called for and campaigned for, and, to give the Government credit, it has helped to stave off the worst economic impact of covid-19. Almost 10 million jobs were furloughed from March to June, and more than 6 million people still benefit.
The scheme has massive flaws, however. Primarily, it does not help everyone. It has excluded more than 3 million people, who have been left without any financial support at all. Perhaps the biggest long-term flaw is that the current support scheme was intended as a bridge over the deepest chasm of this crisis, and so far it offers us no destination. If the Government have a strategy for the onward journey, this would be the time to tell us. Where will those nearly 7 million people be when the bridge comes to an end? At the moment, I fear that the answer is: high and dry.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I am particularly concerned about tourism in the lakes and dales. We had a very busy August, and that was welcome, but most businesses could not operate at anywhere near capacity and therefore they could not turn a profit after losing £1.6 billion in the first part of the year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a special package to support hospitality and tourism, especially through the winter months, before the new season kicks in next year?
Christine Jardine
I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent point he makes. I know the impact on Edinburgh West of the loss of the festivals, and tourism is one of the sectors that will struggle. My fear is that if the scheme is withdrawn, we will simply have spent billions to delay the pain for those sectors, with nothing to lessen it in the long term and nothing to prepare for worse to come. Aviation, hospitality, the arts and tourism are all struggling sectors. We need the scheme not only to continue, but to do more. We need it to invest not just in staving off the crisis, but in creating a new, stronger, greener economy. If the job retention scheme is to be truly successful, that is where the bridge must lead us.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must take urgent action towards their target of net zero carbon, and that now is the time to invest in the transition away from carbon-emitting industries and create new green jobs?
Christine Jardine
I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I believe that this crisis may, ironically, afford us the opportunity to do so. That is why we cannot afford to cut off the job retention scheme in October. We need it to help us through that transition into the post-covid economy, whatever it looks like. None of us knows what that will be. None of us knows which sectors of the economy will survive or even thrive, and which will struggle or collapse.
That is the one point on which I take issue with the Labour motion. How do we know which sectors to target, and if we target, who do we leave out? Which industries do we allow to go to the wall? Which employees do we throw on the scrapheap? I come originally from Clydeside. I know—the memory of it is seared on my consciousness and runs through everything I do in politics—the damage that is done to lives when an industry dies and those who depended on it have nowhere to turn. We cannot allow that to happen to another generation.
If this virus has confronted us with the challenge of a lifetime or of a century, it also offers an opportunity, because we are now as close to having a blank sheet of paper as we are ever likely to be. Use the job retention scheme and the structure of support, and develop it further. Furlough people while we begin to transition and develop our future. Use the scheme as the basis of the Government’s strategy, for which we are all waiting.
It has been calculated that keeping the scheme going until June of next year would cost £10 billion. Surely, that is a drop in the ocean compared with what will be lost if we do not. In that time, we can ensure that the industries and employers that can survive do so, and we can help the others to transition. Instead of mothballing companies, encourage them to work. Look at the flexible schemes in Germany, France and Austria, and at what they are doing to protect their economies. Let us use the time we have to upskill and retrain.
We need to innovate our way out of this, and we can. We need to create new industries and green jobs, investigate hydrogen power and encourage our aviation industry to be greener. We must make wellbeing the measure of our economy, and quality of life the measure of our success. The world and its economies are changing around us. The job retention scheme has given us time and we need to ensure that we use it properly. We must turn the birthplace of the industrial revolution into the home of a new green revolution.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I want to start by paying tribute to the businesses up and down the country who have done so much to protect us at this time, businesses such as: Quotient Sciences in Rushcliffe, working day and night to develop coronavirus treatments; Ruddy Fine Gin in Ruddington, which converted its production line to make sanitiser and donated hundreds of bottles to vulnerable people; or Cheff— Clean Healthy Energising Fresh Food—in Lady Bay, which produces a range of fresh, healthy meals and has donated them to frontline NHS workers and the most vulnerable. I have always believed in supporting business, because business supports our communities. That is why I am so grateful to the Chancellor for the comprehensive response to the financial jeopardy many businesses found themselves in under lockdown.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The furlough scheme is effectively credit to business. My grandparents used to call credit never, neverland. Does my hon. Friend agree that unlike the Opposition, who live in never, neverland and thrive on the delights of hindsight, this Government take their responsibilities seriously and want to support people back to work?
Ruth Edwards
The furlough scheme has done so much over the past few months for people in my constituency. In Rushcliffe, over 12,500 jobs have been protected by the coronavirus job retention scheme, over 3,000 self-employed people have been claiming support through the self-employed income support, and over £18 million in grants has been distributed to businesses in Rushcliffe. However, my hon. Friend is right that we must have sound public finances and that we cannot just carry on with support in this way forever.
Contrary to the claims of the parties on the Opposition Benches, support for business and jobs is not ending in October. It is changing. We must be honest with ourselves and the public about the future. Our economy is going to change. Coronavirus did not just press pause on businesses, but accelerated the big changes we will see in our economy and were always going to see in our economy in the medium term through the adoption of new technologies such as AI, data analytics and robotics, the fusion of our digital and physical worlds, changing the world of work as we know it and changing the mix of skills in the economy.
Change is unsettling. It makes us anxious and fearful. However, it also provides huge opportunities and we must make sure that those opportunities are there for everyone. The measures the Government are now taking as part of their plans for jobs will help to make sure that that is the case: over £100 million to triple the scale of traineeships; £32 million to recruit careers advisers for 250,000 people; double the number of work coaches to help people find jobs where they may have been lost; triple the number of sector work-based placements; and investing in apprenticeship creation for people of all ages. That is what the Government are, and should be, focused on: training people for the new economy and the new opportunities it will bring.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this timely debate, which is of critical importance to my constituents. Out of the four constituencies that represent South Lanarkshire in this House, my constituency has the highest number of people receiving support for their incomes during the pandemic. The most recent figures, from July, show that 15,800 constituents were placed on the furlough scheme, with 3,200 constituents on the self-employed income support scheme. To put that into context, the total number of people on those schemes is just shy of a quarter of the total electorate in my constituency.
There can be no doubt from those figures that the economic effects of covid-19 are going to be felt for some time to come. It is with that understanding that we now face an incredibly stark choice about what to do next. It is my fundamental view that the Chancellor is moving far too quickly to wind down those schemes. There are sectors of the economy that are clearly not yet ready to reopen or expect a longer time to recovery, because coronavirus mitigations will be with us for many months to come.
One example of an industry that faces a deeply uncertain future without furlough is the events industry, which employs many of my constituents and supports our thriving cultural scene. My constituent Anne Porter, who owns a small production company that has been running in Burnside since 1989, told me that she has relied on furlough to keep the company going. However, with many major live events cancelled or postponed until next year and the furlough scheme winding down, many businesses like Anne’s are now facing closure across my constituency.
My constituents whose livelihoods rely on productions and events have told me that continuing support is essential for those sectors to recover. Many performers see the end of furlough as an enormous setback to what will often be the first tentative steps into their career. Ending furlough too early will lead many to conclude that the so-called “broad economic shoulders” of the UK are being put to work creating cliff edges, just at the moment when many people will be feeling economically vulnerable. For some it will be the first time in their lives that they have experienced this kind of insecurity. They have paid their taxes, followed the rules and done all the right things, and the UK Government are now repaying them with worry and uncertainty as the scheme winds down and the threat of redundancy looms large.
In conclusion, I do not want to have to beg another Government to do the right thing and extend the furlough and self-employed income support schemes. I do not want to hear more stories from ExcludedUK of people who are falling through every gap in the support schemes and been left with nothing, not even the hope of one-off support that might help them get back on their feet. I want the Government to start listening and to keep this lifeline support going. If they will not do that, it is time that we have the choice to support people and businesses through the powers of an independent Scotland.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The Treasury paid out nearly £14 million in business grants in my constituency, instant cash that was vital to keeping businesses going during a situation that none of us wanted or could have foreseen. I must also mention the fantastic eat out to help out scheme. It has been widely welcomed by my constituents. Pubs and restaurants from Great Barr to Greets Green and from Friar Park to Newton have taken advantage, serving up 91,000 discounted meals in total across the constituency. In August, I had the pleasure of visiting the Sportsman, the Yew Tree, the Island Inn and the Cricketers Arms, to name just a few, and of course, I took my team to the amazing Red Lion.
Everywhere I went, the Chancellor’s support was hugely appreciated, and 13,400 jobs in West Bromwich East were supported by the furlough scheme. Over the summer recess, I visited Rimstock, Guest Truck and Van, and Sheldon Clayton Logistics—all brilliant businesses in West Bromwich East that benefited from the furlough scheme. It was a genuine lifeline for many businesses. However, a phasing-out of the furlough scheme is ultimately the right thing to do now. The scheme has rightly supported millions since it was introduced, but we cannot continue to run a labour market where people’s jobs are completely dependent on the state making them viable. I have listened with great interest to the Opposition, and it is not clear which sector they want to support, how long for or at what cost. I fear that the shadow Chancellor did not know either.
The Opposition seem to have also neglected to mention that it is not just in this country that support measures are coming to an end this autumn. Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, Denmark, Norway, New Zealand, Sweden and Switzerland have all announced that their equivalent wage support schemes will be phased out over the coming months. The Bank of England’s chief economist hit the nail on the head when he said that extending the furlough scheme meant
“prolonging the inevitable in a way that probably doesn’t help either the individual or the business.”
He is right.
We need to turn our attention to providing new opportunities for people. We must bring the public finances back under control. I am a big fan of the Chancellor’s kickstart scheme, and we need to go further for young people. We are looking at an entire generation of young people who have had their early career stalled through no fault of their own. That is where the Government need to step in, and it is also why I support the Prime Minister when he says that young people need to get back into the office because it is they who benefit from peer support, guidance, role models and progression.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
I wonder, having listed all the countries that my hon. Friend did just now, whether she would take issue with the Opposition’s mention of France, which has a youth unemployment rate of nearly 19.5%. Should we therefore not really take any lessons from the French on how to run a successful jobs market?
Nicola Richards
I agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of the situation.
I have a constituent who runs a firm called Sandwell Pest Control Services which is already looking to take on a young person in an administrative role through the kickstart scheme. That is just one example of the urgency many businesses are feeling to get going again. Last December, the people of this country came out en masse to reject the Opposition’s vision for the economy. The British people ultimately know that, as a hero of mine once said,
“eventually you run out of other people’s money”.
In West Bromwich East we want sound public finances. The Government stood up for jobs and our economy when it was needed the most, and they will drive forward our recovery from here in a responsible way that brings the public finances under control through competent Conservative policies.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in today’s debate at such a crucial time for both the nation’s public health and, of course, our economy. As so many Members have said since the pandemic began, the two are very much intertwined, such that our success in keeping the virus at bay will in large part determine whether our economy bounces back or remains on life support.
Covid-19 has put a powder keg under our economy and the global economy, and the recession we are now in was of course inevitable, but it must be said that the true depth of the jobs crisis that our country now finds itself in was not inevitable. The responsibility for putting that right falls squarely at the door of No. 10.
There are 4,700 jobs at risk in my Ogmore constituency, according to Office for National Statistics and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs figures. It is interesting hearing Government Members talk about that as if it does not matter and we will find new jobs. Constituencies such as mine have already had 30 years of deindustrialisation because of 18 years of attacks from a Conservative Government. My constituents cannot cope with any more deindustrialisation or job losses.
I welcome the Government’s support at UK level, and I welcome the Welsh Labour Government’s support for businesses across Wales—theirs is the most generous of any of the UK Administrations’ packages for supporting business—but I echo the calls of my Front-Bench colleagues: the furlough scheme needs to be extended. The suggestion that all sectors will simply survive when something is cut in October is for the birds. That simply is not true.
In the aviation sector in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones)—I pay tribute to her for all the work she has done on supporting so many of the staff—workers face cuts. At the BA site alone, several hundred people face the possibility of job losses. The south Wales economy will take a £1.6 billion hit if BA continues to make cuts to sites across south Wales. The Government cannot just ignore that. It is simply not appropriate for a Government to stand by and do nothing in support of the aviation sector.
Patricia Gibson
What Opposition Members are asking for is an extension of temporary support. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that Government Members are characterising that as a request for permanent support? The premature withdrawal of this support means that tens of thousands of viable jobs will be lost for want of an additional temporary extension. To characterise us as asking for permanent support is shameful.
Chris Elmore
I agree with the hon. Lady. It is rather concerning to hear the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) shout, “How long for?” when he knows full well that the aviation industry in north Wales is the bedrock of what jobs there are in aviation. I am sure that his constituents will be interested to hear that he has very little interest in extending anything for the jobs in his constituency. I very much agree with the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).
Surely, if the Government’s mantra of “Global Britain” is to continue, we need an aviation sector that can become a global economic hub once the global economy begins to recover. If there is little to no aviation sector left, and no highly skilled jobs, as the hon. Lady mentioned, what is it that we will become global Britain of? We will have no economic hubs in the aviation sector through which to support it.
I am conscious of the time. I have mentioned already that my constituents cannot cope with more deindustrialisation. It will be like deindustrialisation on steroids if there is not intervention from the UK Government and the furlough scheme is not extended. We need to protect the highly paid, highly skilled jobs that exist across the south Wales economy. For the Government to say that it is too complicated—“We can’t do this; we can’t do that”—just is not good enough. Constituents know it is not good enough, and they will repay that tenfold at the ballot box when it comes to future elections.
Let me raise one final point with the Minister. The Welsh Government have announced a lockdown in the Caerphilly county borough. Insurance companies and organisations that link to insurance say that it is not a recognised lockdown, so constituents cannot get support; they cannot make insurance claims. May I ask the Minister, on this technical point, to work with the Welsh Government to ensure that where lockdowns happen in any of the nations of the UK, the economic support is there from those sorts of insurance companies to ensure that people who have to self-isolate can do so?
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Government’s vital support for businesses and jobs across the country throughout this crisis has been unprecedented. In my constituency, we have seen 11,800 jobs protected under the job retention scheme, £9.1 million of support for the self-employed, over £440 million of bounce back loans for small businesses, £89 million of business grants and 849,000 meals discounted—I am only responsible for a couple of them—thanks to the brilliant eat out to help out scheme.
Despite that much-needed support, central London is still struggling. Pre covid, over 600,000 commuters came into Westminster every day to work, with another 500,000 in the City of London. The local economy relies on those workers spending in small shops and independent cafés and restaurants, but they are not coming back in the same numbers. Central London is the economic powerhouse of UK plc, driving forward this Government’s levelling-up agenda, and it is usually the first out of the traps following a recession or downturn. Sadly, this time, it looks like we will be one of the last. That is why I have produced a plan, which the Government may wish to consider, that could help to protect jobs and businesses not only in my constituency but across the country.
The furlough scheme has secured hundreds of thousands of jobs in the west end. I appreciate the reasons why the Government are bringing the scheme to an end next month, which we must do to sustain our public services. As the MP for theatreland, I want to ensure that we protect theatres even more. I welcome the Government’s £1.5 billion cultural support package, but I hope that we can keep theatres open when they come back in the new year, and a bit more help for them would be welcome.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the arts and arts venues are important all over the country and that small venues such as the Queens Park Arts Centre in my constituency are also incredibly valuable and have benefited greatly from the Government’s scheme?
Nickie Aiken
My hon. Friend is right, and that is why I welcome this brilliant £1.5 billion package.
I welcomed the Chancellor’s announcements in March about a review of the business rates scheme, the £25,000 grant and the freezing of business rates, but I would welcome that freeze being extended for another 12 months. Another measure that the Government could introduce, which would bring in much-needed tax receipts, is an extension of the retail export scheme for EU visitors, allowing them to shop tax-free from 1 January. Such a tax reform could be worth up to £1.4 billion in additional annual sales. While 80% of tax-free shopping in the UK is done in my constituency, that would still have an impact on the UK as a whole.
Finally, adding two hours at the end of Sunday trading, extending it from 6 pm to 8 pm, would provide a major boost to the economy. While I appreciate that this is quite controversial for some of my colleagues, I would like to make it clear that I am only calling for this at the moment for international designated areas such as Knightsbridge and the west end. I am sure that there would be a knock-on effect for bars and restaurants as people decide to travel to central London later and enjoy a meal and drinks once the shops close.
We must ensure that London is seen to be open to the world so that it can continue to compete with other global cities such as New York, Paris and Tokyo. I ask the Government to consider the measures that I have suggested, to protect both London’s position as a global cultural hub and the UK’s standing as a major business and visitor destination, safeguarding millions of jobs and livelihoods across the nation. I look forward to supporting the Government as they continue to support jobs and businesses as the situation develops.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The aerospace industry employs well over 100,000 people in the UK, in mainly very well-paid and highly-skilled jobs. Aviation has been one of the hardest hit sectors and will be one of the last to recover, taking years to get back to where it was before the pandemic started. At Airbus in Broughton, we are experiencing the consequences of that downturn, with 500 Guidant agency workers losing their jobs, to be followed by nearly 1,500 direct employees under a voluntary redundancy scheme. I pay tribute to Daz Reynolds, the Unite convenor, who has done an incredible job in very difficult circumstances.
That is a massive hit on the local economy. If we add in the calculation that, for every job lost in a prime such as Airbus, four or five jobs will be lost in the supply chain, we see that the scale of the crisis we face is stark. The furlough scheme has helped lessen the impact for now, but we need the Government to step up to the plate and bring forward a package of measures that will help to secure the sector not just now or in the medium term, but for the long term as well.
The French, Germans and Americans have all recognised the need to implement support longer term, and a key measure should be implementing a shorter working week, where the extra time freed up would be used to upskill the workforce. Government financial support would not only secure employment, but it would also deliver value for money for the taxpayer, because people would continue to work, spend and pay taxes.
Support for airlines should be linked to a requirement for them to update their fleets and scrap older, less-environmentally friendly aircraft. More than 70 aircraft that currently fly out of the UK are more than 15 years old, and they should be replaced. Suppliers and SMEs need the Government to support an investment fund to help them to restructure and face up to new challenges, and we must support apprenticeships, which are vital for the future. As I have said, other countries have recognised the need for a sector-specific scheme, and if we do not, the danger is that future investment will go elsewhere. The Treasury does not like sector-specific schemes or to pick winners, but aerospace is already a winner. We are a world leader, and if we do not protect that, we will lose our position in the world, and we could lose the jobs that go with it.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
In response to this crisis, the Government have introduced one of the most generous packages of measures in the world and certainly the most generous in our nation’s history. What marks it out as exemplary is that the Government’s response in such difficult circumstances was an early recognition of the need to protect businesses and livelihoods in places such as North Cornwall.
As of early August, 13,000 of my constituents have been supported by the coronavirus job retention scheme, 5,800 local self-employed people have received more than £16 million of self-employment income support, 1,847 local businesses have received £54 million in bounce back loans, 1,327 local businesses, and 15 nurseries, will pay no business rates this year, and 4,626 local businesses have received grants of up to £25,000. That financial support has been invaluable for businesses and employees in my constituency, and we must now get back to supporting sustainable public finances. I believe that the decisions taken on planning legislation and licensing laws have also been crucial in helping to support businesses in North Cornwall. Those businesses were given the flexibility to open to their customers and adhere to social distancing regulations.
Let me stress how important it was to reopen the tourism industry for many people and businesses in North Cornwall. Reopening was a difficult decision, for obvious reasons, but because the Government took time to wait, businesses had time to prepare and make themselves covid-secure. As the virus receded, enough of them were able to open and help with tourism during the summer months. If it were not for the Treasury support put in place at the time, hundreds of businesses in my constituency could have folded.
Many of my constituents were understandably concerned about the prospect of hundreds of thousands of people coming to Cornwall during the summer and visiting during the pandemic, but most people have generally behaved respectfully. Thankfully, infection rates in Cornwall remain very low.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Scott Mann
I am not going to give way today; I am sorry.
It is heartening to see how many businesses have responded to this crisis. One brilliant example of that in North Cornwall came from lobster and crab fishermen. Suddenly, dozens of boats had Instagram and Facebook accounts and websites, and they advertised their catches locally and eventually around the country. That demonstrated Cornish ingenuity in a crisis.
Since I closed my constituency office during lockdown, as of mid-August we have opened nearly 7,000 cases. Those include supporting 309 local businesses that got in touch to inquire about support and 730 individuals who required guidance on specific covid-related issues. I am fortunate that I have now been the MP for five years. The fact that nearly a quarter of my entire caseload has come in the past six weeks demonstrates to me how badly this crisis has affected many of my constituents.
Lastly, I pay tribute to all the good people of North Cornwall and to my constituency staff who have helped during the crisis.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I have spoken passionately in this Chamber about the impact that the coronavirus pandemic is having on the livelihoods of my constituents. Ensuring that no one is left behind should be at the heart of the Government’s response to this economic crisis. As the MP for Coventry North West, it is my job to come to this place and secure the very best deal for my constituents, my neighbours and my community.
It is my contention that we are unprepared for the impending disaster that awaits people on the furlough scheme across the country and in Coventry North West. The scheme is masking the true extent of the unemployment crisis to come. We do not yet know what the furlough scheme has protected us and our constituents from. The Government put in place a scheme to ensure that jobs were protected, in the hope that our constituents would also be protected. However, the indiscriminate and premature severing of the furlough support scheme will leave the businesses in my constituency bereft and possibly at risk of bankruptcy.
Let me lay bare some sobering facts and statistics. Since my last speech in this place, I have learned that in my constituency the number of claimants for unemployment benefits has risen to 4,780, some 3,500 people are seeking help from the self-employed income support scheme, 17,000 people are on furlough and 7,600 jobs are in the high-risk category for unemployment. We have seen job losses at large, small and medium-sized businesses in Coventry—from Rolls-Royce to Ikea and many family businesses. The figures will hit the roof if the furlough scheme is not extended and better planning not put in place.
Rob Butler
The hon. Lady is telling us how she would very much like the furlough scheme to be extended; would she, by contrast to those on the Labour Front Bench, like to tell us for how long she believes the scheme should be extended?
Taiwo Owatemi
The furlough scheme should be extended for as long as the country and my constituents need it to be extended.
Why are this Government so comfortable with putting businesses and my constituents’ livelihoods at risk? With the threat of a second lockdown and the potential for other local lockdowns, surely it just is not worth the risk. Alternatively, rather than ending the furlough scheme completely, have the Government sought to reform it so that it continues to support jobs in the worst-hit sectors and targets aid to struggling industries—something Labour is fighting for in its five-point plan? We are also demanding that if and when people do return to work, they are in a safe environment and protected against the disease.
The Government would do well to heed our call to fight for jobs, bring back our businesses, leave no one behind, keep workers safe and drive job creation. There is no room for stubbornness in a crisis like this. The Chancellor needs to think creatively, be more flexible and target support to protect jobs in the hardest hit parts of the economy.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The decisions taken by the Government to protect jobs throughout the coronavirus emergency have been bold and decisive—and all within sound public finances. The support has been unprecedented; there are few schemes, even among the world’s most-developed economies, that can compare with the support provided by the Government.
Businesses across Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale have shown extraordinary resilience in the face of this pandemic by innovating and diversifying into other business sectors. For instance, in Dewsbury, the Rugby Clothing Company, which normally makes high-quality rugby kids, has had great success in manufacturing corporate face coverings and is supplying businesses far and wide. Looking ahead, we need to see more such innovative approaches to the difficulties businesses face. We need to explore ideas outside the economic textbooks. Eat out to help out was not a conventional policy response to the struggles of cafés and restaurants, but it has been an outstanding success up and down the country.
Rob Roberts
I completely echo my hon. Friend’s sentiment about Eat Out to Help Out, which has provided over 30,000 meals in my Delyn constituency. I know that he has a background in furniture manufacturing, and I have some furniture manufacturers in my constituency. Does he have some ideas for things that could help the sector as it continues to recover?
Mark Eastwood
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. As it happens, I am coming on to my background in furniture. My background is in furniture manufacturing. Furniture and bedding have been at the forefront of Dewsbury’s manufacturing resurgence, employing hundreds of people across the constituency. Around 60% of the UK population sleep on something made in Dewsbury. [Laughter.] Interesting fact.
The British Furniture Confederation is soon to launch its “Buy British” campaign, urging consumers to buy the best, buy British and save jobs. This is an excellent campaign, which places a focus on the value of British manufacturing and highlights the importance of retaining these high-quality jobs. Every £1 million spent by consumers buying British furniture could secure an additional 50 manufacturing jobs and many more in retail. I therefore urge manufacturers and retailers, not just in furniture but in all industries, to consider taking up this campaign to get the public into shops, buying British goods and supporting jobs.
Furthermore, with the announcement of major capital projects, the Government could look at widening the scope of public sector contracts to assist British businesses through this period, whether through the supply of furniture, the provision of services or even stationery. That would assist companies such as Shackletons in my constituency, which employs more than 80 people and supplies high-quality furniture to the struggling care home sector. Its products could easily be supplied to the NHS and other social care facilities if the Government were to consider relaxing procurement frameworks. In addition, we could reduce barriers to innovation and look at reducing burdens on employers to encourage job retention. I look forward to seeing bold ideas from the Government to boost businesses, encourage employment and incentivise innovation.
Finally, the message that I would like to put out to the people of this country, and in my constituency is: buy the best, buy British and save jobs.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
These are deeply troubling times for the businesses and workers across the country who form the backbone of our economy and are looking to this Government to provide reassurances that they will continue to be supported, not cast aside as the recession worsens and we enter a potential second wave of the pandemic. The furlough scheme has been a welcome lifeline for many businesses. In my constituency of Ilford South, 17,500 people—a third of those in work—were furloughed at the peak of the crisis. The flipside is that a significant number could sadly be unemployed when the furlough scheme ends, with a cataclysmic knock-on impact in Ilford and across east London and Essex.
Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that between 10% and 20% of those currently on furlough will end up unemployed when the scheme ends. In my constituency, that would mean more than 4,500 people being thrown on the dole. Recently, the Bank of England predicted that a further 1 million more people will be unemployed by Christmas, with potential headline unemployment rising to more than 2.5 million.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is making some extremely good points. His constituency, like mine, will have on average something like 4,500 workers and business people who have received no support whatsoever from the Government since March. The excluded groups include those who have been self-employed for a short period and many others, as we know. Does he agree that it is right for the Government to compensate those people, who are struggling to put food on their tables right now, having had nothing throughout this whole crisis?
Sam Tarry
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Like him, I have had many constituents get in touch to raise exactly that point. Clearly the Government have been found wanting on that issue.
The Bank of England estimates that ending the furlough system before businesses have recovered from the first phase will lead to a total of 4.5 million unemployed. To put that into context, that is worse than the great depression of 1930s and will have a catastrophic effect on our nation’s finances. With half a million of those job losses predicted in Conservative-held seats, I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will join me in urging the Government to extend the supportive measures that are already in place.
We have already seen that our economy was the worst hit of all the major economies in the OECD. With both the CBI and the TUC calling for the furlough scheme to be continued to avoid such mass unemployment, will the Minister and the Government now listen to the united voices of business and unions, bosses and workers and change course before it is too late? This is not an unrealistic expectation; it is a practical necessity. Other European nations have already committed to long-term furlough schemes, which will give their economies a much better chance of bouncing back from the negative spiral they are already in. For example, Germany and France have both committed to supporting their workers up until 2022, so why cut our own jobs lifeline after just eight months?
This Government’s rationale—we have heard it from some colleagues on the Conservative Benches today—is that the furlough scheme has cost too much. We have invested only—in my view—£35 billion, which is a fraction of the £500 billion that was used to bale out our banks during the global financial crisis. The social and economic costs in many now Conservative-held seats would be catastrophic and incalculable. History shows us that once good skilled jobs are lost, they do not return in this country.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sam Tarry
I am sorry, but I will not on this occasion.
That is why we need an industrial strategy that protects jobs and enables businesses to recover while we restructure our economy to function in a way that benefits all of society and protects our environment. In that way, we can protect British jobs and give the people of this nation real hope for a better tomorrow, which is sadly lacking from this Conservative Government.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
May I begin my remarks by thanking the Labour party for bringing forward this motion for debate today? It has allowed Members from both sides of the House and across all parties to highlight the positive impact that has been felt by the massive measures that were introduced by the UK Government during this coronavirus pandemic and the positive impact that has been felt in constituencies the length and breadth of the country.
In Moray, 85,000 meals were served under the Eat Out to Help Out Scheme, 12,900 jobs were furloughed, 2,800 individuals were supported through the self-employed income support scheme, more than 1,000 bounce back loans totalling over £28.5 million were granted as well as 44 coronavirus business interruption loans. That has delivered more than £7 million in the Moray constituency alone. That is the support that we have seen from the UK Government, and I am extremely grateful for that.
Briefly, I want to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who is no longer in his place. I have raised the plight of the coach industry at Treasury questions. I know that this is a difficult issue and I know that Treasury Ministers have heard this case before, but Maynes of Buckie, who I have been doing a lot of work with, and groups across Scotland and the UK are looking for support for the coach industry and anything that can be done would be gratefully received.
I also want to highlight something that I have done in my first month as leader of the Scottish Conservatives. I made a pledge to produce a document for Scotland’s economic recovery and jobs recovery, which is so important during this pandemic and as we recover from it. I was disappointed that none of the suggestions that we put forward in our policy document—both short-term and long-term measures—were picked up by the Scottish National party. Indeed, the Scottish Government’s programme for government that was announced just a few weeks ago did not mention small businesses once. They did not include an education Bill, which is vital as we take our country forward, but, they did, of course, find the time to put in another referendum Bill to separate Scotland from the rest of the UK. That shows the priorities of the SNP during this pandemic and its lack of ambition for Scotland after 13 years of power.
Douglas Ross
The hon. Lady can shake her head, but when I intervened on her to ask her whether she agreed with the Scottish Government’s adviser to Nicola Sturgeon, she claimed it was because Scotland does not have enough powers at the moment. That adviser was specifically saying that the programme for government—the powers that Holyrood already has and that the SNP could use to rebuild Scotland’s economy and to get us going again—lacked ideas to bolster economic growth. That was the criticism of an adviser to the Scottish Government of the lack of ambition and lack of determination from the SNP after 13 years in power in Scotland to deliver for areas the length and breadth of the country. We need to move away from the separation and the division of the past and look more at the opportunities for Scotland in future. That is what I intend to do in this place and as leader of the Scottish Conservatives. I hope that others do that, too.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Last Saturday, I joined the climate change demonstration outside the Senedd in Cardiff, and today I stood alongside trade union colleagues outside Parliament at the launch of the SOS for jobs campaign. These two actions are inextricably linked. In the 1980s, under a previous Tory Government, my constituency of Cynon Valley suffered terrible job losses. We do not want to see this repeated. It is estimated that at least 2.5 million people in the UK will be out of work by the end of 2020, unless Government action is taken to prevent this.
The job retention scheme has shown what an active Government can do in a crisis. We now need a strategy for job protection and upskilling, as proposed by the TUC. Our workers want to move forward and see the change that is needed. As one of my constituents said to me recently, “We want to be manufacturing, and if that means changing the way we work, learning new skills, we’re ready for it. We want to be productive.”
There is a golden opportunity here to repurpose industry to address climate change and to support our public services. There have been 100,000 redundancies in local government in the last 10 years. We need more social care and NHS workers. What are the Government doing to address this? We could create 1.24 million jobs in two years, given adequate investment to develop the green economy. At the heart of this are workers and their families, and as one of our local innovation workers said, “I’ve always been prepared to learn new skills. I come from a mining background, but there are no pits left. That’s the past, but I now fear for the future.” That is the human cost of not investing.
Westminster can seem remote to the people of Wales, and we need to be where the people are. At the same time as caring about individual constituents, we are aware of the bigger picture. Wales’s aerospace generates £1.47 billion of gross value added for the Welsh economy. The UK has the largest offshore wind power generation network in Europe, but we do not manufacture a single wind turbine here in the UK. What a disgrace! When will the Government finally agree to establish a national council for recovery, involving Government, industry and unions to work together to develop a green industrial strategy?
To quote a previous Tory Prime Minister,
“You turn if you want to.”
Well, U-turns are something this Government are very adept at, and we need a U-turn from them now: extend the furlough scheme, trial a four-day week, invest in green energy and in our public services, and work with others to prepare an economic plan for jobs that gives our workers, their children, their communities and this planet hope for the future.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
A global leading response: just look beyond this country, and we see that this Government have delivered one of the most generous and comprehensive packages in the world, which is protecting jobs in Warrington South and around the UK with business grants, loans, rate relief, deferral of taxation, protecting people’s livelihoods and supporting businesses directly.
On Saturday, when I walked down London Road in Stockton Heath, businesses—large and small—came out to talk to me and, overwhelmingly, their response was positive. “Thank you, Chancellor,” is what they said. So how have the Government supported Warrington South? Let us start with Rishi’s dishes: 103,000 meals eaten in Warrington South, supporting pubs, cafés and restaurants—and, yes, I did enjoy it. There has been the furlough scheme supporting 15,400 incomes and the self-employed scheme supporting 3,200 homes, as well as the £126 million issued in CBILS and bounce back loans to businesses based in Warrington South. Having visited Warrington jobcentre last week, I want to pay a particular tribute to the team there who have made huge efforts to get universal credit out to those who need it quickly.
This Government’s support for business and employees is not ending, but it is important that we confront the realities of where we are today. We need to encourage employers to keep their employees on, so I fully support steps such as the job retention bonus scheme—a £1,000 bonus to every business for employees who were furloughed previously—and the kickstart scheme that kicks in to create job opportunities for young people. We need to get back to work and focus on providing new opportunities for people. Where jobs have gone, let us put all our efforts into helping those displaced get back into work. That is why I strongly support this Government’s plan for jobs. To those who argue for a sector-specific approach, I have one question: how exactly does that work—how far down the supply chain do we go?
Fortunately, the UK came into this crisis in an incredibly strong position. Warrington’s economy was one of the strongest in the north-west. Thanks to careful Conservative management of the economy over the last 10 years, we came into this crisis with public finances in a good position, which enables us to react strongly. But we should be clear that it is not sustainable to borrow at current levels in the long term. It is only right that, over the medium term, we get back to strong public finances.
Andy Carter
I will not, because I want to let other Members speak.
It is right that we get back to strong public finances and falling debt. It is not just the sensible thing to do economically; morally, it is the right thing to do.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I want to join my colleagues on the Government Benches and, indeed, the Opposition Benches in congratulating the Government on their generous and nimble support for industry in this economic crisis. It has been an extremely difficult time, but it would have been far worse if the Government had not intervened in the way that they have. As the trend is to give figures for our constituencies, I will tell the House that South Cambridgeshire has had 13,600 jobs furloughed—saved—and nearly £90 million in grants and loans to businesses. We also beat Warrington South, with 122,000 meals eaten out and enjoyed by people, including myself. I know from the emails and the talks I have had with businesses and pubs in my constituency that, for many of them, this support made the difference between them failing and thriving. Many of them are now looking forward to the future—we are not out of it yet, but people are a lot more positive.
It is a feature of crises that it is far more difficult politically to get out of them than to get into them, whether the lockdown restrictions or the economic support package. The Labour party has called for continued subsidies, but it will not say when those would end. That means that it is calling for subsidies without end, which means borrowing without end. I do not believe in borrowing without end, because we have to pay off the debt at some point, whether it is us, our children or our grandchildren.
Miriam Cates
None of us wants to see mass unemployment at the end of furlough scheme, but given that none of us knows how long this crisis and the restrictions will last, is it not better to shift our support from helping those who may otherwise lose their jobs to creating new jobs, taking advantage of the opportunities in our economy right now?
Anthony Browne
I absolutely agree—my hon. Friend has taken the words right out of my mouth. I believe, and the Conservative party believes, in sustainable national finances. Do the Opposition parties believe in that? If they do, they have to explain how they want to get there.
Anthony Browne
I will carry on.
We are at a time when we must look to the future, not try to preserve the past. The great Andrew Bailey, the new Governor of the Bank of England, said recently in an interview that the Chancellor is
“right to say we have to look forward now. I don’t think we should be locking the economy down in a state that it pre-existed in.”
The shape of the economy will change, as we have heard today. It will not be in the same shape in a few years as it is now. The companies and people working in the aviation sector face a very difficult time over the next few years. E-commerce, on the other hand, is thriving. We have seen airlines cutting jobs, but we have seen Amazon recruiting. Inner-city sandwich shops have been hit really hard and will be for some time as people carry on working from home. Supermarkets are thriving. Pret a Manger has cut 1,600 jobs, but Tesco has just announced that it is recruiting for 14,000 jobs.
The focus of Government should not be on “prolonging the inevitable”, as the chief economist of the Bank of England said. The focus of Government should be on helping with the transition, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) said, by helping the people who are losing their jobs into the new jobs that are being created. We must ensure that short-term unemployment does not move into long-term unemployment and that when people come out of work, they have relevant skills, motivation and contacts in industry. As soon as people become long-term unemployed—after six months or one year—they lose motivation and contacts, and the likelihood that their unemployment will carry on for much longer increases. That is why the Government are right to focus on their plan for jobs, through measures such as the kick- start scheme, support for apprenticeships, increased training and advice from Jobcentre Plus. That is the right approach.
Finally, many Members have been praising the international comparisons. We heard earlier the list of countries that have already announced the ending of their furlough schemes. I like statistics, and I have been looking at the Eurostat website, which is very good but could be a bit more user-friendly. The UK’s employment figures from Q2 to Q1—the key employment figures—dropped by 0.7%. That is after a very long period, and every job lost is bad news. However, Germany’s employment figures in Q2 to Q1 this year dropped by 1.4%, twice as much as the UK. In Ireland, the employment rate dropped by 6.1%, nine times faster than in the UK. In France—there seems to be a liking for France on the Labour Benches—there was a 2.6% drop in employment from Q2 to Q1, four times the rate here. We do not have that much to learn from the French employment market ,and I really do not think we should start doing so now.
Finally—[Interruption]—I want to say that Treasury Ministers have made the right decisions at the right time and I am confident they will in the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. There is no “finally”. “Finally” has to come before the end of three minutes—I am sorry.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—I appreciate that intervention! I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate on a very important subject.
We are living through unprecedented times with a massive health crisis. The economy will of course adapt and change, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said, but the question is what steps we ought to be taking to make sure that we protect people. Conservative Members have talked about sound finances and not extending debt too far, and the Thatcherite principles of the Conservative party. I have to tell them that they have not been paying attention, because the seats that the Conservative party won in December, particularly those in the north of England where I am from, were not promised a return to Thatcherite economics—they were promised redistribution. So I would say to the Conservatives: get with the programme.
Miriam Cates
The focus of the Government’s response has been largely towards those in the lowest income brackets represented by many of us. In fact, the group of people who have most benefited from the Government’s help are those in the lowest income decile. We have seen a huge redistribution of our country’s resources during this crisis.
Alison McGovern
Well, the hon. Lady should listen up, because if she thinks redistribution is important, then she should be aware that in the new seats that the Conservatives won at the election in December, there are half a million jobs at risk. If the Conservatives think that they can turn away from this issue as those people end up on the scrapheap, then they are very much mistaken.
We have heard London Tory MPs saying, “London is the powerhouse of the country—make sure London is all right and everyone else will be okay.” Again, I thought that the Conservative party was not about that any more; I thought that the Conservatives had mended their ways. Well, let us see: are they really going to vote to ignore those half a million jobs in the seats they won only in December? I would say to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire: beware headline statistics, because the employment rate, as he well knows, cannot describe the situation for places that went through wave after wave of deindustrialisation, and where the previous rounds of high levels of unemployment impact today on people’s skill levels, income and ability to mobilise capital in those places.
My greatest fear right now is for young people, because the labour market has memories. When the labour market has a negative shock like this that impacts on people who are working today and experiencing it, they will feel that shock for the rest of their career. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, employees aged 25 and under are about two and half times as likely to work in a sector that is now shut down as other employees. Those young people will live with this shock for the rest of their career. I say to the Minister: those young people in our country today will never, ever forget what this Government did. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that kickstart is disappointing and we need much better for young people.
Finally, on rebalancing, what should that really look like? Where I am from in Merseyside, devolution has been worth it for us and it is going well. Merseyside’s chief economist, Aileen Jones, has come up with a credible recovery plan that ought to be supported by the Government. Whether it is innovation or the new digital economy, we can do it. We just need the Tories to do what they said they would.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is absolutely right that we should be protecting jobs and businesses, and that is exactly what the Chancellor has been doing repeatedly throughout this crisis. As Conservatives, we are the responsible party of government and the natural stewards of the economy, and we have always been the party that has made the right decisions through difficult times. It was the Chancellor who stepped up and provide a lifeline to so many—so many individuals, businesses, their employees and the most vulnerable in society.
Of course, ending furlough is not easy, but it cannot go on. While the Labour party, through this motion, postures and virtue signals, the people who elect us understand that these interventions cannot continue. They understand that the bills must be paid. They understand that our economy must be allowed to find its feet again and that life must return to normal.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that as the Chancellor approaches the autumn statement, he is looking toward a future of sound, sustainable finance?
Saqib Bhatti
I absolutely agree and I am proud of the Government for putting ideology aside, but there is a reason that we are the only party that the British public entrusted with our economy. Therein lies the difference, because while we talk about sustainable public finances, Labour would like to see the people of this country reliant on the state forever with no end date, trying to sneak in socialism through the back door. Meanwhile, this Government are trying to work really hard to protect, support and create new jobs. If the Labour party wants to support businesses and protect jobs, they should support this Government and this Chancellor. This is the Chancellor who introduced the job retention bonus scheme so employers could bring back people from furlough. He introduced the £2 billion kickstarter scheme to get young people into six months of paid employment, with £2,000 for employers for each new apprentice under 25 and £1,500 for those over 25. He doubled the number of work coaches and invested £150 million in the flexible support fund to remove barriers to work.
Our furlough scheme was unprecedented. It went further than any country in the world and it was the right thing to do.
Patricia Gibson
We have heard much today on the Opposition side of the House about how generous the Chancellor has been with his support, but does the hon. Member not understand that when tens of thousands of jobs are being lost—jobs that would otherwise be viable with a bit of additional support—all this generosity is cold comfort when someone loses their job and potentially their home?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. If we look at the quantum of the package, it has helped to protect the economy at its most difficult time, and I will come on to that.
As a Conservative, I never thought that we would be in a position where we would pay up to 80% of anybody’s salary—80%—yet the Chancellor stepped up and did what needed to be done, not once but twice. Since then, 9.6 million people have been furloughed and £30.9 billion has been given to over 1.2 million businesses. It was rightly lauded as extraordinary, because extraordinary times need extraordinary measures.
But that was not the only measure. There was the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, the bounce back loan scheme, the rates relief, the business grants, the self-employed income support scheme, the mortgage holidays, the protection from evictions, rental holidays, tax deferrals, VAT cuts for hospitality and larger grants for the hospitality sector. These are just the ones that I can get in in a few breaths, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Rob Roberts
I thought I would give him a moment to catch his breath after listing all the interventions that we have provided. Does he agree that the Opposition are a bit rich to lecture us on not providing enough support, given all the things that he has just listed?
Saqib Bhatti
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. I remember that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) said that we would hear about it at the ballot box, but we have heard the British public’s verdict on the Labour party’s economic policy. We heard it in 2010, 2015 and 2017, and we heard it decisively in 2019. I will never forget the feeling of disbelief and deep disappointment that I had when I first read the note that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) left in the Treasury when Labour were last in Government, saying that there was no more money left. Thank God we are a far cry away from the recklessness that we saw under the last Labour Government, and that is why I will be opposing the motion.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti).
Protecting jobs and businesses has been a priority of the Government throughout the crisis. Let us not forget that more has been done to support the economy than ever before in this country, in response to the immeasurable challenge presented by the pandemic. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s coronavirus job retention scheme has helped protect more than 15,000 jobs in Redcar and Cleveland alone, with a further 4,600 people eligible for the self-employed income support scheme. That is almost 20,000 jobs protected, to say nothing of the thousands of businesses saved from collapse and the many thousands of families able to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads.
The job retention scheme was extended until the end of October, with the introduction of some flexibility to get employees back to work, as this is the safest choice for the nation’s health and our economy in the long term. Now, as we emerge from the pandemic, we must bring these schemes to an end, or risk delaying our economic recovery and causing even more damage to businesses and jobs. Through the furlough scheme, we have supported almost 10 million jobs, but we must accept the harsh reality that some of those jobs simply do not exist anymore. Indeed, even the Bank of England’s chief economist described extending the furlough scheme as “prolonging the inevitable”.
Covid has changed our world drastically. For many, our working style has changed, including for those of us in this House who now participate virtually and process through the Lobbies like one half of Noah’s ark. We have to face up to the consequences of telling people to work from home. When Sadiq Khan refuses to encourage people back into this great city, it means that businesses close and jobs are lost. Hospitality is still struggling, with Pret and Costa cutting jobs, yet the Mayor of London and the Leader of the Opposition refuse to encourage people to get back to work.
I am proud that the Government stepped in when people needed them most. Now, they are leading the charge to safely get the country back on track—back to trading, back to creating jobs, back to work. Millions are at risk of becoming unemployed as a result of the potential economic standstill if we continue to suffocate our economy. Rather than squashing growth and keeping jobs in suspension, we are focused on encouraging consumers to create that economic activity, with the eat out to help out scheme, the green homes grant and the stamp duty cut. Our steps do not suspend jobs; they create jobs. There is so much more potential for job creation in emerging sectors such as decarbonisation. This is our chance to build on the environmental benefits of the lockdown and promote a green economy.
Nothing protects jobs and businesses more than a Government who are right behind them every step of the way, from weathering the pandemic to helping them create the opportunities of the future. Our Conservative Government—the people’s Government—are doing just that.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The reserves have run out, the fundraising has dried up, and vital support never arrived for our vital community and voluntary sector. It is estimated by Pro Bono Economics that 60,000 jobs will be lost from our charities. The organisations that stepped up in the crisis are now in crisis and need the Government to step up. Already, 6,500 jobs are registered as being lost. On top of that, many small organisations will be losing the ones and twos that never hit the headlines. However, the pain for those organisations is as great. We think about animal welfare charities having to pay vet bills and feed animals. We think about medical research charities that are seeing a 41% drop in funding. The result is that the cancer plan is delayed, treatments are delayed and vital treatments are not provided. That is our loved ones not being cared for. This is what charities do day in, day out.
The withdrawal of the furlough scheme will be devastating for this sector, which has depended on it so much. There is no money coming in. We need a solution.
Rachael Maskell
I wish to continue.
When talking about large organisations, from the Southbank Centre to Oxfam and the National Trust, we must also remember the small organisations. It is estimated that 90% of black, Asian and minority community organisations will be gone by the end of the financial year. If we think of what has just happened across this country, it is clear that we need those organisations. The Government need to step up and ensure that they are there.
The sector is calling for an extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme with greater flexibility; a gift aid emergency relief package; the repurposing of the national fund, which is worth £500 million, to allow access to support charities and services; the effective and efficient distribution of the shared prosperity fund; and the creation of a community wealth fund using dormant assets. It is crucial that is brought forward now, before it is too late.
If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to raise one issue concerning my constituency. We will be the second worst hit constituency in the country, and therefore we need some action now. While the Government have supported the BioYorkshire plan, which will create 4,000 jobs, they are tying that up in a devolution deal. I therefore urge the Government to bring that funding forward so that we can provide that safety net now to stop us moving into an unemployment crisis in York, which no one in this House wants to see. The Minister could solve that problem for us.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The breadth and scale of the support package put in place by the Government is genuinely unprecedented, whether in times of war, disease or global recession. In Dudley South, nearly 12,000 of my constituents have been supported through the job retention scheme, and 2,500 more have been supported through the self-employment income support scheme. Without such measures, thousands more of my constituents and millions of workers around the country would have lost their jobs. Whereas the last Labour Government chose to bail out the bankers, this Government have decided that the real priority is to back working people around the country, and that is something of which I am extremely proud.
We now need people back at work and the economy growing so that those jobs can be genuinely protected and sustainable in the medium and long term. It is not just a matter of sandwich shops and coffee bars losing out when large numbers of workers are away from the office and the factory for so long. We live and work in an interconnected economy where all parts of it rely on other sectors. One of the main factors limiting order books for manufacturers and other businesses in my constituency is the fact that so much of the economy is performing below normal capacity, and that impacts on supply chains. The longer that many jobs are furloughed, the less likely those jobs are to be there and to be sustainable whenever the furlough scheme ends, and that is why it is not appropriate to have an indefinite extension of the scheme.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member is very courteous to give way. I too pay tribute to the furlough scheme, which has been very helpful to businesses in my constituency. I am the chair of the Excluded UK all-party parliamentary group. Other Members have made this point already, but does he agree that the APPG would not have happened had it not been for support from the Government Benches? It would be helpful if we could have a meeting with Ministers from the Treasury to discuss constructively how we might be able to help the people who have been missed out.
Mike Wood
I obviously will not answer on behalf of Ministers as to their availability for meetings, but for those who fell outside these extensive schemes, I think they more than anybody need the economy to be moving back towards a state approaching normality, because that is where their sustainable income comes from. The quicker we can do that, the better it is for them.
While it would not be appropriate to have an indefinite extension of the furlough scheme—I do not think furlough is even a medium-term solution—there are some parts of the economy where there are particular needs for support. The measures announced earlier this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for businesses that are told to shut and for individuals who are made to self-isolate are extremely welcome. I do hope that Ministers will look at what measures other than furlough might be appropriate for those businesses when legislative requirements mean that they cannot operate or cannot operate economically —we have heard about theatres and live events—or where ongoing regulations mean that demand has simply being taken away. For some parts of the tourism and travel sector, for example, quarantine measures mean that their customer base is not there at all. Businesses across the economy would not have survived the last six months without the innovative support that has been put in place by the Chancellor. I thoroughly welcome that, but now we need to build the economy for a sustainable future.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I think most of us agree that we are facing a triple whammy at the moment, with a public health crisis in the guise of covid, an economic crisis in which Brexit has already cost our economy billions of pounds, and climate change, which will eventually cost us a lot and is currently costing lives as well as other things that the Treasury may not be making a record of. That is certainly an expensive project as well. We are in a recession. We know that GDP fell by 20.4% in the second quarter of 2020—that is 20.4%, not 2.4%—which is the largest confirmed fall of any economy in Europe and the G7, so we are facing really tough times.
I spent the summer visiting food banks—like many other Members, I am sure—and I would like to put on record my praise for the volunteers who run the Campsbourne Primary School food bank, which is providing desperately needed food for many families in Hornsey. I also want to mention another fantastic service, which is an innovation I hope others can look to. It is called Connected Communities, and it is local authority-based but works closely with the voluntary sector to pick up hard-to-reach groups of people who are not digitally aware.
Danny Kruger
I want to echo my support for those sorts of organisations and to follow on from what the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said about the charity sector. I sympathise very much with what both hon. Members are saying about support for these organisations. Does the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) acknowledge that the Government made £750 million available for small grass-roots charities to help them to get through the covid crisis?
Catherine West
Indeed. No one on this side of the Chamber is saying that any of that money was not very much called for. There was a tiny bit of wastage, according to the Select Committee findings that I read yesterday, but I hope that, over time, the Treasury will get rid of the £3.5 billion wastage.
I have some asks for my constituency and I have my figures here. I am a London MP, and many Members who know London will be aware that Muswell Hill ward is not considered to be a low-income place. Unfortunately, however, it has seen an increase of 300% in jobseeker’s allowance and universal credit claimants. The neighbouring Fortis Green ward, which is also considered quite an expensive and well-to-do part of my constituency, is facing a 234% increase in the number of people signing on. Alexandra ward is home to the famous and beautiful Alexandra Palace exhibition hall, the former home of the BBC, and it is a lovely part of my constituency. It has seen a 220% increase in the number of people claiming jobseeker’s allowance and universal credit. The difference between this recession and the 2008 global financial crash is the impact that this one has had across the economy.
Lots of people are very well paid when they are in work, but because they are self-employed, they are suffering exponentially. What are my asks? First. I am asking for sector-specific schemes for workers, so that we can look at the self-employed and particularly those in the creative sector. Secondly, I am asking for specific help for people who, for example, have a small business and are helping several of their employees to manage but have not had anything back for themselves. In conclusion—
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
The purpose of today, and the theme of so many of the contributions that we have heard, is the need—now so desperately urgent—for the Government to change course and move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. To secure a better future for working people and businesses across our country, we need a targeted extension of the furlough arrangements for the sectors that face the biggest challenges in the months ahead. So many Labour Members have raised their constituents’ concerns. Although time constraints mean that it is not practical for me to name them all, the House will have heard their call, and Labour’s call, for the Government to change course.
We have also heard from many Government Members. Some Conservative Members have been prepared to say on the airwaves that Ministers should think again, and we heard from the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) about that today. However, with so many jobs at risk and so many sectors in trouble, I find it extraordinary to witness such a level of complacency, from so many of the Conservative Members who are here today, about so many jobs in parts of our economy that face very difficult months ahead.
We have had a lot of statistics today, but we can have some more. In Burnley, there are 3,050 jobs in sectors hard hit by the pandemic, across aviation, manufacturing, restaurants and car manufacturing; in Bury North, there are 2,420 jobs in restaurants, pubs and clubs, hospitality and tourism; in Keighley, there are 3,700 in restaurants, pubs and clubs and childcare; and there are so many more. People in all those constituencies, and people in similar sectors in constituencies across our country, will wonder why the Government simply do not seem to want to listen.
Rob Butler
May I ask the hon. Lady for one more statistic? How many months or years does she feel the furlough scheme should be extended for?
Bridget Phillipson
It is always a delight to hear from Conservative Members who think that the Opposition should make those kinds of decisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Chancellor, has set out very clearly that we will work with Government to design a scheme that can be targeted more at the sectors of our economy that are in trouble, but only Ministers have access to all the data that can best point us to how the scheme could properly work.
Internationally, we are an outlier in our response. We are far from through this crisis, and it would be a mistake to pull away support prematurely. Doing so will damage our economy in the long run and hit world-leading sectors of our economy. We should not make that mistake, and we urge Ministers to work with us and to think again.
It is not just the Labour party that is urging the Government to change course and provide for such a targeted extension; the TUC and the CBI take the same view, and we even hear from The Daily Telegraph that it is far too soon to be ending furlough. Indeed, with every passing day, it is becoming harder to find people—apart from Conservative Members—outside No. 11 Downing Street who believe that the Treasury has got this right.
Aside from the furlough extension, the Minister has again shirked the opportunity to address the gaps in the schemes. The shadow Chancellor has consistently pressed the Chancellor for support for those who, through no fault of their own, have fallen through the gaps of the schemes that were designed to provide employment support—the excluded. Perhaps they are employees who were changing jobs. Perhaps their business has a high street presence that does not qualify for rate relief. Perhaps they have only this year moved from employment to self-employment. Perhaps they are in one of those situations and their partner is in another.
We understand that these are difficult decisions to get right, but the Government have had six months. Today we heard yet again the same reply about what they mean to do for those people. They have done nothing, they are doing nothing and they propose to do precisely nothing. In the years ahead, Conservative Members may discover that many of their electors have longer memories than they would like.
None of these arguments is one to which the Opposition have come lately or had a belated conversion. Quite the contrary; inside and outside this House, we have spent months calling on the Government to fix the shortcomings in their schemes. The shadow Chancellor has been absolutely clear that we are more than willing to work with the Government, with businesses and with trade unions to get this right.
I will not be able to quote every remark, because time is limited, but I will remind the House how often, and for how long, we have urged the Government to get a grip, change course and, above all, bring in a targeted extension of furlough. On 19 April, the shadow Chancellor said:
“Our main concern right now is that a number of those programmes are not fulfilling the promise that has been placed on them”
On 20 April, I said that the date set for the introduction of the scheme still set aside many workers. On 3 May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the shadow Business Secretary, urged a second wave of support, including where necessary an extension of the furlough scheme. On 12 May, the shadow Chancellor warned again of our concerns, and again on 23 May. On 30 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), the shadow Transport Secretary, was already drawing attention to how often we have been making this point:
“Labour has consistently called for an extension to the furlough in the most impacted industries”.
On 15 July, the Leader of the Opposition made the same points to the Prime Minister, warning that
“the decision…not to provide sector-specific support to those most at risk could end up costing thousands of jobs.”—[Official Report, 15 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1509.]
On 28 July, he added:
“We need a targeted extension of the furlough scheme for the hardest-hit sectors and proper support in place to help those who are unemployed back into work.”
It is not simply the Opposition who believe that a targeted scheme would be better value for money. The Government’s own civil servants required ministerial direction before pursuing the Chancellor’s poorly targeted job retention bonus. The Chancellor himself has accepted that there will be a deadweight cost that might stretch into the billions, yet the amendment in his name today suggests that any deviation from existing Government policy will cause damage to the UK economy. The self- confidence is breathtaking. Does the Chancellor really believe that his Government have got everything right? It is a pity that he has not graced us with his presence today to make that argument himself. The language of infallibility is not helpful to families who fear for their jobs. Persistence may be a virtue; obstinacy in the face of all evidence is not.
The frustration that people in this country feel at the Government’s refusal to listen, understand and engage is growing all the time. The Government amendment is clear that the man in Downing Street knows best. That is not the sense shared by many businesses and workers right across our country. People do not expect handouts, but they do expect fairness. They expect that in their hour of need the Government will not abandon them, their families or their businesses. The Chancellor has shown all summer that he is not prepared to engage with the concerns of businesses in sectors facing the toughest challenges now and in the months to come.
But what matters is not the Chancellor’s persistence in sticking to decisions made in March. What matters most is a secure future for Britain’s firms and Britain’s families. Today we have again seen the Chancellor’s stubbornness holding Britain back—holding back our people and holding back our economy. It is not too late. I urge Conservative Members, especially those who have only recently arrived in this place, to think of the conversations that they must have had, as I have, with local businesses worried about the months ahead and with families fearful for their jobs, and to back this motion.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of Government. I thank hon. and right hon. Members across the House for their varied and considered contributions. The Government have worked closely with colleagues across the House to help to define the interventions that we have made. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for Moray (Douglas Ross) for making further constructive contributions today.
I think I can discern four themes on which to base my remarks. First, many colleagues have referenced the support from the schemes that the Government have introduced over recent months. The Government have acted decisively to protect people’s livelihoods and support businesses, with what has been one of the most generous and comprehensive responses in the world. The Government have supported people, businesses and our public services with over £190 billion. The OBR and the Bank of England agree that the actions that we have taken in the first phase of our response have helped to safeguard millions of jobs and that without them there would have been far worse outcomes. The OBR has said that the positive action that the Government have taken
“should…help to limit any long-term economic ‘scarring’, by keeping workers attached to firms and helping otherwise viable firms stay in business.”
At the heart of today’s debate is the fact we have supported more than 9.6 million furloughed workers and 2.6 million self-employed individuals through our schemes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) and others recognised. We have helped millions of the most vulnerable people in the country, with a more generous welfare system, a hardship fund and financial support through mortgage and credit payment holidays. We have intervened to reduce income losses faced by working households by up to two thirds, with the poorest working households protected the most—a point that was welcomed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb). We have produced extensive support schemes, working with businesses, with tax cuts, tax deferrals, direct cash grants and an extensive programme of loan schemes. I will be happy to engage with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) on the specific concerns they raised about various schemes.
Of course, the direct cash grants to businesses that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has just announced will give businesses either £1,000 or £1,500, depending on rateable value, for each three-week period that they are closed. That will provide vital support to closed businesses throughout the difficult but temporary experience of local lockdown—measures that have been urged by colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) throughout these difficult weeks.
John Glen
I am sorry; I will not be taking interventions, given the shortness of the time.
The second theme that I want to draw out is that, in response to the unfolding tragedy of people losing their jobs, the Government have announced a specific plan for jobs. We are one of the first countries in the world to do so. The plan for jobs protects, creates and supports jobs. We introduced the Eat Out to Help Out scheme—another scheme that Treasury officials had to issue a ministerial direction for—and temporarily reduced the rate of VAT on tourism and hospitality. Doing so supported millions of jobs in some of our most jobs-rich industries.
To create jobs, we are driving growth in the housing sector by increasing the stamp duty threshold temporarily to £500,000, creating green jobs with the green homes grant, and providing billions of pounds of capital investment. To support jobs, just last week we launched the kickstart scheme to subsidise the most vulnerable category of 16 to 24-year-olds. In addition, we have been providing employment support schemes, training and apprenticeships, and providing the extra support of job coaches in jobcentres.
The third theme I want to draw out from the contributions today is the furlough scheme. The furlough scheme will have run for eight months by the time it closes, and it has supported millions of people and their families. It is right to say that it is one of the most generous schemes in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards) mentioned, ending the scheme is the right thing to do. On Monday, the chief economist of the Bank of England agreed, saying that to maintain it in its current form would not help either individuals or businesses.
Although I have heard the arguments at a high level for a targeted or sector-specific furlough scheme, I have heard no clear, satisfactory answer to the questions the Chief Secretary posed earlier about which sectors would not be provided with furlough, how we would treat and define supply chains, and when such a scheme would end. Of course, we are not ending our support for furloughed employees; the job retention bonus scheme provides an incentive for businesses that bring employees back from furlough to do meaningful work and ensures that they are supported as the economy gets going. As my right hon. Friend set out, the bonus represents a significant sum that will be vital particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, which make up 95% of the employers that have claimed for furlough grants and 60% of furloughed workers.
The final thing that I want to emphasise is that our comprehensive and generous economic response has required us to significantly increase our levels of borrowing. In the short run, that has been absolutely the right strategy so that we can protect jobs and incomes, support businesses and drive the recovery, but over the medium term it is clearly not sustainable to continue borrowing at these levels. We will need to return to strong public finances where our debt is in a more sustainable position.
With Government debt now exceeding the size of the UK economy for the first time in more than 50 years, even small changes could be hugely damaging. Thankfully, we were in a strong fiscal position coming into this crisis, which allowed us to act quickly and decisively without hesitation to support jobs and businesses. The difficulties we now face remind us once again that sound public finances are not an optional extra; they are the foundation of a good economic policy.
The Government certainly are not saying “job done”. We know that there is more we need to do to protect jobs and businesses, and today’s debate has helped us to focus on some of the future ideas and solutions.
The economic challenges that we face are extraordinary and unique in our history, but the Government have been proceeding since March with a clear plan to address those challenges. We are providing one of the most comprehensive economic responses to the coronavirus of any country in the world, and we are determined to do everything we can, not just to get through and recover the economy, but to rebuild a better, fairer and prosperous economy, as we deliver on our governing mission to level up and unite the country. That is why we are supporting the Government amendment this afternoon.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Apologies to the 56 Members who did not get in on this debate today. We will now put the original question to the House.
Question put, (Standing Order No. 31(2), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 329.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am going to suspend the House for three minutes, so that we can sanitise both Dispatch Boxes. Please do not move around during this period.
Awarding of Qualifications: Role of Ministers
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 327 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Deputy Speaker
There has been a lot of interest in this debate, and a limit of three minutes will be put on Back-Bench speeches during it.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give a direction to Her Ministers to provide all correspondence, including meeting notes, minutes, submissions and electronic communications, involving Ministers and Special Advisers pertaining to the process of awarding qualifications in GCSE, A-Level and NVQs in 2020 and 2021 by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education to the Education Select Committee.
Today’s debate follows a chaotic summer of distress and dismay for young people, their families and their teachers. The system for awarding examination grades that the Secretary of State for Education put in place left thousands of young people devastated. When they received their results, they felt that they had been robbed of the opportunities they deserved by a flawed algorithm that the Secretary of State had pushed for. As events unfolded, the scale of the Government’s incompetence became obvious. Less than two days before the A-level results, new grounds for appeal were announced, ones that Ofqual has since said were never going to be workable. On results day itself, the Prime Minister and Secretary of State insisted the system was robust, even as it was unravelling around them. Two days after, the Secretary of State said there would be “no U-turn, no change”, but days later a U-turn was made. After days of campaigning by students, their families and the Labour party, the Government accepted that students should be awarded their centre-assessed grades. That was the right decision, but this shambles is no way to run a country.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Given that the Welsh Labour Government took identical steps in Wales, does the hon. Lady share the same opinion about their Administration?
Kate Green
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman asked that question, because initially the Welsh Labour Government intended to rely on the AS-levels, which, of course, they could do because, unlike in England, AS-levels had continued in Wales. However, we have a national, UK-wide university system, so I very much welcomed the consistency of decision across Wales, England and Scotland to ensure that students from Scotland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales could all access universities throughout the UK.
Today’s debate is not simply about the Government’s policy and their inability to govern competently; it is also about integrity and process. It is about what the Prime Minister knew, what the Secretary of State knew and when they knew it. It is about why, when faced with concerns about their chosen system, they did not do anything to address them. Our motion is not about scoring party political points; most of all it is about transparent government and learning from the mistakes that were made this year so that they are not made again in future. That is why I hope all Members from all parties will support the motion. As constituency MPs, we all know that what has happened since August has shattered confidence in this Government among young people, their families and educational professionals.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
In the spirit of co-operation across the Chamber, I am sure that we all want to do the right thing for the class of 2021, so does Labour want the exams to be later next year to give more time for tuition?
Kate Green
Yes indeed we do, but the Government need to start to plan that now so that markers can be recruited, schools can schedule their learning and teaching and UCAS and universities can plan their admissions process. We still do not have a clear decision from the Government.
The collapse in confidence must be addressed, because only if confidence is in place will we make a success of the reopening of our education settings and the exams to come in the academic year that is just starting, as the right hon. Gentleman mentions. The mistakes that were made this summer must be understood and learned from, and they must not be repeated.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
As a dad of two kids, one of whom went through GCSEs and one of whom went through A-levels this year, I understand massively the disruption that was caused to families and especially to the young people looking to their futures. Does the hon. Lady agree that, looking to the future, the Secretary of State should show humility, listen to the teaching profession and learn, and he should understand that all-or-nothing exams next spring are a huge risk to our young people, particularly given the crisis we might be in then? Is it not better to assess along the way, as many teachers are telling us would be far wiser?
Kate Green
Over the past few weeks, we have seen the danger—indeed, the folly—of having put all the eggs into one single, end-of-year final-examination basket. That innovation was, of course, introduced under the current Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
We can learn from the mistakes of the summer only if the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister come clean, and today I offer them the chance to do so. Last week, Ofqual gave evidence to the Education Committee about how the decision to cancel exams and award grades by algorithm was taken. I am concerned that there is some inconsistency between Ofqual’s version of events and statements that the Secretary of State made to this House, so will he put the facts on the record today? I am sure he will seize the opportunity to do so.
First, will the Secretary of State explain to the House how the decision to cancel exams and use calculated grades was taken? Roger Taylor, chair of Ofqual, told the Select Committee that Ofqual first advised Ministers back in March that its preference was to hold socially distanced exams; failing that to delay exams; or, if necessary, to award a teacher certificate, rather than using a system of calculating grades. Roger Taylor also said:
“It was the Secretary of State who then subsequently took the decision and announced, without further consultation with Ofqual, that exams were to be cancelled and a system of calculated grades was to be implemented.”
Will the Secretary of State now make clear to the House when he took the decision to cancel exams in 2020? What other options were presented to him? Why did he reject them? Is Roger Taylor right to say that the Secretary of State made that decision unilaterally, without further consultation with Ofqual? In his statement to the House last week, the Secretary of State said:
“Ofqual had put in place a system for arriving at grades that was believed to be fair and robust.”—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 42.]
Of course, it turned out to be anything but, but is it really right to say that Ofqual put the system in place, or was it done because of the Secretary of State’s decision? If so, he needs to take responsibility for the consequences, which he had been warned about. Ofqual said that as early as 16 March, it warned the Department for Education that, to quote its evidence to the Select Committee
“it would be challenging, if not impossible, to attempt to moderate estimates in a way that’s fair for all this year’s students. Everyone, throughout the process, was aware of the risks.”
A former senior official in the Department for Education, Sir Jon Coles, also met the Secretary of State weeks before results day to raise concerns about the approach adopted. Will the Secretary of State tell the House when that meeting took place, what concerns were raised and what action he took as a result of it? The Minister for School Standards told the House on Monday that the problem was simply passed over to Ofqual to deal with, but does the Secretary of State accept that, ultimately, he is responsible for the chaos that followed?
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Lady is clearly a fan of reviewing the events of the past few weeks with the benefit of hindsight. In that spirit, would she also like to review her own party’s equivocation about getting students back into the classroom?
Kate Green
I have always been clear, and the leader of the Labour party has always been clear, that students must return to class this September, and we are very pleased that the vast majority of schools have returned and children have returned to the classroom. The important task for the Secretary of State now is to keep them there. We must all be concerned, I believe, about the very swift picture we are seeing of children being sent home because of outbreaks. In the absence of a reliable and rapid testing and tracing system, schools are placed in an impossible position.
Kate Green
No, I will carry on if the hon. Member will forgive me, because others will want to speak.
Kate Green
I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend and then from the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), because, as he knows, I respect all colleagues from all parts of the House. If he will forgive me, I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend first and then of course I will take one from him. Then, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you would like me to progress a little.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I have this afternoon received an email from a senior leader in my constituency who faces having a member of staff, who has been instructed to self-isolate, waiting, worried and unable to get a test until next Thursday. Is there not a danger that schools will be forced to close not necessarily because of an outbreak, but because of the failure of the testing system?
Kate Green
Yes. This is the test that the Government have to pass; otherwise we will see thousands of children up and down the country unable to stay in class as the Secretary of State wants them to—I know he does—as I want them to, and as teachers and parents want them to.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Lady is most generous and has always been so. She made a comment earlier about perhaps sitting exams this summer. She has just taken an intervention on and commented on the fact that it is difficult having children back in school. This is a very different scenario to where we were in March, so there is a certain amount of hindsight. Does she accept that at the moment those decisions were being taken, we were facing a very different picture—one that seems to be proven by the fact that people are worried about children going back to school at this stage, let alone in March?
Kate Green
I accept how difficult it was to predict the way in which the pandemic would open out in March and to decide on a course of action, and it is important that we understand how those decisions were taken, but what is not acceptable—
Kate Green
No, I will not—I am going to make some progress.
What is not acceptable is that we ended up in a system of utter chaos when results were declared: chaos that was deeply demoralising—indeed, devastating—for many young people.
Ofqual told the Secretary of State that No. 10 was briefed before A-level results day—told about the risks to outlier students and to schools that were improving, and about the benefits to small cohorts such as independent school students. So is it true that No. 10 was aware of these concerns well in advance of results being published, and if so, why did the Prime Minister fail to do anything about them? Time and again, it seems, both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister were warned about injustices that the system would throw up but failed to address the problems. That is not to say that Ofqual was perfect, although the Secretary of State forced it into an impossible position. Ofqual must know that there are lessons to be learned and commit to learning them. That is why it is reassuring to see it commit to releasing all the data used in the qualifications process this year to independent researchers. Will the Secretary of State today give a similar commitment?
Kate Green
Nobody has said that centre-assessed grades are perfect. On the day that the Leader of the Opposition called for them, he acknowledged that problem, but we were in such an extreme situation at that point, where it was vital to put the best interests of young people first. It took days and days of agony and anguish for those young people and their families before the Secretary of State made the right decision.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech concentrating on A-level results, but weeks after the A-level issue was resolved, I still had BTEC students who had not received their grades. We talk about lessons to be learned in 2021, but what about the BTEC students who deserve some justice now?
Kate Green
My hon. Friend speaks for the constituents of hon. Members all around the House. Indeed, I expect that we may hear some examples of that in the course of the debate. Those students had a particularly difficult experience waiting for further re-marking of their awards, and I think it was only last week that the Secretary of State said that they would all be expected finally to receive their results.
We also need to be clear today about the decision-making process that led to the announcement a few days after A-level results day to award students their centre-assessed grades. In his evidence to the Select Committee, Roger Taylor said that that decision was taken by Ofqual. Can the Secretary of State confirm who made the decision to award the CAGs? Did he do it or was it Ofqual? Is it right that Ofqual did not agree with the Secretary of State’s policy to allow appeals based on mock results, believing that that would not be credible?
While responsibility for decision making appears to have been complex and confused, there is no confusion when it comes to who carried the can for the failure. In the aftermath of this fiasco, the chief regulator of Ofqual and the permanent secretary at the Department for Education were forced to resign—but in our democracy it is Ministers, not officials, who are accountable.
Kate Green
No, I will not. [Interruption.] I will not give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
It was repeated incompetence right at the heart of this Government that led to this year’s exams scandal. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) were a member in my class, I would send him to see the head now. A Prime Minister and a Secretary of State who refused for months to listen to concerns pushed ahead with a system that unravelled in a matter of hours. While the eventual U-turn to accept CAGs was welcome, and indeed necessary, it cannot undo the devastating impact on young people on results day. Those who feared losing their university place completely, or who now have to wait a year to take up the opportunities that they deserve, have to live with the serial incompetence of the Government.
Today the Secretary of State can begin to make amends and restore the confidence of young people, their families and teachers, as can all Members of this House, including those on the Government Benches. All they have to do is vote for a motion to provide the public with the transparency they have a right to expect and to ensure that there is no repetition of the mistakes in future.
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The House is aware that, earlier this year, the Government took the difficult decision to close schools and colleges and cancel the summer exams because of the covid-19 outbreak. It was not a decision that was taken lightly. It was taken only after serious discussions with a number of parties, including, in particular, the exam regulator, Ofqual. This virus has propelled not just this country but the rest of the world into uncharted territory. We have had to respond, often at great speed, to find the best way forward, given what we knew about the virus at the time. Although the procedure that we put in place to award exam results was changed, I am pleased that students have now received, for GCSEs, AS-levels and A-levels as well as for vocational and technical qualifications, the results that they deserve and that they are in a position to be able to progress to the next stage of their lives. Let me turn to the motion tabled by the Opposition.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I say to the Secretary of State that now is the time to look to the future to ensure that adequate places are available on all those courses that were oversubscribed this year. I am speaking on behalf of all the students of Northern Ireland who come to universities here on the mainland. Perhaps now is the time to look at that matter.
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. More than a third of students from Northern Ireland come to study in Great Britain, and it is important to ensure that students from all parts of the United Kingdom have those opportunities. It is something that I shall come on to later in the debate. I wish to put on record my thanks to Peter Weir, the Education Minister, who has done so much and worked so closely with us as we tackled some of these issues, including making sure that places were available for youngsters so that they had the maximum amount of opportunity when they came to make their decisions about universities.
I want to turn to the motion tabled by the Opposition. As Members of this House will know, policy can be made only through open discussion between Ministers, their advisers and departmental officials. This motion fundamentally undermines that. Officials must be able to give advice to Ministers in confidence. I am appearing in front of the Education Committee in person next Wednesday, and I will commit now to working with its members to provide the information that they request wherever it is possible.
Today, I will set out the process that was followed once the exams were cancelled back in March. In the absence of exams, we needed to come up with a robust and fair system that accurately reflected the work and abilities of each individual student. In a written statement on 23 March, I explained that the process would be based on teacher judgments, as teachers know their students best, but that other relevant data such as prior attainment would also be taken into account.
On 31 March, I directed the regulator to work with the exam boards to develop a process for providing calculated grades for 2020 and to hold an exam series as soon as reasonably possible after schools and colleges fully opened again—that is the autumn exam series that we have put in place. My letter stated that the grades submitted by centres should be standardised and that the national grade distribution should follow a similar pattern to previous years as far as possible. I also requested that students should have a right of appeal where there are errors in the process. I issued a second direction letter to Ofqual on 9 April regarding vocational and technical qualifications. From that point on, Ofqual began to develop a process for arriving at calculated grades.
At the beginning of April, Ofqual published a policy document on awarding grades for GCSEs and A and AS-levels, which was followed by a two-week public consultation, to which more than 12,700 responses were received.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Just to track back a tiny bit, was the Secretary of State’s system what Ofqual suggested to him as the best system?
Gavin Williamson
Ofqual, quite understandably, suggested that exams were the best system of assessment. I think that everyone on the Government Benches would agree that exams are the best form of assessment, but we have to remember the situation in March. We were in the grip of a global pandemic and had to shut down every school in the country. If the hon. Lady takes a look at the advice Ofqual gave, she will see that it clearly recognised that if schools were to close and there was no normal-running schooling system, it would not be feasible to run an exam system. Given that, we had to come up with an alternative, and that is what we asked Ofqual to do—to come up with a series of alternatives that we could proceed with.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend feel that it was helpful, at the point when everybody agreed we should seek to run the independently moderated exams that grades depended upon, that the National Education Union advised its members not to participate in online teaching, making it absolutely certain that the vast majority of children would not get a fair crack of the whip?
Gavin Williamson
There was a challenge there. As my hon. Friend points out, the National Education Union advised its members not to participate in remote teaching, which was a shame, but I am pleased to report that hundreds of thousands of teachers ignored the advice and made sure it happened and that children could benefit from it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I think the Secretary of State has just contradicted himself. He said that exams were the best form of assessment and then said that in a disrupted education system exams clearly cannot deliver. Why, then, will he not consider a broader based assessment that draws on the talents of all children and tests their skills in many different ways, as educational experts recommend?
Gavin Williamson
We have always believed that exams are the best form of assessment, but it was not possible to run exams in May or June, so we had to come up with alternatives.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), if that is the case, the crucial issue—and I speak as a year 11 parent—is the planning for next year. Parents’ deep concern is that the lessons from the mistakes made have not been learned and that we are walking into a crisis next June. Will he please take that into account and provide the necessary support?
Gavin Williamson
It is recognised on both sides of the House, I think, that children in years 11 and 13 are among those who have suffered the most severe disruption. I speak as a year 11 parent myself. We are very conscious of that—Annabel reminds me of it regularly.
Gavin Williamson
If the hon. Lady will allow me to make some progress, I am sure I will make time for her to share her views and opinions.
On 22 May, Ofqual published its decisions. The key principle of using a statistical standardisation approach was supported by 89% of those who responded to Ofqual’s consultation. It is important to remember that similar approaches to awarding qualifications following the cancellation of exams were put in place in Scotland, which, as we are all aware, has an SNP Administration, in Wales, which, as we are all aware, has a Labour-Liberal Democrat Administration, and in Northern Ireland, which, as we are all aware, has a DUP-Sinn Féin Administration. All four nations reached the same policy conclusion about the best and fairest approach for awarding qualifications.
Between April and August, the detail of Ofqual’s model for awarding grades without examinations was developed by the Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation and by other assessment experts in conjunction with it. It was vital that the model was seen to be fair, and we were reassured by Ofqual that it was. We explored issues, including whether disadvantaged students and other groups such as black, Asian and minority ethnic students would be treated fairly by the model. Information on this was shared at the public symposium held by Ofqual on 21 July, which made it clear that the standardisation process was not biased.
After the publication of the Scottish results on 4 August, we again sought reassurance from Ofqual about the fairness of the model. The Department also rapidly considered a number of options to reduce the risk of a similar loss of public confidence happening in England.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way on that very point. How does he reconcile the two statements he has just made? On the one hand, he talked about reconciling the model, looking at its potential implications and considering that it was fair, and on the other hand, earlier in his remarks or certainly earlier in the debate, we heard that the small groups of students who tend to be in independent schools were likely to benefit from this approach. How does he reconcile those two points?
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. He references back to my correspondence and direction of 31 March. One of the key elements of that letter was making sure that Ofqual looked at that issue to make sure that that balance was achieved, and that if there was any unfairness within the system, every action that could be taken was taken to eliminate such unfairness.
Gavin Williamson
I had expected the hon. Lady to intervene just a moment ago, and the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) sneaked into her slot, so I will make some progress. I can see that she is bubbling away with interventions, possibly even provided by the Whips Office, ready to go. [Interruption.] No, that does her a disservice. As a former Chief Whip, I was obviously giving far too much credit to the Labour Whips Office for being so organised.
Following discussions, I announced the triple lock system on 12 August. This policy clearly showed my determination that we build in fairness by giving students a safety net, including being able to appeal on the basis of a valid mock result or sitting an exam in the autumn. As happens every year, we did not have sight of the full details of A-level results at individual or school and college level ahead of their release on 13 August. Over the following days, it became clear that there were far too many inconsistent and unfair outcomes for students, and that it was not reasonable to expect these to be dealt with through an appeal system.
Gavin Williamson
I feel I have to give way to the hon. Lady, and I will do so now.
Lilian Greenwood
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way, and of course I wished to make an intervention because of what he had said, but the question I want to ask is: even if he did not see those results and understand that they were having a disproportionate impact specifically on students from more disadvantaged backgrounds, why was he not able to provide assurance about what a valid mock was, and why did the appeals process, when it was published, have to be withdrawn just a few hours later, adding further confusion to an already difficult situation?
Gavin Williamson
All Members will remember—I think the hon. Member and I joined the House in the same year—the legislation that was taken through for the establishment of Ofqual to create an independent regulator. I would defer to my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards, who has been in the Department for a few years longer than I have, but I believe it has always been standard practice that we do not have sight of those qualifications at those levels, and that has been the case every single year.
When it comes to the extra measures that we put in place to ensure the maximum amount of fairness and flexibility for students and so that they were able to appeal if they felt that there was an injustice, frankly if there is anything that I can do, as Education Secretary, to enhance that fairness and to make sure they get the results they truly deserve, I will do it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) shouts from a sedentary position about charging. We made it clear that there would be no charge for those centres. She may misremember, but we always made it clear that the exam series for the autumn would be available free to students who wished to retake.
John Redwood
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that up until the point when the policy clearly had to change, he was always assured by Ofqual that the very sensible aims and instructions he had given it on a fair system of moderated results were going to work?
Gavin Williamson
That is correct. Understandably, we always sought assurances on this, because all of us in this House strive at every moment to ensure that there is fairness for every one of our constituents. We want to ensure that all those young people who have studied so much in the run-up to their GCSEs, BTECs, A-levels or AS-levels get the grades they deserve.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned the triple lock. Wales had a similar system to the triple lock, but instead of mock exams, AS exams were used to fall back on. Unfortunately, that led to many of the highest achievers, who would have gone on to medical or veterinary qualifications, not being able to get the highest levels because the A* grade does not exist in the AS facility. Is it not right that people who were appealing in Wales would have had a guaranteed downgrade because of the Welsh Labour system?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. There would have been weakness and challenges whichever system we adopted. All four nations of the United Kingdom did everything they could do to ensure that there was the maximum amount of fairness for those students who were not in a position to take their exams as the result of a global pandemic.
On 16 August, Ofqual’s chair and the chief regulator advised me that the Ofqual board was minded to make a formal decision to revert to centre assessment grades for all students, or the calculated grade where that was higher. I accepted their view and the decision was announced on Monday 17 August by Ofqual and myself. Subsequently, the Department worked closely with Ofqual and the exam boards to ensure that GCSE results were revised and issued on the original results day of 20 August, and A and AS-level results were reissued on the same timescale.
The majority of awarding organisations that deliver vocational and technical qualifications did not use similar processes as those for GCSEs and A-levels, and those results were issued as planned. However, there were delays to some results where a similar standardisation process had been used, to allow them to be reviewed and reissued.
We took a range of actions to ensure that no young person would be held back from going on to higher education as a result of the grading changes. On 17 August, we announced the removal of temporary student number controls, which had been introduced for the coming academic year. We have also lifted the caps on domestic medicine, dentistry, veterinary science and teaching courses. We have provided additional teaching grant and funding for universities to support that.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Throughout the summer, headteachers in Croydon were getting in touch with me with increasing alarm and concern about what they felt would be really bad outcomes for their children. What does the Secretary of State wish he had done better?
Gavin Williamson
We have to recognise that we were dealing with a truly unprecedented situation. I think it is recognised on both sides of the House that we had to make swift decisions in truly unprecedented times.
Let me turn to what some Opposition Members have said. The deputy leader of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), opposed teachers handing out unaltered grades. When Ofqual announced how grades would be handed out, she—then the shadow Education Secretary—said:
“We have always said predicted grades are not always accurate, and can disproportionately affect the children who need the most support, and we pushed ministers to ensure students can sit an exam later if they wish.”
There has constantly been a whole set of decisions that have had to be made. That has been done at speed, while we are dealing with a novel virus that we have learned a lot about over the past few months. One thing that was clear in March was that we were not in a position to proceed with exams, and of course, Ofqual and many others would have wished to do that.
Kate Green
I understand the difficulties that the Government faced in an unprecedented and utterly unpredictable situation, and I understand that the Secretary of State did not see the individual schools’ and individual students’ A-level results, but he did know the overall picture some days in advance of results day, and he would have known that 40% of awards were being downgraded. Did that not ring alarm bells? Why did it take so many more days before he acted, during which he insisted that there would be no U-turn?
Gavin Williamson
That is exactly the reason why we brought in an enhanced appeals system, to ensure that if there were outliers or concerns, those could be dealt with.
Alun Cairns
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to Education Ministers around the UK, who have faced extremely difficult decisions throughout a very difficult and genuinely unprecedented time. Does the fact that all the Ministers came to the same conclusions at roughly the same time and changed policy at the same time give confidence that the best outcome with the information available has been arrived at in every nation across the UK?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind the Secretary of State that Back Benchers are being put on a three-minute limit. We want to get as many in as we can. He has been incredibly generous with interventions.
Gavin Williamson
I will cease to be generous and kind, Mr Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend makes an important point. At every stage, everyone looked at how we could do what is right and best for those young people who had not been in a position to take exams, in a truly extraordinary situation across all four nations of our great United Kingdom.
We set up the higher education taskforce to tackle some of the issues that we recognised would come about as a result of a higher level of grading due to centre assessment grades being awarded. Through the taskforce, the university sector has agreed to honour all offers to students who meet the conditions of their offer where possible. In the event that a course is full, universities will give students a choice of a suitable alternative course or a deferred place if they would rather wait a year. For those who are not happy with their grade or who did not receive one, we are running an additional series of exams later in the autumn. We have launched an exam support service for schools and colleges, to help them secure venues and invigilators and meet any additional costs arising from the autumn exam series.
Looking to 2021, my Department is working closely with Ofqual, the exam boards and groups representing teachers, schools and colleges to consider the best approach for exams and other assessments for next year. I expect next year’s exams to go ahead. Our aim when providing qualifications this year was ensuring that all our students received just recognition for their efforts, enabling them to progress to the next stage of their lives in the knowledge that their qualifications had the same value as in previous years. When it became clear that there was a risk that for some that would not be the case, I believe that the actions we took offered the fairest solution in these most unprecedented of times.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Let me be clear from the outset that I want to approach today’s debate with humility above anything else. Put simply, the grading of this year’s pupil qualifications is a plague on all our houses, and I wanted to put that on record in the opening seconds of my speech. I will try to be constructive in my analysis today.
In approaching this debate, it is important to acknowledge that 2020 is not the academic year that any of us could have envisaged. From the talk of possible disruption in February, we quickly moved to a position where schools and universities had to be closed before the full lockdown a few days later. After the initial shock, staff and students swiftly developed different ways of working facilitated by Zoom, Teams and Glow, and that has not been easy. It has brought into sharp focus the issue of digital exclusion, which has been highlighted to me by Derek Smeall, the principal of Glasgow Kelvin College in Easterhouse in my constituency.
Some young people were able to continue their studies, albeit on a different platform, whereas others found themselves cut off from their support systems just at the point when that support was most needed as they prepared for state exams. The decision to cancel the exams was therefore unquestionably the right thing to do, and I think we all agree on that. It was the right thing to do not just because of the health risks to students in physically participating, but because of the massive inequality that would have been built into any exam results as a consequence of the difficulty in accessing the usual teacher support. Unfortunately, actions meant to tackle inequality ended up embedding it, and that has to be acknowledged and apologised for, and that is exactly what has happened in Scotland.
Above all else, tribute should be paid to the young people campaigning for Governments across these islands to see the error of their ways and to U-turn. In Scotland, that campaign was fronted by my Shettleston constituent Erin Bleakley, who goes to St Andrew’s Secondary. She eloquently articulated the anger and dismay of young people with her placard, “Judge my work, not my postcode”.
There is no getting away from it: this has been a summer of confusion and distress for young people across the UK, who found themselves at the mercy of algorithms. However, it is not the use of the algorithm that is ultimately the problem; it is the litany of errors, ignored warnings, failures to act and missed opportunities for the Secretary of State to be proactive.
In April, experts from the Royal Statistical Society offered to help with the modelling. Their offer was refused. At the start of July, the former director general of the Department for Education, Sir Jon Coles, wrote to the Secretary of State, warning that Ofqual’s grading system would lead to unfairness in the system. His concerns were ignored. On 10 July, the Education Committee warned about the algorithm, saying that it risked inaccuracy and bias against young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Still the irresponsibility continued. That is why we find ourselves debating Labour’s motion on the Order Paper today, which is very specific in its proposed wording.
When Scotland’s young people received their results on 4 August, it quickly became clear that something had gone wrong. Our Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills sat down and listened to the young people affected, yet the Scottish Tories were jumping up and down, calling for his resignation. I remember listening on the radio to the Scottish Conservative education spokesperson demanding that resignation. I look across the Chamber this afternoon, and I see no Scottish Conservatives here. That is why I deliberately started by saying that a bit of humility in this might not have gone amiss.
What happened in Scotland should have been a red flag moment for the Conservatives, and it should have been a warning to the Secretary of State to act, but what happened next left many young people in England in turmoil. As Scotland took decisive action, awarding young people their predicted grades, and crucially announcing new funding for universities to ensure that any young people with the entry grades would secure their place, the Tories remained in denial that there might be a problem with A-level results. When these shockingly inaccurate results were published, the Secretary of State dug himself into a hole by denouncing the actions of the Scottish Government, pontificating about the “unfairness” of taking teachers’ predictions seriously as the basis for results and declaring that there would be no “U-turn, no change”. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister was insisting that
“The exam results…are robust, they’re good, they’re dependable,”
before going on to talk about “mutant algorithms”. To make matters worse, the Secretary of State faffed about with the appeals process, leading to Ofqual revoking the process that it had published only a few hours earlier, leaving school leaders and exam boards utterly bewildered.
Despite what the Secretary of State said in his statement to the House last week, his actions were not immediate. He had both foresight and time on his side and squandered both. At the time of his U-turn on results, university places had been lost. The Schools Minister has maintained that he did not see the algorithm until results day, suggesting that something went wrong with its implementation. What questions were Ministers asking prior to the publication of results? Did anyone ask for a trial run of the algorithm? This is a pattern that keeps repeating itself with this irresponsible Tory Government: first, pretend the problem does not exist, then brush away the scrutiny, then make the wrong decision and then blame somebody else.
Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many young people who missed their first choice of university because of the now discredited approach to awarding grades have now been given places? Now more than ever, what has happened calls into question why young people should be paying £9,000 in tuition fees and saddling themselves with an average debt of £50,000. They are due some breaks, and if the Government were serious about their futures, the Secretary of State would be looking at that.
But of course, universities are dealing with much more than just this carry-on. A combination of the covid restrictions and the ongoing hostile immigration environment means that universities are preparing for an unprecedented drop in international students of up to 70%, which will punch a massive hole in the finances of our institutions. Indeed, Universities UK estimates that the shortfall could be close to £7 billion. At a time when universities are facing the loss of Horizon Europe collaborations and funding, the Secretary of State should be acting to protect the very institutions that will help to kickstart the economy. It would therefore be helpful to know what assessment he has made of the impact on universities and what discussions he has had with the Treasury about providing those institutions with additional financial support.
Universities are ready to support these young people, but as well as increased financial support, they need a fresh look at immigration. In Scotland, we have been clear about the need to extend the post-study work visa. It is incredible that, at a time when we most need talented graduates to be economically active, we have not brought post-study visas forward for our 2020 graduates. What is needed now is clear action to ensure that, whether or not we have another year of covid disruption, young people are not the victims.
As well as the steps highlighted earlier, the Scottish Government have gone further. In order to learn lessons and plan for next year, the Cabinet Secretary for Education in Scotland has asked Professor Mark Priestley of Stirling University to carry out an independent review of the events following the cancellation of the examination diet and to make representations for the coming year.
John Redwood
Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an update on the summer term in Scotland? How many pupils had the benefit of a full timetable of teaching digitally?
David Linden
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. What happened in Scotland is perfectly on the record, but we have been back since the middle of August. Children are back in schools, learning. I have been in those schools and seen that for myself, and it seems to be going relatively well, although no doubt there have been hiccups. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, with humility, this is a process that we are all feeling our way through. If that humility was reflected by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, that might be helpful.
The OECD’s ongoing independent review of the curriculum for excellence will be asked to include recommendations on how to transform Scotland’s approach to assessment and qualifications, based on global best practice.
In conclusion, young people have been extremely poorly served over the summer. We know that the Secretary of State hates to follow Scotland’s example on anything, but he must now ensure that his actions are not ostrich-like, and instead be proactive to ensure that young people have the best possible experience over the next few years, because—to finish with an education metaphor—those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the Back-Bench element of the debate, in which there will be a three-minute limit.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
As a child, I hated examinations—I was on the Pro Plus, up all night—so I would have been over the moon at the idea of exams being cancelled. However, knowing that even if I worked hard my future would be decided by a mutant algorithm would have filled me with dread.
The Education Committee is going into what happened in a lot of detail. I thank the Secretary of State for saying that he would send all relevant documents to the Committee, and I am sure that will be confirmed by the Minister for School Standards when he sums up the debate. In the short time available, I want to make three points—and I will focus on Ofqual, as we have the Secretary of State appearing before us next Wednesday.
Having listened to Ofqual and read its statement, I feel that it had Charge of the Light Brigade mentality with its algorithm. It refused to publish the standardisation model in advance, despite the recommendation of our Select Committee. There should have been much more external scrutiny. As was just said, Ofqual should have taken proper advice from the Royal Statistical Society and people such as Sir Jon Coles. Yes, many consultations were done, but in my view those should have been specifically on the algorithm.
The second point that I would like to raise is whether Ofqual is fit for purpose and genuinely an independent body. Clearly, what happened on the weekend of 15 and 16 August, on which the Select Committee will go into more detail next week, suggests significant blurred lines of accountability and questions about how independent the organisation is. Given the opposition even to partial reopening of schools and the lack of learning of millions of students, I understand why the Secretary of State said that the formal exams were not a viable option at the time, but we need to understand better what ingredients the Department for Education demanded in terms of the burnt algorithm pie.
Thirdly, given the clear need for lines of accountability and the blame game that has gone on, I found Ofqual’s refusal to communicate during the Select Committee session incredible; everything was referred back to the DFE. That was unacceptable to parents and teachers. I think the BTEC was mishandled.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Was my right hon. Friend struck, as I was, in that Education Committee hearing that Ofqual could see coming many of the problems that came about? It knew that high-achieving children at low-performing schools would be disadvantaged, and it knew that schools with small classes would be advantaged, but its attitude was very much “We’ll just sort it out at appeals” rather than to worry about the distress it would cause on results day.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a hard-working member of our Select Committee. I just think Ofqual had this Charge of the Light Brigade mentality that it knew best and no one could challenge its algorithm.
I mentioned the BTEC, where 450,000 students were affected. The way that all came out is very depressing. As a country, we should value vocational qualifications as much as we do academic qualifications, and I just think that summed up everything that is wrong with our country in the way we look at these results. We need to learn the lessons from that.
Let me say in the time that I have remaining that we clearly need to make a decision on exams next year—that is very important—but before that is done there should be nationwide assessments of all the pupils in the relevant years in particular, so that we can find out how much loss of learning there has been and how much catch-up is needed. The Government will then be able to say, working with the regulators, whether the syllabus needs to be pared down and how much of a delay is needed. I very much hope that exams will take place. That is the best solution, but if they do not and there is a plan B and we go to teacher-assessed grades, I hope very much that there will be an independent assessor—a human independent assessor—acting as a check and balance.
I hope that this saga and the things that went wrong give us a chance to reboot education. I hope that we can have a long-term national education plan that looks at addressing social injustice in education, levelling up, meeting our skills needs, helping children with special educational needs and much more besides.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Having listened to the exchanges and read some of the documents before the debate, I am satisfied that the Secretary of State asked Ofqual to deliver the right answers. It is disappointing that its algorithm did not work and it was right that it had to be changed. Once the decision had been taken to close schools and not to proceed with exams, I think the best answer probably was to look to the teachers to evaluate the pupils and put them in the right rank order, but for there to be some moderating influence so that, overall, we got a fair spread of results. However, it appears that the algorithm did not do that and produced all sorts of individual injustices. It may have produced what Ofqual thought was the right answer school by school, but it did not produce the right answer pupil by pupil. That was a great pity and it was clear from what the Secretary of State has been saying that that was not shared with him, which is why we are debating this today. We should now move on. As many have said on both sides of the House, we need to learn lessons and make sure that the class of 2021 is better served and does not have the same difficult foray into getting their results as the class of 2020 did.
I am very pleased that a decision has been made that exams will be reinstituted. I note that we have had one Ofqual consultation already, with some conclusions, and a further consultation is under way. We have a series of new injustices that have to be dealt with, and they need to be dealt with quite soon, at this early stage. Some pupils were taught a full timetable of lessons remotely by their schools. Others had very little teaching during the summer period. Some schools were better equipped to press on with the full rigours of the GCSE and A-level courses and others were not. We need to ask ourselves what will happen in those situations, where some have been prepping for the full exam and others are now saying that perhaps they cannot in time prep for the full exam. Can we create some more time to make sure that all can be brought up to a satisfactory situation?
I see that it has been decided already that there will not be field work for geography and geology, which is quite a big loss, that there will not be formal oral examinations for languages, including English language, and that there will be less of a syllabus for those who are doing history and geography, in terms of choice of questions. These quite big decisions have already been made. I hope that there will be no need for any further decisions that could in any way undermine the reputation or the quality of the exam that will be set, and many will pass, for the class of 2021.
Rob Roberts
Does my right hon. Friend agree that getting the students who are due to sit their exams next year, in all the subjects that he mentions, back into the classroom again is vital to their continued academic success? Will he also join me in welcoming Labour’s refreshing new position of wanting to see all children go back, having dragged its heels on this issue over the summer?
John Redwood
I am delighted that the Opposition rightly wish to see children properly educated. I have never doubted that they wanted to see children properly educated—that must be a shared view that we all hold—but it would certainly be good if the Opposition carried on in the spirit of co-operation and responded to some of the consultations, for example, because very important decisions will now be taken over when the exams will take place, what the content of exams will be and how they will be marked and assessed. We need to have two things first and foremost in our minds: of course, we need to be fair to the pupils and to take into account that their education has been interrupted in recent months, but we also need to make sure that the system itself guarantees quality, so that they get a qualification that means something and is widely respected both at home and abroad. I hope that the Secretary of State will soon be able to bring forward positive proposals so that the class of 2021 can be properly looked after.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I understand that it is important to have free-flowing debate, but I point out that we have a lot of people who are probably not going to get in on the debate, and interventions do prevent others from speaking. That is just a gentle reminder.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems that I am in good company here today as the parent of a year 11 child. I want to speak up for them and year 13 children today in my remarks. When the lockdown was lifted, and not a moment before, I went to see some friends in the countryside—not near Barnard Castle. This was after the regulation was lifted. My friend’s child goes to a private school. I sat alongside this young girl, the same age as my son, who goes to a state comprehensive school. I listened to the level of education that she had been having and compared it with the level of education my son had been having, and knowing that she will be entered into the exact same exam that my son will be entered into filled me with fear, and that was before the exam fiasco.
I ask the Secretary of State today to give me confidence as a parent that I will not be faced in August next year with having to lobby for a change to be made because another unfair system has been imposed on children who cannot afford to pay for their education and who cannot afford to have computers in their homes. I had to go around my constituency, giving out sim cards so that people could access their kids’ schools on their phones, because they did not even have access to the internet. That was how their children were intending to access education.
The reason I want full disclosure of all the documents is that I do not want this mistake to be made again. I get it, we all like a bit of party political banter, but what I have seen over the summer and today is that Ministers seem more obsessed with things that people from the Labour party might have said, as if they are not the Government. If I had one wish, it would be that my children’s lives were not particularly in their hands, but here I am as a rule taker, not a rule maker in this situation.
I wish that the Secretary of State would show more humility. I am the representative for Birmingham, Yardley and I have a very eminent predecessor, Baroness Morris of Yardley. When she felt that she had not done her very best when she was in the position the Secretary of State is in today, she said that the children, schools and teachers mattered more than her job. That is the kind of humility that I would expect from a Government, and it is not something that I have seen. All I can say is that he had better pray that he does not find himself in the same situation in August next year.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
This is the first time I have made a speech in this Chamber since leaving the Government and I want to speak today to put on record my confidence in my former ministerial colleagues, with whom I had the pleasure of working closely. I know that my hon. Friends would have sought to ensure that, in this year that no one could have predicted, the replacement assessments were as rigorous, and held to the same standards, as previous exams.
If we are to have confidence in our exam system, its credibility needs to be maintained not just in a single year, but across decades. The UK’s A-level qualification system is internationally renowned for precisely that reason—it has been maintained as a gold standard, providing confidence to pupils, teachers and society alike. It simply is too easy to judge in hindsight what course should have been taken. Hindsight can be a friend to us all, but in reality we must caution that, in the height of uncertainty in the global pandemic, any alternative could equally have come unstuck.
What we need now is recognition of the fact that we need solutions to issues that have resulted from the grading that has now been adopted. Some of these issues are good problems to have. We now have record numbers of young people progressing to higher education. We have record numbers of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds entering university. Now these students have been enrolled in these institutions, I believe that we have a duty to ensure that their welfare is protected. Travelling to perhaps an unknown city or leaving home for the first time during the pandemic, many students will be anxious and nervous about their future. I know that universities have made extensive plans in advance of students returning to campus, but amid the scientific focus on preventing outbreaks of the virus, we must never forget that students can be vulnerable young adults whose pastoral care is paramount.
That duty, however, should not be limited to as long as the pandemic lasts. Many students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, will struggle to adapt to their new environment and new forms of learning, having missed valuable time at school. Allowances must be made to ensure that students do not fall through the net and drop out.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s priority has been children’s education? That is demonstrated by the delivery of the £1 billion covid catch-up plan to make up for lost teaching time as well as by the £650 million for children who have fallen behind.
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend is correct to highlight what is being done now. I raised this during questions to the Department for Education earlier in the week with regards to South Gloucestershire Council’s recovery curriculum. We must also maintain a focus on future intakes. Next year’s intake needs reassurance that they will not be penalised by any restriction in place due to deferrals that are being made this year.
Some issues have taught us valuable lessons that need to be heeded. One, I believe, is that our entire admissions system to university should now be reformed. Both main parties have already spoken of a desire to investigate what a post-qualification admissions system might look like. The Office for Students and Universities UK are doing important ongoing work, which was commissioned when I was Universities Minister, into what future measures could be considered. We know, however, that neither predicted grades nor A-level grades can solely be an accurate measure of future success at university.
Too many students, including those with health or mental health conditions, students facing the stress of a care or caregiver background, and those from homes that can never provide the learning environment needed for effective study or revision, will never achieve their actual ability while at school. They should not be written off simply because they have not achieved the grades, which after all measure performance at school, and not future potential. Of course universities are select institutions, but selection should be far more finely tuned to merit than simple grade boundaries. An admission system that uses post-qualification offers would help empower students to choose courses in the full knowledge of their results, whether based on qualifications or university assessment. That would end the process of clearing, which no matter how smooth it has become, has always struck me as no way to decide the future of—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has reached the end of his time. He also took an intervention, so he has already had extra time and taken time away from others who may want to speak later.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The publication of A-level results confirmed that nearly 40% of A-level grades in England were downgraded on the basis of an algorithm that was based on the prior performance of the pupils’ school and their prior attainment. That created mass inequality and did not account for individuals’ ability. The number of pupils achieving grade C or above was downgraded from teacher estimations by just over 10% for children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, compared with just over 8% for their most affluent peers. Yet again, working-class young people are being failed by this Government.
The Government imposed a deeply unfair system on young people, and were forced into a U-turn by the determined campaigning of the young people whose hopes, dreams, and aspirations had been shattered, supported by their families, the National Education Union, and the Labour party. Although the U-turn was welcome, it created other problems that the Government have been slow to address, if they have addressed them at all.
Some young people had still not received BTEC results by the end of last week, and some students in my constituency have had no choice but to defer their place at university entirely, due to the Government’s incompetent handling of results. To add insult to injury, we have now learnt that, in the days and weeks following the exam fiasco, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister were warned repeatedly about the risks of their chosen approach but did not act to prevent that.
Ofqual’s chair said that the Secretary of State took the decision to cancel exams and move to a system of awarding grades, and that his decision was taken without further consultation with the regulator. It is abundantly clear that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are directly responsible for the exams fiasco. They imposed the discredited system for awarding grades and, despite being repeatedly warned of the problems, they did nothing.
Our young people deserve better. Austerity policies over the past 10 years have already ensured that this generation will be worse off than generations before them, with insecure housing, low-paid work and zero-hours contracts an impending reality for so many. The serial incompetence of the Government’s approach is no way to run a country. It is time for them to be fully transparent about the process and provide all documents related to the exam fiasco to the Education Committee. Ensure absolute transparency and ensure this situation is never repeated.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
As my time is short, I will start by saying that I fundamentally disagree with pretty much every word that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) just said.
In reality, Ofqual did not want to get rid of exams. It said to the Secretary of State, “We would rather do exams”, but that option was not on the table. We saw the unions kicking back when we wanted to get children back in primary school in June. The idea that we would easily have been able to hold exam season at that time of the year is simply for the birds. That was not going to happen. Putting that aside—that is the history and that is where we are—what was the best step forward?
It is no surprise to learn that many of the public would prefer to have expert outsiders and independent people running things, rather than politicians. That is not exactly a shocking revelation to anyone here. When the Secretary of State said that we could not hold the exams—he did so for reasons that we could explore further but, in hindsight, he still made the right decision at the time, given the circumstances that we faced—he instructed Ofqual, by directive, to put forward a system, and people had a right to expect that the independent experts would come up with the right answers. When the Secretary of State challenged Ofqual about the problems that he perceived and that had been presented to him, he had the right to expect that he would be given the correct answers. By the way, the head of Ofqual earns far more than the Prime Minister, because apparently we have to pay such salaries to get the best people in the job. That is not a criticism, but it is what is always said. When the Secretary of State asks specific questions and is given specific answers, he therefore has every right to expect that the system is robust.
There are lessons to learn, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear at the Dispatch Box today that when he goes before the Education Committee next week, he will work with my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). However, we must be careful not to say, “Nobody wanted to do this in the first place; they wanted to do exams,” because that option was not on the table. We still face a pandemic crisis to this day. At 4 pm this afternoon, the Prime Minister gave a broadcast to the nation about the tightening of restrictions, so we are not out of the woods yet. Everyone in this Chamber has concerns about the welfare of children and their education, and we need to learn the lessons, but we must recognise that it was not an option to say, “We should sit exams.” I therefore urge my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow and his Committee to take a strong, hard look at Ofqual and make sure that the Secretary of State can rely on its advice, so that these mistakes are not repeated.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s speech. Apart from the litany of excuses that he offered to explain how the exams fiasco came to unfold—none of it his own fault, of course—he did not offer a compelling reason why the document that the Opposition motion calls for should not be released to the Education Committee. I appreciate that he intends to give evidence—I hope it will be fulsome—to the Select Committee when he appears before it next week, but our motion asks for a higher degree of disclosure than is the normal practice when Secretaries of State attend Select Committee hearings. He offered nothing substantive about why that should not happen as our humble address suggests.
For all the young people who have been on the receiving end of this Government’s incompetence, the inescapable conclusion that they will draw from all that they have heard from Government Members today is that, rather than being the result of a “mutant algorithm”, the blame for this fiasco lies squarely at the Secretary of State’s door. When he was warned about the problem with the exam system, why did he not address the issues that were raised? We had no answer on that point today. Why were the Government so willing to preside over a situation in which the top grades at private schools were increased far beyond those of their state school at counterparts? We had no answer on that point today either.
I want to address the situation in relation to BTECs, and I welcome what the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), had to say about that. The situation has been very much mishandled, and that is depressing to see. BTECs do a great job of contributing towards social mobility, which has been, frankly, limited over the past decade. The Secretary of State will know that almost half of students whose parents are in routine or manual jobs study BTECs or a mixture of BTECs and A-levels, compared with just over 22% of those whose mums and dads work in higher managerial administration roles. Half of white working-class and black British students in England get into university with qualifications that include BTECs. Those students should not have been left languishing at the back of the queue, waiting longer than anybody else for their results to be confirmed. They have been treated with a particular degree of disrespect, and it would have been good to hear the Secretary of State give an apology at the Dispatch Box today to BTEC students and a confirmation that they will not be forced into the same position next year.
What we have seen unfold over the summer is not simply a story of Government incompetence; it is the inescapable end point of the political approach that has been adopted by this Government, one that has degraded teacher assessments and coursework. They must change course before next summer.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I, too, thank all the school leaders in my constituency, who have worked so hard to ensure not only that the pupils receive the exam grades they deserve, but that the schools have reopened. I pay great tribute to their leadership. I also wish to thank the ministerial team, who have always afforded me a great deal of time in dealing with the questions and concerns I have raised. They have always been very open, on a cross-party basis; a month ago, I joined a call that all colleagues were encouraged to attend, and at that point we did not see the issues that were forthcoming—we can all be experts in hindsight.
I also wish to put on record the fact that I do not believe that the Department’s time and Ministers’ time is best spent at the photocopier delivering documents about the past; it is best spent fixing matters for the future—for the next cohort who are about to take their exams. With that in mind, I call for three points to be considered by the ministerial team. I am keen that we be unequivocal that the exams will be held at their scheduled time at the beginning of summer and will not be pushed back, as the teachers I speak to do not believe that that will work for them, or for pupils or universities. I know, as this was almost to my cost, that exam grades, rather than teacher assessments, can sometimes give people the opportunity in life, because they can turn out better than the assessment that teachers have made. That is particularly the case for pupils from schools that are perhaps not as highly performing; my own example sees me here as a result of exams, rather than teacher-predicted grades.
Secondly, we have to make sure we get the content right for this year’s exam takers. I still believe that we have not reduced the content commensurately to the amount of time that can be fitted in. The exam boards need to work closely to guide teachers as to what content will be needed in order for those exams to be focused, and they need to work with universities to ensure that where degree courses rely on A-levels to get the young pupils through, the focus is on the right amount of A-level content to ensure that pupils get the right start in that course at university. This requires the schools to work with the exam boards, and the boards to work with the universities to ensure that the content is correct and is proportionate in respect of the amount of time young people have missed, so that they are not penalised.
We need to send out a message to all parents that schools are safe. As the Secretary of State knows, we have various views on face masks, but the most important point is that schools are open, they are safe and they are places where young people can learn and thrive. They should all be there, and parents need to heed that message too. I echo the point that has been made about testing. People are having to travel far too far to get testing, and that will hold schools back. Those are the points I wish to make.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
When the sheer scale of this exam fiasco started to unfold, I had students and parents contact me, their hearts broken and their dreams in utter tatters. This total shambles has occurred on the watch of a Secretary of State who a few weeks before the fiasco dared utter the words
“I will stand for the forgotten 50%.”
He has been responsible for overseeing 40% of students, primarily from disadvantaged backgrounds, having had their results downgraded. This failure to live up to his promise will not be forgotten, and certainly not as quickly as he forgot his promise to the students who needed the Government to support them the most. To explain the absolute ludicrousness of the algorithm used, let me give the example of one pupil from Luton who was born and raised in Spain, with Spanish being his native tongue. He was predicted to get an A* in Spanish by the teachers who knew him, yet he was downgraded to a B by an algorithm that knew nothing about him. This was replicated thousands of times across constituencies in the country.
This is not about blame. This is about accountability—something that this Government have been running away from rapidly for the last six months. We have heard heavily caveated yet empty apologies, excuses and delays from Government Ministers, so I think we should now hear some sensible words from students in Luton North. One said:
“We are capable of so many great things, and it is not at all fair that so many doors are being shut for us based on an algorithm or due to the Government.”
Another said:
“Unfortunately, due to the Government’s mess, I was rejected on Thursday by LSE. I was heartbroken, yet after the U-turn on my results I still want to go to the university of my choice.”
Some of those who are contacting me were hoping to get on to medical courses—something we are crying out for during this pandemic. I really welcome the fact that the Secretary of State mentioned the lifting of the cap on medical places, and I ask him to extend that to the next year, because we are going to see students who have had to defer this year clashing with next year’s intake.
While looking to the future, if we are ever in a situation like this again, instead of the exam results chaos that we saw in Luton and across the country, I implore the Government to believe the teachers and to believe that the students can live up to the grades that were predicted for them and that they are worthy of futures brighter than those who have gone before them.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as well as a declared interest in having a son who was another one of the many pupils that made up the 5.2 million GCSE exam entries this summer. He is happy with his results, and as both a parent and a former Children’s Minister, I believe the decision that was made to revert to centre-assessed grades was the right one. Once covid-19 hit and the repercussions became ever starker, ultimately leading to school and college closures, the class of 2020 was always going to need to be treated as an exceptional year. When it became apparent that the process put in place by Ofqual had any evidence or suggestion of unfairness, that was a necessary step to take. It is one that was also taken, as we have heard, in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
For what it is worth, the feedback from my local heads in Eddisbury at the Winsford Academy, Bishop Heber High School and Tarporley High was that the centre-assessed grades, while in need of moderation, were almost moderated out of the final calculated grades altogether—leading, they believe, to some of the anomalies that we saw played out. For A-level students in particular, this caused real and well-founded worry about potentially lost university places and, in some cases, the actual loss or deferred acceptance of their chosen course. So it is important that we look to understand what needs to be done to future-proof the integrity, reliability and fairness of the awarding of exam results for 2021 students and beyond. I have every faith that, in that endeavour, with the assistance of the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) forensically following all legitimate lines of inquiry, the Government will work hard to meet that particular test, although this might also be an opportune moment to review the performance of all awarding bodies, both academic and vocational, to establish whether they are, individually or collectively, what is required to meet the expectations that lie ahead.
The House also needs to consider constructively how best to equip our head teachers, teachers, school support staff, parents and children for the academic year ahead. Take physical education. Whether in relation to behaviour management, academic attainment, mental health, obesity, social skills, self-confidence or, sometimes, reacting positively to failure, physical education can ensure a better core for a better life. That is why, with the support of the Association for Physical Education, I am chairing a taskforce that brings together a range of experts, practitioners, frontline staff and others to look under the bonnet of the PE taught in our schools, with an ambition to demonstrate how to put high-quality PE at the very heart of our recovery and beyond—and boy, it has never been more needed. To that end, it would be helpful if the Minister could reiterate that PE is going to carry on as normal, not least because of the huge benefits that it brings.
Let us make sure that the unique circumstances and challenges of this summer lead to a heightened ability to respond to all conceivable exam-related issues effectively and with fairness, but let us not forget that there are many other aspects of school life to help to shape children’s futures.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The head of Ofqual made it clear that the grades fiasco was not entirely the fault of an algorithm; it was a conscious decision taken by the Secretary of State for Education. It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State is still ducking responsibility for this latest of shambles, which caused so many young people throughout the country serious distress last month.
The head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission said that Ofqual must consider the equality impacts of the results. Ofqual did produce a paper on the subject in April this year, but that was well before the Secretary of State decided to use the algorithm to calculate grades. Will the Secretary of State publish the equality impact assessment of the algorithm? I did ask that question last week, but did not get a straight answer, so I respectfully ask again. Will the Secretary of State also commit to publish an equality impact assessment for whatever arrangements are put in place for next year?
We know that after their exams were cancelled, home-schooled and independent learners were left without any grades at all, as a result of their having no teacher to give a centre-assessed grade to fall back on. Home-schooled and independent learners account for tens of thousands of pupils UK-wide, so what assessment has the Secretary of State conducted of the impact on those young people, and will he publish it? What about those young people who are now going into work full time while also preparing to sit their autumn exams? There is no level playing field for them.
Naturally, there are conversations about the possibilities of pushing back the dates of exams next year to give students some time to catch up; will the Secretary of State give us assurances about how those decisions will be reached and who he will consult on any such changes before they are finalised?
Daisy Cooper
I probably should not, as you have given me a strong steer, Madam Deputy Speaker—my apologies.
As we all look ahead to the next year, I draw Members’ attention to the gov.uk guidance on the four tiers of local-level restrictions on education that could be used. It is clear that remote education could be used in three of the Government’s four scenarios. Working parents will look at the guidance and wonder what guarantees the Government will provide that their children will continue to receive a good education over the next year if, in three of those four scenarios, parents are going to be responsible for home schooling. Will the Secretary of State listen to parents’ groups such as September for Schools and reconsider the Liberal Democrat amendment to the emergency covid legislation, which called for a guarantee that families could expect a minimum standard of education and that the Government would give schools the necessary resources to deliver it?
Ultimately, we need the full disclosure of the documents that the motion calls for, and we must have an investigation into the decisions and evidence that led to this debacle. We must learn from this episode and ensure that it is never, ever repeated, especially if we get to a position in which exams could be cancelled because of further lockdowns. It is time that the Secretary of State commissioned an independent investigation into the handling of GCSE, A-level and BTEC results.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
I approach this debate as not only a Member of this House but a teacher who taught students who were directly affected by this year’s exams issues. Covid-19 has presented us with an exceptional set of circumstances and meant that tough decisions have needed to be made. In the end, Ofqual’s decision to use centre-assessed grades was the correct one and the Government were right to back it.
As a teacher, you go out to bat for your kids. If a teacher is 50:50 on a grade to award, they are naturally going to want their student to do well, but that is matched with professionalism and fairness. Teachers’ professional judgment is exceptional, but we still need things such as moderation, and there will always be some schools that award grades differently from others. That is why the original system was a well-intentioned one that tried to correct things in the fairest possible manner.
With hindsight, we can now say that the appeals process would not have been able to handle the excessive numbers of results that would have needed to be reassessed because of the algorithm, and that that simply would not have been possible in the time available. When it became clear that it could not be done, we made the right decision by our students.
I welcome the early decision that was made on the awarding of GCSE results and on ensuring that BTEC students were not forgotten in all this. Have we seen grade inflation? Yes, but that is a small price to pay compared with the disruption and unfairness that would have been the alternative.
So where do we go next? My biggest concern is making sure that we support those who are in year 10 and year 12 and halfway through their courses, so taking their exams in 2021. I am delighted that through the covid catch-up plan we must now focus on getting them the outcomes that they deserve. Getting students back into school this September is a crucial part of that. I thank our heads, teachers, governors and support staff for making this possible. Now we need to make sure that we can keep the schools open.
Grade inflation now could affect students next year, so we need to make sure that this is dealt with. Many have suggested that students could defer university places, but the reality is that most want to go to their chosen universities and want to do it now. In my constituency, we will have a new £3.5 million university campus in Worksop to train healthcare professionals, thanks to a partnership with the health trust, the University of Derby and my old university, Nottingham Trent. I hope that those people will then choose to stay in Bassetlaw to work in their chosen careers.
This should not be about playing politics with our children’s education. In Scotland, education is controlled by the SNP, in Northern Ireland controlled by the Executive, and in Wales controlled by Labour and led by a Liberal Democrat.
Suzanne Webb
There has been a lot of strong and emotive language used in this Chamber. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that swift action was taken by this Government to deal with this perceived crisis: this “chaotic, terminal shambles”. Does he agree that education is so important that it should not be politicised?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Lady has had two interventions and she is not even down to speak, so that means that somebody who is down to speak will now not be able to speak. That is the reality.
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
Getting back on track is the No. 1 thing, but, as I said, education is controlled by different parties across the UK. The main point, though, is that this has been an incredibly difficult process for everybody and that we must make the right decision by the students, as I think that everybody in this House would want to do. So today let us concentrate on that and on the next step, not on political point-scoring.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
The pandemic has raised a huge number of challenging and unprecedented problems that the Government have had to grapple with. They have had to create countless schemes and programmes to support us and to keep us safe, and are now having to find ways to unravel it all while the playing field continually changes around them. These have been necessary responses to questions that the pandemic has asked of them, and they have had to do it in record time.
With schools, there is no easy answer. Nothing will ever be able to cover, even in the short term, for the amazing job that teachers across Mansfield and Worksop do, week in, week out. With schools being closed, we knew that children’s learning would suffer. We knew that ever-tightening restrictions were going to make it impossible to hold exams. We can look back now and say that maybe it could have been different, but at the time the widely accepted truth was that we must close the schools and plan for an alternative system of assessment.
The Ofqual formula was an imperfect solution to an impossible problem. In hindsight, it was not right that those from lower-income areas had their grades disproportionately affected. It was not right, clearly, for a child to get a U for an exam they were never allowed to sit. That was hugely problematic. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Perhaps it could have been done differently. But the Government employ experts in the form of Ofqual to manage these processes, and at the time those at Ofqual were offering reassurances to Ministers that it would be okay. They have since apologised for getting it wrong. They too are only human, and every other nation of our United Kingdom had come to the same conclusion.
What this says to me on a broader level is to do with the problematic nature of these structures of government run by a kind of quangocracy that we have had for many decades now, which blurs the lines of accountability and decision making. I hope that the Government will address that over the course of this Parliament.
I was glad that Ofqual agreed for teacher-assessed grades to be awarded to pupils who were unable to sit exams. That was the correct way to proceed given where we have ended up. It is still not perfect—it throws up questions about grade inflation and impacts on universities in future years—but we have eventually got to the right place.
I know at first hand from my own experience how long and hard Ministers and officials in the DFE have worked to try to rectify the problems. I know how many phone calls my hon. Friend the Minister for Universities, for example, has made to universities to try to get them to go back and make more offers to students and to support them. I know how much time Ministers have offered me to raise concerns, ideas and issues, and I am very grateful to them for that. Nothing is perfect in a pandemic, and I know that what has gone on has been incredibly frustrating, but I have seen how committed the Department has been to trying to make it work. We should all be grateful for that. The key thing now is that lessons must be learned from these challenges. Let us look at the relationship between FE and HE, at the admissions process and at the Government’s decision-making structures and ensure that we do these things better in future. We also need to draw a line and move forward, in the best interests of our children and young people, which I know the Secretary of State is committed to doing.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
The Sunday following A-level results day, students in my constituency should have been celebrating their achievements with their families after years of hard work. Instead, they were in Coventry city centre protesting the unjust algorithm that levelled them down, in some cases, by three to four grades, denying them their place at university.
I stood with them that Sunday, not just as their MP but as a former student at a school deemed failing by Ofsted. I suspect that if I had been a student this year, my postcode would not have passed the Government’s algorithm test, and my grades would have been downgraded significantly. I would have lost out on my place to study pharmacy, and the NHS would have had one less pharmacist to treat cancer patients in their time of need. I cannot help but fear that this Government’s failure to handle A-level, BTEC and GCSE results has cost the NHS and other sectors future key workers at a time when the country has remembered their necessity.
I also regret the disregard of teachers—a workforce of key workers who are too often forgotten about during the pandemic. This Government chose to implement an algorithm that devalued not only students but the professional expertise of teachers. At the height of the pandemic, teachers worked relentlessly to provide the requested evidence for predicted grades, while simultaneously providing increased pastoral support for their students. The Government should have listened to these key workers and valued their skills, rather than an algorithm steeped in bias. We must do everything we can to ensure that these key workers are never undervalued again. Our future generation depends on them.
For students in Coventry, the academic year ended in uncertainty because of the coronavirus, but it is because of this Government that their next academic year has needlessly begun with uncertainty too. Colleges and universities, which are already under the pressure of adapting to blended learning and ensuring a safe working and learning environment, have also been forced to pick up the pieces from the Government’s chaotic handling of results day. Even now, there are students still uncertain whether they are starting university in just a matter of weeks, still unsure about accommodation and still in the dark about their immediate future.
I wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s U-turn, which saw the abandonment of their algorithm that graded by background and not by aptitude. However, I do not welcome the lost futures, mental anguish and disruption incurred by waiting for its arrival. As an NHS worker, I knew that young people’s mental health was already in crisis. This summer’s exam results will have undoubtedly exacerbated that crisis, already strained by lockdown and restricted access to mental health crisis care. A survey by YoungMinds found that 80% of respondents agreed that the coronavirus pandemic has made their mental health worse, with 31% saying that they were no longer able to access support but still needed it. I am also deeply concerned about the further impact that this mishandling of young people’s future has had on their mental health—
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
First, I would like to thank all the teachers and members of staff in our local schools, colleges and sixth forms across Hyndburn and Haslingden who have worked tirelessly throughout this pandemic. The class of 2020—and, in fact, all students—have been some of the most affected by this pandemic, with exams cancelled and schools closed. Those moving from primary to high school or high school to college have missed out on all the events that take place during that time—proms, leavers assemblies and those final days with close friends.
I spent most of my week on the phone to pupils and parents, trying to assist those who had potentially lost their place at university and feeding into the Department the effect of this algorithm on the hard-working pupils in Hyndburn and Haslingden. One parent I spoke to in my constituency, Paul Fury, told me about his wonderful and talented son, Joe, who was predicted top grades throughout but received lower, threatening his future and risking his position on his degree apprenticeship. Joe contacted me this week to let me know that he received final confirmation last Thursday for his degree apprenticeship, and I know that this young man has a brilliant future ahead of him. That would not have happened if the Government had not changed their decision.
I recognised that something had gone wrong when I first spoke to Joe’s father and heard the heartbreak in his voice. I also spoke to local headteachers at Haslingden High School and at my former school, St Christopher’s. My former headteacher, Mr Jones, said: “I know that you share my passion for the liberating force of a good education. For the young people of Hyndburn and other parts of east Lancashire, St Christopher’s Sixth Form has sought to act as a beacon—a place where the levelling-up agenda can be seen in practice—and yet for this year’s students we risk snuffing out the beacon for good.”
As someone who knows the immense weight that exam results carry and who only took her final exam at university last year, I feel a deep sense of empathy for students across my constituency, and I wrote to the Secretary of State. The announcement was welcome. The Opposition constantly uses the phrase “U-turn”, but I personally think that, in the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves today, the fact that our Government are willing to listen and to change their approach when they recognise that something is not working is the right thing to do, even knowing that the Opposition will then chant in their numbers about a U-turn again.
It is vital that the Government take every step possible to ensure that students sitting exams next year will not be at any disadvantage in the future through the lack of teaching. I know that Ofqual is continuing to work with the Department. I truly believe that the Conservative party is a party of opportunity and that we cannot let this awful pandemic ruin the chances of this country’s future.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I think the right place to start is to recognise the impact that covid has had on young people in my Warrington South constituency, by which I mean the disruption to their learning, the impact on their social development and, in particular, the challenge presented to students due to take their GCSEs, A-levels and BTECs who just could not take their exams this year. When it comes to impacting a child’s life chances there is no replacement for learning in the classroom. I want to acknowledge the work that schools in Warrington South have done to introduce online learning. I also know that schools received laptops and routers to allocate to those children who did not have access to IT kits.
Looking at Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, I think that we can all accept that, whatever method Ofqual chose to award grades, there was always going to be some problems when exams were not actually taken. There was also the issue of trying to ensure that grade inflation does not leave students disadvantaged against previous or future cohorts and that there is no disadvantage with regard to future university places. We should not forget that the majority of students who received their initial A-level grades saw no change when the system was amended, but I am afraid that too many did. I spoke personally to a number of young people who had been deeply affected by it. None the less, I am pleased that the Government responded and at speed when colleagues raised these issues and we were able to make the necessary changes to avoid lengthy appeals and, of course, to reflect the changes for GCSE students.
So much of the discussion in the Chamber today is about what happened in August and about placing blame. What is critical is how we ensure that students taking exams in 2021 and 2022 have the opportunity to reach their potential and that our children are back in school, engaging fully and benefiting from a full and rounded education. Yes, we must learn lessons, and I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking to address the Select Committee next week.
I came to this House with a belief that we must ensure that every child has the best potential start to their life with a great education, so I welcome the increase in school funding that this Government are putting forward. Some £14 billion is to be invested over the next three years to ensure that every child gets a good education. As a member of the levelling-up taskforce, I can say that increasing per pupil funding for secondary schools to more than £5,000 and for primary schools to £4,000 under the national funding formula is great progress.
I saw for myself on Friday the work that is already going on so that young children can catch up. I went to meet Mrs Briggs, the brilliant headteacher at Great Sankey Primary School, and I saw the work that the staff team had done, which was an incredible experience, but best of all was seeing children back in their classroom.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
We know what has been going on this afternoon. We are trying to ask for transparency from the Secretary of State, but I will use my limited time to talk about those young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods who are suffering the injustice of having their vital GCSE and A-level grades marked down because of the school that they went to and their postcode. I will, if I may, illustrate my comments with the experience of a couple of my constituents. One young man, Hamzah, who was hoping to go to Leeds University, was on course to achieve the grades. He was originally marked down by the algorithm. By the time he managed to get his appeal the course was full, so he is now waiting another 12 months.
Haaris is another young man with a bright future. He was informed by his college that it would be unable to award him centre-assessed grades. On the same day, Ofqual announced that external candidates could transfer their exam entries to a new centre, one that could assess them and award them grades, so he transferred to a new AQA exam centre, Cambridge Street School in my constituency, and called AQA to ask if that would be okay.
The following sequence is just a Kafka-esque nightmare of flip-flopping that has really impacted on Haaris’s mental health. He was told on that day, 15 May, that that was the deadline for submissions, a deadline that he and his school were unaware of. The next working day they submitted a late entry, accepted as long as basic information was supplied. There was then a long period of silence, with calls and emails unanswered. AQA has said that around the entry deadline in May it experienced an extremely high volume of inquiries from exam centres, parents and students. It is clear that the exam board was not properly prepared or resourced. Had it been able to reply, AQA could have told Haaris earlier that he would not be considered because Joint Council for Qualifications regulations would not allow CAGs to be awarded where a prior relationship did not exist between a student and a centre.
What happened was that after a period of assessment and mocks, Haaris got A*s and As, and it looked like he would be going to a university of his choice in London. However, when AQA was contactable it said that Haaris’s entry would not be processed and that he would not get grades. Then it changed its mind and said that it would process the application if the unique candidate identifier was available. Within hours, that was snatched away again when AQA said it could not process his application.
The back and forth impacted severely on Haaris’s mental health and sense of self-worth. Four years of dedication and hard work in extreme extenuating circumstances have all been for nothing. Students like Haaris and others really do deserve transparency from this Government. We need full disclosure. I support the motion 100%.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
As this is the first time I have spoken in a debate on education since the lockdown has been lifted, I would first like to pay tribute to all the teachers and school staff in the Meon Valley. The measures and work they put in place during lockdown were crucial to the education of many children, and parents are very grateful.
Last week, I visited Cowplain School and heard how 99% of year 7 are attending school and that 97% of all pupils have returned. I am meeting Horndean Technology College next week and I know it will be the same story. Our headteachers have worked incredibly hard in difficult circumstances and I pay tribute to every single one of them.
I do not have a sixth-form college in my constituency and have just three secondary schools, but of course many constituents have just done their A-levels and I know how hard they have worked over many years. Several contacted me after the first set of results were announced. I am therefore extremely grateful that Ofqual and the Government took the right decision over A-levels and GCSEs. Inconsistencies and unfair grading were obvious very quickly, so the swift action taken by both Ofqual and the Secretary of State was very welcome. The fact that two teachers have considered the judgment of centrally assessed grades, which have been signed off by the headteacher or principal, means that students must be confident that their grades are the right ones. This year has been a difficult year for everyone, but I hope that every young person is now confident about what they will be doing next.
Looking to next year, young people definitely need to do exams and there is no reason why village halls or other buildings cannot be turned into exam centres if we have to still socially distance. There is also talk about delaying exams. I do not see that that is necessary if the exams start after summer half-term, but exam boards should be looking to reduce the content while making sure that the mastery of a subject can be demonstrated by students. There is the issue of local lockdowns and some schools and classes closing for a period of time. It is a confusing situation for everyone and difficult decisions will have to be made, but to avoid confusion, we need to have very clear decisions ahead of time and clarity of guidance for those administering the exam process.
I personally think that covid has given us the opportunity to look at restructuring our exam system and that we need to look at whether we still need exams at 16, as we expect people to stay on in educational training until they are 18. I know that that is a subject for another debate, but do we really need GCSEs anymore?
Lastly, I praise all our young children for the fortitude they have shown during the past few months and wish all school leavers best wishes for the future. Very shortly, they will find that exam results at 16 and 18 are not as important as character and resilience. They have all shown that over the covid-19 crisis and it will put them in good stead for their future careers.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This summer, pupils have been tested in more ways than any exam could manage. First, classes and exams were cancelled. That was followed by a rollercoaster of emotions as the Government took a chaotic path with their education, failing teachers and young people. As the Secretary of State spun himself into a series of U-turns, rather than him taking responsibility, we saw the heads roll of leaders across the education sector. Our education system, which once was the best, crashed. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister joked that this was some kind of mutant algorithm—no laughing matter, when the mutant system has been carefully designed to manipulate grades to uphold entrenched inequalities.
Faced with such evidence, one would expect contrition, learning and urgent action. That is why the motion is so important. We have to look to the past to make sure we get it right for the future. It will therefore be important to work with educational experts, academics, teachers and trade unions to build from this point.
There are four things I want to raise. First, we need proper recovery proposals to be brought forward. Secondly, ignoring the calls for a recovery curriculum will not put children in the best place for their future. Thirdly, the obsession with exams does not accommodate the realities of life and does not test young people in the best ways. Fourthly, we need to look at young people’s wellbeing and the impact that this situation is having on them.
We must move from the chaos before us into a recovery programme. Obviously we welcome more money being put into the system for catch-up, but the fact that it will not be delivered until later in the autumn term is already adding to the chaos. Local experts in York, which is well known for its educational prowess and success, tell me that they could deliver a programme much quicker because they have the relationships on the ground, they know the needs of the local schools and children, and they have the people in place to deliver it.
The urgent request from my local authority and local leaders is, instead of running a national programme, to make it local. That kind of U-turn would be most welcome, because we would be able to build an education system run by local experts, delivering local results. That is what we want to see in the recovery curriculum; not children working on Saturdays and after school, as the Secretary of State is suggesting, which our local leader of education said would just stress out traumatised brains.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
Coronavirus has impacted nearly every aspect of society; sadly, schools are no exception. Despite the difficulties and extra stress that covid has caused, I commend the hard work of all the teachers and teaching staff across Delyn who have adapted their lessons to be accessible online and supported students throughout. I also praise Delyn’s students, and those throughout the United Kingdom, who have had to cope with unprecedented pressures and uncertainties over the past few months regarding their results and futures.
Before we can start to move forward and ensure that the same errors are not made again, we need to understand the distress and worry that has been caused to students, families and schools. The algorithm was wrong. It did not lead to the fairest outcomes for all students. It is right that we stop to evaluate the methods used to calculate grades and how that process was handled.
As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), while some Opposition Members triumphantly trumpet another Government U-turn, I urge them to consider what it actually shows: a Government willing to listen and to be flexible and adaptable. Indeed, a recent YouGov tracker of the public response to Government U-turns found that 49% of respondents think that a U-turn is a good sign, as it shows that Ministers are willing to listen and change, compared with only 23% who think that U-turns are a bad thing. The Financial Times has stated that a Government U-turn can be
“a sign of a healthy and functional democracy”.
If we want to encourage healthy and honest debate, we should define these U-turns in a positive light, as they demonstrate that the Government can be held to account and will react accordingly and do the right thing. I therefore support the Government’s decision to base GCSE, AS and A-level results on teacher estimates, when the algorithm that was widely accepted as the best system failed to deliver.
I cannot help but comment on the slight hypocrisy of Opposition Members, who have been very vocal in their criticism of this Government’s handling of the grading process, despite the Labour-led Government in Wales, with a Lib Dem Education Minister, using a similar algorithm and undertaking a U-turn to base results on teacher-predicted grades. Claims were made by the Welsh Labour Government that the system in Wales was, in fact, more robust and more credible, with the First Minister even defending the original system, but that actually led to a higher number being downgraded than was the case in England. They either carried out their own analysis and reached the same conclusions as the UK Government, in which case they should feel the same criticism from their colleagues, or they did no analysis and just followed blindly the UK Government’s position, and they have no legitimacy to govern at all. I suggest that Opposition Members evaluate the same mistakes and decisions made by their own party in government before criticising this one.
I hope, ultimately, that the regulatory bodies and relevant groups across all the devolved nations take the time to learn the lessons needed, even in these challenging circumstances.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Government’s exam process has been nothing short of shambolic, with their disastrous predictive algorithm resulting in students being significantly downgraded and ultimately missing out on their first choice schools, colleges and universities. In many cases, this even included their insurance option. While the subsequent Government U-turn was welcome, sadly it took four days to arrive and was too late for thousands of students, with educational institutions already having filled their places during that period.
The question remains as to why the Government were so slow to act, given that, in its evidence last week to the Education Committee, Ofqual stated that both the Education Secretary and No. 10 were briefed about the issues in the system. Why, therefore, did they fail to address these concerns, which has resulted in such distressing scenes for families across the country and is having a detrimental impact on the future of so many children? Instead of apologising and acting swiftly, this Government allowed the situation to spiral out of control, and instead of soul searching, they threw civil servant after civil servant under the bus in an attempt to deflect from their own failings, including the sacking and scapegoating of Ofqual’s chief regulator and the Department for Education’s permanent secretary. Only one person should have carried the can for this fiasco, and that is the Education Secretary.
This episode is the latest fiasco for the Government to preside over and shows once again that they are not fit to govern, but this episode is far from concluded. As late as last week, many of my constituents in Stockport contacted me to say their child had still not received their BTEC results, some two weeks later than the official results date. Furthermore, students at Aquinas College and Stockport College in my constituency had to endure the worry and uncertainty of this year’s ill-conceived algorithm. Those restarting their interrupted courses, having missed months of face-to-face teaching, have no idea what format the 2021 exams will take or when they will sit them. This is the latest insult to schools across the country, which have been rocked by the covid-19 pandemic and have very understandably looked to this Government to provide support. But the reality is that the Government have been found wanting. There appears to be no credible plan to ensure the stability of the sector at a time when the schools are stretched to breaking point.
Navendu Mishra
I am afraid that Madam Deputy Speaker has said she is discouraging interventions, so I will pass on that—forgive me.
I will just finish on the point that it is an incredibly worrying time for students, their families and teachers, and it is only right that they are given the assurances they deserve by ensuring schools have sufficient funds to remain open and avoid a repeat of this situation next summer.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a bit concerning for someone coming in at this part of the debate that they will end up repeating what everyone has said before them, but I will give it a go and try not to be repetitious. I want to start by paying tribute to my schools and my students in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, many of whom were impacted by this and by the postcode lottery we have seen.
I do just want to make one point because Opposition Members have made quite a big thing about the postcode lottery, disadvantaged students and how we need to close that gap, yet when we had a debate on this, not one of them was here. I am sorry, but this is absolutely just not on. We were here—I was in that debate and talked about this—and we talked about how we were going to close that gap, and bar the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who had to be here, not one hon. Member from the Opposition was here. I am sorry, but that is unacceptable. I come from a community that has been hit by that postcode lottery. Many of my students were impacted by that, and I share their anger. It is absolutely unacceptable for the Opposition to talk about that when Labour Members cannot turn up when it matters.
I do not want to repeat the points that many of my hon. Friends have made, but yes, the centre-assessed system did not work, and no, it is not perfect. Indeed, many of us lobbied our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education on this point. People can call it a U-turn or whatever; I call it pragmatic government, because that is what it comes down to at the end of the day. But it always seems to be the same old story, because the Labour Administration in Wales are doing exactly the same thing, yet what we did is classed as a U-turn. It seems to be one rule for them and another for everyone else, and if they come to Sandwell, they will see what 50 years of Labour running the place looks like.
We need to ensure that this does not happen again. That is absolutely right, and I agree with all hon. Members who have made that point today. I am heartened by the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done to, for example, lift the cap on medical places, ensure that kids in vocational education are not impacted, and lift the temporary students numbers limit for universities, but we need to go further. I would implore him please not to forget technical education. Students in my communities are absolutely reliant on that. They want T-levels to work, and I know he is committed to this, but I implore him to ensure that they do.
To round up, in the 40 seconds I have left, we now need to look to the future. It is as simple as that. We need to ensure that, for example, communities such as mine, which lag below the GCSE A* to C grade average by 14% and where the A-level attainment rate at AAB is only 5%, are levelled up. We need to sort that out. I trust my right hon. Friend to get that right, so let us move on from this and look at how we level up. Let us take the opportunities that this presents and really examine it, through the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and the Education Committee. Together, let us make sure that students, particularly in communities such as mine, can thrive and succeed.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
In my time in this place, I have repeatedly highlighted the attainment gap for young people in Bristol South. The covid crisis makes it much worse, which is why it is urgent that the Secretary of State makes a decision about exams and what will happen next year to allow planning to close that gap. I congratulate all schools, leaders and City of Bristol college in Bristol South for their heroic efforts over the summer to get our kids back to school fully and make things as covid-safe as possible. I have been very impressed with the work they have done, and also with the collaborative way in which Bristol City Council has worked with them.
However, everyone is completely and utterly dismayed at the Government’s late and unhelpful guidance during this crisis. As one of the chairs in Bristol South said to me, “The DFE guidance still comes in fits and starts, often lacking in clarity and sometimes seeming to ignore the practical issue real schools face in interpreting and implementing the guidance.” In the spirit of being helpful, I am keen to help my own children and the children of Bristol South and, indeed, the country. Education is about outcomes and preparing for life. No set of school leavers needs that more than these young people, so let us help. Let us think big. Let us get ambitious for these young people.
First, let us start co-ordinating the guidance. Do not send it every day or every week, but make clear what has changed since last time. Put it through a computer with track changes on. That will make a massive difference for school leaders. Secondly, can we have some clarity on how we use Ofsted in the next year or so? What will be the nature of its visits to schools? Can the approach now be reviewed to look at the balance between support and challenge? We need to get Ofsted helpfully assisting with school improvement and safeguarding, rather than doing last-minute, high-stakes accountability inspections, which are unnecessarily adding to school leaders’ workloads.
The third area is FE transition apprenticeships, which are the key to young people’s opportunities in Bristol South. I am a strong supporter and a chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships, but the pandemic has wreaked havoc on the ability of employers to support apprenticeships. As was discussed in the Education Committee yesterday, what is needed for FE is a national plan for colleges and sixth forms. There can be no one-size-fits-all approach. We need an end to these piecemeal, headline-grabbing policy announcements.
Those are my suggestions for the Government. They need to take note of what we have learnt this year to help with next year and going forward, and they will have a lot of co-operation from many Members in this House in doing so.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Clearly, this was a very concerning time for many of my constituents, and I have seen many cases of young people in my constituency having been negatively impacted by this algorithm, so it could have been handled better, perhaps. It could have been handled better in Wales, perhaps; it could have been handled better in Scotland, perhaps. However, this is an unprecedented time. It is not like we can go to the shelf and ask, “How do you reopen schools in the middle of a global pandemic?” or “How do you award exam results when you have no exams?” This is completely unprecedented, and it is right that we take that on board.
It is interesting that when it came to reopening schools and getting kids back to school, or awarding exam results when we had no exams, it is not like the Labour party said, “Right, this is our plan: you should do this. Here’s a really detailed plan that you should follow.” The Labour party has never done that. In fact, as I pointed out earlier, we actually had the shadow Education Secretary in July criticising predicted grades and saying that standardisation was a way forward.
I say this passionately, as someone who became a Member of Parliament because I care about children with special educational needs and as somebody who had special educational needs myself. I think the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition should take some responsibility for the fact that we were not able to get more kids back to school before the summer holidays. I think he should accept that responsibility. Looking forward—[Interruption.] He made no effort. The Labour party has great influence in the National Education Union. It used none of that influence, and it continues to use none of that influence. Vulnerable children have paid the price of its leader’s inaction. [Interruption.] Okay—let’s all calm down.
Looking forward, it is absolutely critical that we provide schools and schoolteachers with certainty as quickly as possible, and that must mean exams next year. Exams are not perfect, but they have a place and they should continue to have a place. I say that as someone who was dyspraxic and an unconventional learner and pulled rabbits out of the hat at exams. Sometimes kids with SEND actually do better in exams than they do if there are no exams.
We should also look at what happened in Germany, which is probably the main example of a country that carried out socially distanced exams. With the benefit of hindsight, of course, we made the right decision at the time, but we should learn from Germany and next year give certainty to all our schools that exams will go ahead. There will be no plan B; there must be exams. I disagree with much of what Ofqual has said over the last few months, but on that I am in agreement with it. I look forward to seeing the Secretary of State next week.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Apsana Begum, who has two minutes.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this important debate.
I want to begin by paying tribute to all the young people whose courageous and passionate protests secured major and justified U-turns from the Government. Much has already been said about the impact of the fiasco, so in my short contribution I shall focus instead on the issues that are still outstanding as a result of the decisions and U-turns—because the issue is not over or resolved. Indeed, I and countless colleagues continue to be contacted by students who have had no choice but to defer their place at university entirely because of the handling of the results.
First, some BTEC students have still not had their grades. Can the Secretary of State provide clarity and an assurance about when all BTEC students will have their results? Given the way that BTEC students are often stigmatised and treated as a class of their own in the education system, they truly deserve an apology.
Secondly, days before the fiasco unfolded, the Minister with responsibility for exams reassured MPs in a meeting that there was no evidence to suggest that the attainment gap had widened in any way during the pandemic. I remain very concerned that those from disadvantaged groups—primarily those of black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds—have been disproportionately affected as a result of the previous performance of their institutions impacting their grades. What assurances can the Secretary of State provide that every single student and institution has had the support and information to appeal and will be supported through that process?
Thirdly, the significant financial challenges across the entire education sector have been exacerbated by both coronavirus and the Government’s handling of the exams fiasco. What plans are there to ensure the stability of the sector?
The answers to those questions are crucial to ensuring transparency, and they are the key to ensuring that there are no repeats of this mishandling in any future processes. It is increasingly clear that we need a long- term review of the assessment methods used to award qualifications, including the possibility of more coursework, and systematic—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I thank the hon. Lady, but I have to bring in the Front Benchers now.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
This has been a really important debate and at its heart is the question of public confidence in the Government’s handling of GCSEs, A-levels and NVQs this year. Clearly, feelings are running high on this issue, and I pay tribute to the students, their families and the teachers who faced months of uncertainty after the Secretary of State announced back in March that the exam regulator, Ofqual, and the exam boards would work with teachers to provide grades to students whose exams would not take place in the summer.
I regret that I will not be able to mention every single person who has spoken in today’s debate, but there have been some important contributions from all parts of the House. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the shadow Secretary of State for Education, for opening the debate. The right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) spoke about just how badly BTEC results were handled and made the important point that we should value vocational qualifications as much as academic ones. I was concerned to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) say that she has constituents contacting her now to say that those results still have not been given to some of her constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) made an emotional plea that this fiasco never be repeated.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) spoke of how students in her constituency have had no choice but to defer going to university because of the Government’s failure. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) spoke about the devastating impact that the fiasco has had on her constituents and spoke of hearts broken and dreams in tatters. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) told of how young people’s mental health will have been impacted by this debacle. Indeed, that was illustrated by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), who described one such case as a Kafkaesque nightmare.
The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) asked the interesting question of whether we need GCSEs anymore. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that she had expected to see contrition, learning and urgent action, and she spoke of the importance of a recovery curriculum. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) spoke of constituents missing out on their chosen universities and colleges because of the Government’s failures, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) spoke of just how difficult it was with Government guidance coming out in fits and starts. She also called for clarity on how we use Ofsted.
This Government have presided over a summer of chaos, incompetence and confusion. Even the Secretary of State acknowledged on 1 September that the situation with exams had caused students
“a great deal of stress and uncertainty”.—[Official Report, 1 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 42.]
It is the failure of this Government to effectively manage the exams process this summer that has caused enormous anxiety to young people, as well as to their families and their teachers. At last week’s meeting of the Education Select Committee, Julie Swan, executive director of general qualifications at Ofqual, said that the regulator provided advice to Ministers on 16 March that it would be
“challenging, if not impossible, to attempt to moderate estimates in a way that is fair for all this year’s students. Everyone, throughout the process, was aware of the risks. A paper to the general public sector ministerial implementation group on 1 May, highlighted the risk of widespread dissatisfaction with grades awarded, from individual students, schools and colleges, and the risk to public confidence.”
She said that Ofqual had briefed No. 10 on 7 August and held regular meetings on the matter with the Schools Minister throughout the period.
The warnings were there, so why did the Government not heed them? Was it simply that they chose not to and hoped that everything would turn out all right in theend? It is time now for full transparency from the Government, and that is why we have tabled this motion today. Young people and their families deserve to know how they came to be let down so badly.
On 17 August, the shadow Secretary of State called for the Government to use centre-assessed grades for GCSEs and A-levels to put an end to the exams fiasco. Later that day, the Government did that. It is not just in the delivery of A-level, AS-levels and GSCEs that the Government failed. As the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow, pointed out, BTECs were treated almost as an afterthought, and that comment has been made by many contributors today. Even as late as 2 September, the Government’s Minister in the Lords admitted that some BTEC students were still awaiting their results being communicated. Why are they in that situation? Will the Minister apologise to them?
Four education unions—the National Association of Head Teachers, the National Education Union, the Association of School and College Leaders and the NASUWT—have called on the Secretary of State to commit to an urgent independent inquiry into what happened this year in order to understand what went wrong and to learn the lessons for the future. Will he act on their call?
The chair of Ofqual told the Select Committee last Wednesday that Ofqual would be happy to publish all the communications and minutes it has had with the Department of Education, provided the Government are in agreement with it doing so. What discussions has the Minister had with Ofqual about materials being made public?
The Government need to set out for schools and students how they plan to deliver an assessment process in 2021 that is rigorous, fairly managed and able to deliver in the event of further disruption in the coming year. Labour has called for exams to be put back to June to allow students and teachers to make up vital lost time and to address the potential for further disruption. The NEU is calling on the Government to reduce the content in GCSE and A-level exams, and to work with teachers and school leaders to develop a national system of moderated centre assessment grades in case there is further disruption. I ask the Minister: what consideration have the Government given to those suggestions? It is vital that the Government set out as a matter of urgency how they will ensure that grades are awarded fairly next year so that teachers can teach accordingly.
So far, we have seen no coherent plan from Government. If they wish to rebuild confidence in the public in the awarding of grades, it is essential that they are open and transparent about their failings regarding the awarding of grades this year. The House needs to know what the Secretary of State knew and what the Prime Minister knew, when they knew it, and what they did about it when they were warned of the difficulties. Full disclosure is vital so that students, their families and teachers can see what went wrong. I appeal to Members on the Conservative Benches to think of those young people in their constituencies who have been left upset, angry and disadvantaged by the Government’s incompetence, and I call on all Members to support the motion today.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
The debate has been largely constructive. As we have said consistently, the Government never wanted to cancel exams. They are obviously the best and fairest form of assessment. But we had to take the difficult decision to close schools and colleges and cancel summer exams because of the covid-19 pandemic. As the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, the virus has propelled not just this country but the rest of the world into uncharted territory, and we have had to respond, often at great speed, to find the best way forward given what we knew at the time.
Once the decision to cancel exams and instead to issue calculated grades to students was made, the Government followed the necessary steps. Our overriding aim was to ensure that all students received just recognition for their efforts and were able to progress to the next stage of their lives in the knowledge that their qualifications had the same value as previous years.
We provided clear direction to Ofqual in the form of two direction letters, the first for general qualifications and the second for vocational and technical qualifications. We worked closely with Ofqual as it developed the process for arriving at calculated grades. As an independent body, the decisions throughout this process were rightly for Ofqual to take, but as the Secretary of State has already made clear, the Department was consulted throughout. I met weekly with senior colleagues at Ofqual during the model development period, and whenever I was made aware of possible challenges with the model, I raised them with Ofqual, seeking the necessary reassurances and urging Ofqual to consider appropriate changes to the arrangements—for example, an enhanced appeals process to help address our concerns about able candidates in schools with a track record of lower standards.
As other issues were raised, we were reassured that, overall, the model was fair. The work to award qualifications based on calculated grades was a mammoth task that had never been carried out or even expected before this year. It is important to remember that similar approaches to awarding qualifications following the cancellation of exams were put in place in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the key principle of using a statistical standardised model was supported by 89% of those responding to Ofqual’s consultation.
As is normal every year to reflect its status as an independent regulator, Ofqual shared some headline data in the days immediately before the release of results, but I and the rest of the Department did not see the detail of how individual students or schools and colleges would be affected until A-level results day. Over the following days, it became clear to me and to the Secretary of State that there were far too many inconsistent and unfair outcomes for students that did not reflect their hard work or ability. It was not reasonable to expect all of those to be dealt with through an appeals system, and they severely undermined public confidence in the system. Therefore, Ofqual and the Government took immediate action, announcing on Monday 17 August the decision to revert to centre assessment grades for all students, or the calculated grade where this was higher.
The Department worked exceptionally closely with Ofqual and the exam boards in the following week, and I chaired daily taskforces on the matter, pressing hard to ensure that the results were issued as soon as possible. Despite the extremely challenging circumstances, GCSE results were revised, and they were issued on the original results day of 20 August. A-level and AS-level results were reissued to schools and colleges at the same time as well. I continue to hold this taskforce, which is attended by Ofqual, the awarding organisations, key school and college leader stakeholder organisations and unions, and I will ensure that it meets whenever appropriate to discuss operational concerns.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who has responsibility for apprenticeships and skills, also held daily meetings during this time to monitor progress with the issuing of vocational and technical qualifications and to ensure that the results were issued as soon as possible, so no one awaiting a place in further or higher education, or on an apprenticeship, would lose out.
In opening the debate, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), said that lessons must be learned from what happened this summer, and of course that is right. We are working closely with Ofqual to make sure that we learn the lessons from 2020.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said that we should all approach the debate with due humility, and I share that wish. He asked about Sir Jon Coles and his concerns about the model. We did raise Jon Coles’ concerns with Ofqual and were given assurances.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the Chair of the Education Committee, made the important point about the degree to which—[Interruption.] Ah, he has moved. He spoke about the degree to which pupils need to catch up on lost education. I can assure him that we will be conducting the research that he is suggesting, in particular, to monitor progress that pupils make.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) were right to focus on 2021 and on ensuring that we release as much time as we can for extra teaching, and that those exams go ahead as planned.
The former Universities Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), made compelling points about the admissions system, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb), in a powerful intervention, reminded the House about the Government’s commitment to help students to catch up, with a £1 billion catch-up premium.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) was correct to say that—[Interruption.] I wish my right hon. Friends would stay in the same seats. He was correct to say that while exams are of course the best and fairest way to award qualifications, in the middle of this pandemic, exams were no longer an option.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) raised the issue of BTECs. I can confirm, from the four awarding organisations that I have been working with, that there are now no results outstanding. The delay was to ensure that candidates taking BTECs were not put at a disadvantage, given the changes to the grading of GCSEs and A-levels.
I share the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) for PE. That is not something I would have said as a child, but he is right that exercise is vital for mental as well as physical health. The hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) spoke of a minimum standard of education in three of the four tiers in the contained guidance. We have published very clear expectations for schools on the quality of remote education.
Every child and young person in this country has experienced unprecedented disruption to their education as a result of covid-19, with those from the most vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds being among the hardest hit. Education recovery lies at the heart of our national mission as we recover from the disruption caused by covid-19 and ensure that we provide schools with the necessary guidance, support and funding that they need, with high attendance at schools—.
Nick Gibb
If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I am just coming to an end. I was delighted to hear of the very high attendance in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley.
I and the Secretary of State know that the situation has caused stress and uncertainty for many, and clearly this was never the intention. I can assure them that we are working with Ofqual to ensure that what happened this summer does not happen again. There are lessons to learn, and we want to be transparent. The Secretary of State—
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The motion just passed allows amendments to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to be tabled with immediate effect. Although the motion refers to amendments being handed to the Clerk at the Table, Members should table amendments not in the Chamber but by email to the Public Bill Office at PBOHoC@parliament.uk.
Petitions
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Coventry South regarding hospital parking charges, alongside an online petition on the same topic, which has been signed by 2,219 people.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Coventry South,
Declares that NHS staff deserve thanks and recognition for their extraordinary service through the Coronavirus pandemic; notes that parking charges have recently been re-imposed at University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire; and further notes that NHS staff have faced a decade of falling pay and that, despite this, a pay rise has still been refused to nurses, porters, cleaners and many other staff.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to scrap hospital parking charges for staff, patients, and visitors, and to ensure that there is a pay settlement for NHS staff that gives them the recognition they deserve.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002594]
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition calling for Premier League transparency and accountability on behalf of my constituents. Online, this petition received over 21,000 signatures, 2,000 of them from Newcastle upon Tyne Central. An earlier change.org petition calling for an independent investigation into the Premier League takeover process attracted over 110,000 signatures, demonstrating the determination and passion of football fans.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Newcastle upon Tyne Central,
Declares that football is an important part of a city’s cultural identity and economy; further declares that football fans have little say in their club owners; notes that football ownership is determined by the Premier League’s Owners & Directors Tests; further notes that the Premier League do not provide updates to supporters about the progress of takeover bids; further declares that Premier League due process is opaque; further declares that the Premier League are not accountable to football supporters; further declares that the Premier League have failed to engage with fans; and further notes concerns that Premier League inactivity led to the collapse of the recent Newcastle United takeover.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take action to review the way in which the Premier League assessed the recent Newcastle United takeover bid, to provide accountability to fans and local communities of clubs subject to takeover bids, with particular reference to Newcastle United, and to commit to a timescale for a fan-led review of football, as promised in the Government’s manifesto.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002596]
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I rise to present a petition to the House of Commons on Hunterston B nuclear power station.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the North Ayrshire & Arran constituency,
Declares that there is an urgent need to support inward investment in North Ayrshire; notes the announcement of the complete cessation of energy production at Hunterston B Nuclear Power Station in January 2022; further notes the £54 million annual contribution the station makes to the North Ayrshire economy; and further declares that, while there is no immediate threat to the jobs of approximately 520 staff and 250 contractors working on the site, action needs to be taken now to ensure the sustainability of the local economy once the defueling of Hunterston B has concluded.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the UK Government to work in partnership with the Scottish Government and North Ayrshire Council to deliver investment in green, clean energy production in North Ayrshire as a matter of urgency.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002597]
Detention of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
I am grateful to have secured this Adjournment debate so that I can take this opportunity to press the Government, in the strongest possible terms, to take much stronger action against the Chinese Government and their campaign of genocide against the Uyghur people of Xinjiang. This crime can longer go unpunished, and someone has to say, “enough is enough”.
While we were away from this place for the summer recess, I wrote an article entitled, “Genocide does not rise for recess”. Over the past few weeks, that has proven to be the case. Even amid growing international fury in many quarters, the Chinese Government continue unhindered with a campaign of what can only accurately be described as genocide, but where we should expect leadership and action, there is only a yawning void.
We learned this week of one of the most striking examples of choosing to look away from what is happening to an entire people at the hands of the Chinese Government. The Disney Corporation, that self-styled beacon of wholesome positivity, chose to film its latest blockbuster movie, “Mulan”, in the very province where the Uyghur people are being interned, tortured and forcibly sterilised. Disney even thanked the state authorities in China for their co-operation. There is a particularly savage irony in a story of family, friendship and emancipation being filmed against a real-life background of forced sterilisation, families torn asunder and cold-blooded torture—in short, against a backdrop of genocide.
The repression of Uyghur Muslims by the Chinese Government has a depressingly long history, but in the last few years the state has become bolder and more belligerent in the scale of atrocity that it is willing to commit—its bullishness is matched only by its brazenness. It is estimated that more than 1 million people are being held at internment camps in Xinjiang, and the Chinese Government are showing no signs of pausing their orchestrated campaign.
We have all seen the horrific drone footage showing men being rounded up, and we have all heard the stories of forced labour camps. The testimony of witnesses is becoming ever more disturbing. Earlier this month, a Uyghur doctor spoke to ITV:
“She speaks of participating in at least 500 to 600 operations on Uighur women including forced contraception, forced abortion, forced sterilisation and forced removal of wombs. She told me that on at least one occasion a baby was still moving when it was discarded into the rubbish.”
In the same programme, a Uyghur man spoke of his experience of being tortured in an internment camp:
“The torture was relentless. They beat me with the twisted wire and pipe nonstop. There was no place left without bruising. They tortured me for three hours, I couldn’t cope any longer so I begged them to take me down from hanging…After screaming and begging for so long I passed out.”
Those are two short examples of the atrocities being committed. I could go on, for the charge sheet is long and horrific.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Over the summer, a coalition of human rights organisations reported that many of the world’s biggest fashion brands are complicit in human rights violations perpetrated against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, including the use of forced labour. Does my hon. Friend agree that multinational corporations have an urgent responsibility to ensure that their supply chains are free from such gross abuses of human rights?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I will come on to talk about forced labour, the supply chain and actions that we might take against the Chinese Government and companies.
Shabana Mahmood
I will not give way just yet; I will see how we get on. I know that there is a lot of intense interest in this debate, and I have had representations from many Members. That makes the case for not only how seriously Members from across the House take this matter, but how much people want to debate it and get a response from the Government. I think we should aim for more debates on the Floor of the House with more time, rather than end-of-day Adjournment debates like this one.
The genocide convention, to which China is a signatory, defines genocide as specific acts against members of a group with the intent to destroy that group in whole or in part. These acts include killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life to bring about the group’s physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Any one of these categories constitutes genocide. The overwhelming evidence of the Chinese Government’s deliberate and systematic campaign to destroy the Uyghur people clearly meets each of these categories.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on holding this very important debate. She has very clearly laid out the tenet of what is required in international law to say that genocide is taking place in Xinjiang. Unfortunately, though, China’s power within the UN means that the UN is a busted flush, so it is up to our Government—our Foreign Office—to say that enough is enough and we will hold our own tribunal to work out what the evidence suggests, which will no doubt be that genocide is indeed taking place.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the hon. Lady and agree with everything she said. Her remarks are testament to how much cross-party agreement there now is about what is happening to the Uyghur people at the hands of the Chinese Government. I would certainly welcome an opportunity to work closely with her and other Conservative Members so that we can lobby their Government to take the action that we would all, I am sure, like to see.
We should all be alarmed and appalled by what we are seeing, but we should all also resolve to forge a path forward for Uyghur freedom. I do believe that, as the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) said, our Government can play a key role in averting disaster. The time has certainly come for Magnitsky-style sanctions on individuals, whether state or non-state actors, where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is involved in serious human rights violations in Xinjiang. There is no good reason to explain why these have not already been activated. I believe that the Government’s current position is that the evidence is not there yet—a position that I have to say I find incredible. If the evidence we already have is not strong enough, then could the Minister tell us what more is required? What line has to be crossed before we say that sanctions are now appropriate?
Sanctions alone will not, of course, be enough. We should go further in using and enforcing domestic avenues of accountability—in particular, corporate accountability relating to supply chains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) remarked. We cannot allow the fruits of forced labour to end up on our shores and in our homes. I know that British people everywhere would be appalled to think, for example, that the personal protective equipment that we have all come to rely on could have been produced by the abused and subjugated people of Xinjiang. If our words on eradicating modern slavery are to mean anything, then surely the commercial goods that the Uyghurs and others in Xinjiang are forced to make should be squarely in our sights.
Both these options relate to following and then attacking the money. As distasteful as it may seem, money does matter a very great deal. The Chinese Communist party has busily been buying up influence and the silence of other countries. A challenge based on restricting the flow of money for key regime individuals, and also for companies, both Chinese and others, that are benefiting from these crimes would hit where it hurts and send a clear message too.
There are legal options as well. I know that the situation is complicated—China is of course a permanent member of the UN Security Council—but we should not let that stand in our way, as the hon. Member for Wealden made clear. I know that the Government are proud to have co-ordinated a joint UN statement, and I am sure that the Minister will remark on that. I do not wish to sound uncharitable as to the actions that the Government have been trying to co-ordinate. I know that even getting to that point, faced with a concerted counter-effort by the Chinese Government, is significant, but I also know we can do better. As the Bar Human Rights Committee has said, we should lead efforts to establish an impartial and independent UN mechanism such as a special rapporteur, or maybe an expert panel, to closely monitor the situation in Xinjiang.
We should investigate the viability of more innovative legal approaches that could be taken, as we have seen in respect of the Rohingya. The International Criminal Court has intervened to probe the violence against Myanmar’s Rohingya community because part of the crime—deportation—has taken part in Bangladesh, which falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court even though Myanmar itself does not. Similarly, we know that deportations are taking place from Jinjiang to Tajikistan and Cambodia, and people are then repatriated to China and later murdered, tortured or sterilised.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. Does she agree that if the perpetrators of ethnic cleansing and genocide are not prosecuted—as in the case of the Burmese military, despite the now overwhelming evidence—it is likely that genocide will become a policy tool for China and many other countries and leaders around the world? It is on our country and our Government to show leadership here.
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We can be in no doubt as to the ambitions that the Chinese Government have: President Xi Jinping made clear in his 2050 vision statement the sort of dominance that his country wishes to achieve. If the current actions of the Chinese Government are allowed to go unchecked for any longer, we are heading for a very dark century indeed, which is why we must all take action and press the Minister today.
Mr Dhesi
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. What is happening with the Uyghur people is absolutely diabolical. As she rightly pointed out, the alarming reports coming out of China indicate genocide, ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale, and the destruction of a people and their language, religion and culture. That is why, rather than mere platitudes, our Government should be spearheading an international movement to shine a light on the situation and force the Chinese Government to mend their ways.
Shabana Mahmood
The points that my hon. Friend highlights go to the fact that many of us now think that the tests for what constitutes genocide are being met by the Chinese Government. It is truly depressing that because of the growing dominance of the Chinese Government and the way in which the United Nations institutions work, so much of the international community is just completely unable to effectively stand up and say, “This is not going to happen.” Too often the world just says, “Never again.” We were supposed to have “Never again” on genocides decades ago, yet they have continued to take place and one is taking place even now. What will it take for the world to act? That is why I want to push the Minister very strongly on that point.
The Government can do more to consider more innovative legal approaches. I will refrain from making comments on the rule of law, which everybody has been discussing in the past 24 hours with regard to our treaty obligations, but the Minister will know, because he has to have the conversations with his Chinese counterparts and others, that Britain must be believed to be a country that stands by its international obligations and the rule of law. That is one of the great gifts that we have and it is one of our key strengths as a country when we play our role on the international stage. The Government should right what they have done wrong in the past 24 hours so that we can make representations with the full force of moral and legal authority that we have enjoyed for a long time.
One thing is indisputable: nothing will change unless co-ordinated, robust political force and pressure is applied while commercial, financial and legal routes to take action against the Chinese Government are navigated and explored. The UK now has a choice as to whether to lead the charge or turn our backs and allow these atrocities to continue once the outrage has inevitably subsided.
I support the actions that the Government have taken and intend to take in relation to Hong Kong citizens and I have supported the Government’s decision in relation to Huawei. In fact, I think it is high time that we as a country take a more realistic and clear-eyed approach towards our relationship with China. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), has said, we have frequently rolled out a red carpet for the Chinese Government but got nothing in return. Surely, the perpetration of a genocide necessitates a full review and reset of our relationship.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter forward. China stands condemned in the world courts for its persecution of the Uyghur Muslims, and also for murders, killings, injuries and human rights abuses. Does she therefore agree with me and many others in this House that the genocide against the Uyghurs is one of the worst crimes of the 21st century?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. The scale of what is happening in China defies belief. The videos that we have now seen and that are being pursued by commercial television news channels such as ITV lay out starkly the reality of what is happening, and we cannot turn away. As he says, one of the great crimes of the 21st century is being committed before our very eyes. Whatever happens next, we will not be able to say that we did not know. We did, we do, and we must act, because it is not too late for us to avert the worst of this developing atrocity. History will judge us for the unforgivable lack of action thus far, but it will also judge us for the choices we make in the coming days and weeks.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this important matter before the House. As we all here agree, UK values are built upon our shared belief in, and celebration of, liberty, freedom and pluralism. We therefore understand that people are not truly characterised by their race or religion, and that they are characterised by their innate human value. Sadly, their intrinsic value is not recognised by the People’s Republic of China for millions of people, whether Falun Gong, Muslims or Christians. If we cannot get change by talk alone, does she agree that we need to move into sanctions and other measures to get the Communist party of China to move?
Shabana Mahmood
That is exactly why I have laid out—with some clarity, I hope—the case today for Magnitsky-style sanctions, for action against companies that are benefiting from the forced labour in the camps and for approaches that can be pursued in the arena of international law—difficult though that is, given the position we are in with the United Nations and China’s status as a permanent member of the Security Council. It is in our gift to stand up to the Chinese Government. It is in our gift to give voice to those Chinese citizens who are, as I speak, being shaved, sterilised, dehumanised and brutalised. It is, in short, in our gift to do so much more to halt this genocide. Enough is enough. Britain must lead the way.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
May I start by saying how incredibly grateful I am to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) for securing this debate and for her powerful speech? I very much acknowledge the strength of feeling around the Chamber on this important issue. That has been characterised by the number of people who have intervened on her speech. I will try my best to respond to all the points that she has raised.
Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang are continuing to experience significant restrictions to their freedom of religion or belief, their freedom of speech and their freedom of association. The Chinese authorities have banned everyday expressions of religious observation, to which every person should be entitled. We are also aware of credible reports that mosques and other religious sites have been closed to worshippers or, even worse, demolished.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
There are reports that Disney has filmed its new film, “Mulan”, in Xinjiang, the area that is the subject of this debate where people are being forcibly held against their will. There are very concerning reports of further things. What assessment has the Minister made of Disney filming “Mulan” in Xinjiang?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises something that has been in the news over the last few days, and I know that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood mentioned it in her comments. I very much note the concerns about the filming of “Mulan” in Xinjiang, and the comments made by the actresses. This has also been brought up by other Members of this House, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who has mentioned the crediting of the state authorities in the film’s titles. As everyone should know, this Government have said that UK businesses—bearing in mind that Disney is not a British business—operating in the region should be conducting due diligence to ensure that their activities do not support, or risk being seen to support, any human rights violations.
We have seen evidence that Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities are being used as a source of forced labour across China, following release from the internment camps. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood referred to this. If individuals refuse to participate, they and their families are threatened with extrajudicial detention.
Jim Shannon
We have great concerns about forced organ donation, which is carried out on a commercial scale in China against Uyghur Muslims, Christians and Falun Gong. It is time that China caught themselves on. The world has a role to play as well, which is not to send people over for those transplants.
Nigel Adams
It is a great pleasure and a great surprise to be responding to an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. We take those allegations absolutely seriously. We have consulted the World Health Organisation and our international partners. The evidence provides disturbing details about the mistreatment of Falun Gong practitioners, for example, and raises worrying questions about China’s transplant system. We are keeping the matter under review, and welcome any and all new evidence on the issue.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
We have been talking about these issues for so long, yet there does not seem to be international action to deal with them. In Xinjiang province, people are living in fear, with 1 million people incarcerated and threats of sterilisation, yet we are not taking any action. Does the Minister agree that, as well as taking the action that we can take, we should get the international community behind us so that we can take concerted action to deal with this?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. In recent months, we have seen deeply troubling allegations of forced birth control measures and sterilisation against Uyghur women in Xinjiang. We have also seen reliable reports that Uyghur children are being forcibly separated from their parents and taken to state-run orphanages, where lessons are taught in Mandarin and where political education, for want of a better phrase, is a key part of the curriculum.
Over 1 million Uyghurs, which is more than 10% of the Uyghur population, have been detained in internment camps without trial. Recent reporting, based on analysis of satellite images, suggests that the Chinese authorities continue to construct new internment camps.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) on securing this debate. The situation in Xinjiang is serious and Members from all parts of the House are talking about it. What is happening in Xinjiang is deeply disturbing, but it replicates what has happened in Tibet over the past few decades. We know the kind of oppression that Buddhist people have faced in Tibet. Does the Minister agree that it would be a welcome first step if the Government added the people from the Chinese Government who are responsible for these crimes to the list for Magnitsky sanctions?
Nigel Adams
I will come on to our approach. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood also raised the idea of sanctions. I will address it later in my remarks.
I am slightly concerned about how much time there is left. How long do I have? [Interruption.] Until 7.49 pm—jolly good. I had better crack on. I do apologise.
The construction of new internment camps runs counter to the statement of the Chairman of Xinjiang in December that all detainees had, in his words, graduated from the camps. It is not known for how long each individual is detained, what chance they have of release or whether they can appeal their detention. What is clear is that these detentions have split families, left children effectively orphaned and created a culture of fear. Our diplomats visited Xinjiang in November 2019, and their observations supported much of the recent open-source reporting on the region and reports by non-governmental organisations.
China’s initial response to allegations of human rights abuses in Xinjiang was to deny the existence of the camps. After a significant amount of evidence was reported and international attention increased, that position became untenable. It now describes the camps as education and training facilities. China claims that they are part of a legitimate and necessary policy to prevent extremism, and it has repeatedly dismissed international concerns, claiming that the UK and others are politicising matters and interfering in China’s internal affairs.
We believe that, based on all the available evidence, China’s actions in Xinjiang constitute an egregious abuse of human rights and, as a strategy to prevent extremism, are grossly disproportionate and deeply flawed. Untold numbers of innocent citizens have suffered under these policies and will continue to do so unless China implements UN recommendations to close the camps. It must also allow UN observers unfettered access to the region. China is contravening its obligations under the 1948 universal declaration of human rights and its own constitutional provisions on freedom of religion.
The human rights situation in Xinjiang remains a priority concern for me, the Foreign Secretary and the Government as a whole, and as the Foreign Secretary told the House on 20 July, the UK wants a positive relationship with China. He said:
“There is enormous scope for…constructive engagement. There are wide-ranging opportunities, from increasing trade to co-operation in tackling climate change…but as we strive for that positive relationship, we are also clear-sighted about the challenges that lie ahead.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1831.]
The Foreign Secretary has underlined our grave concerns regarding the gross and egregious human rights abuses being perpetrated against Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang, which is why we have repeatedly taken a leading international role in holding China to account for its gross human rights violations in Xinjiang.
Let me come to some of the points that the hon. Lady raised in the time that I have left. She raised the issue of sanctions. We are carefully considering further designations under the global human rights regime, which we introduced in July, and we will keep all evidence and potential listings under close review. I know that this is something that other hon. Members have raised. It is important, though, that sanctions are developed responsibly and on the basis of evidence. It is definitely not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated in the future as to do so may reduce its impact.
Nigel Adams
I can do, although I may not be able to get round to answering all the questions.
Shabana Mahmood
I thank the Minister for giving way. I just want to say that there is intense interest across the House on the issue of Magnitsky-style sanctions . Can he perhaps give us an indication of timings of when we might expect the Government to develop their position on sanctions, so that at least we will know when we may get further detail from the Government on this point?
Nigel Adams
What I can tell the hon. Lady—she is very wise to push me on this—is that those sanctions are under constant review and it would be unwise to speculate on this. I am sure that she will understand why at this time.
The hon. Lady mentioned the definition of genocide. She will know that it is our long-standing policy that the determination of genocide should be made only by a competent court rather than by Governments or non-judicial bodies. However, we are closely monitoring those developments. She also mentioned what we have done in terms of holding China to account. As I have said, we have raised this issue now twice in a joint statement at the UN. I do feel that this is a subject that needs to be raised in the House in a longer forum than a half-hour Adjournment debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
To conclude, the UK Government strongly condemn the actions of the Chinese authorities in Xinjiang. China is pursuing policies that deny the Uyghur people their right to freedom of religion or belief, freedom of speech and freedom of association. One million Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities have been extrajudicially detained. We have repeatedly urged China to end these disproportionate and damaging policies, and I repeat that call from the Dispatch Box today. It is in the interests of China’s international reputation and the long-term stability of Xinjiang that China honours its commitments to its own constitutional provisions on freedom of religion or belief and to the universal declaration of human rights. It is precisely because we respect China as a leading member of the international community that we expect it to live it up to its own international obligations. Its human rights obligations are no exception to that, so we urge the Chinese Government, without further delay, to change course and meet their commitments for every single one of their citizens.
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 |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
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) | Leo Docherty |
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 |
Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) | 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) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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 |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Julian Knight (Solihull) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
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) | Cat Smith |
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 |
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 |
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 Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members of the social distancing regulations: spaces available to Members are clearly marked; unmarked spaces must not be occupied. The usual convention of a Government side and an Opposition side is waived on this occasion, so Members may sit anywhere. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members sent any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Mobile Homes (Requirement for Manager of Site to be Fit and Proper Person) (England) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time since lockdown, Mr Hollobone—I am pleased to be here. The regulations were laid before the House on 8 July. Their purpose is to prohibit the use of land as a residential mobile home site unless the local authority is satisfied that the owner or manager of the site is a fit and proper person to manage it.
The Government are committed to ensuring that all park home residents have a safe, secure and affordable place to live. Park home sites make an extremely valuable contribution to the housing sector. The majority of park owners in England provide well-maintained sites and professional services to their residents, most of whom are elderly and among the most vulnerable people in our society. Sadly, their good work can be overshadowed by the minority of unscrupulous operators in the sector.
A major step towards the effective regulation of the sector was taken in the Mobile Homes Act 2013, and I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for sponsoring that private Member’s Bill and for his ongoing work on this particular subject. To continue that important work, we carried out a two-part review in 2017. The evidence indicated that although there had been significant improvement in the sector, there were still some examples of serious abuses and exploitation. In some cases, residents were asked to pay £40,000 for a new long-term agreement that should have been given to them free of charge in the first place. Those practices are unjustifiable and unacceptable. The sector must not be allowed to provide rogue site owners with the opportunity to extract ever more cash from those who are on fixed or low incomes.
The case for change, to ensure that those who manage park home sites are fit and proper to do so, is compelling. The fit and proper person requirement would be a useful addition to local authorities’ existing powers to help target the worst offenders in the sector. Good site owners will not be concerned about being unable to meet the required standards; the minority who continue to abuse and exploit residents will have to improve or make way for more professional people to manage the sites.
The regulations will prohibit the use of relevant protected sites as residential mobile home sites unless the site owner or manager has been assessed as a fit and proper person to manage the site by the local authority. A relevant protected site does not include sites operated by local authorities, sites operated for holiday purposes only, or sites that are exempt from requiring a site licence. A relevant protected site that is occupied by members of the same family and is not run as a commercial residential site will be exempt from the requirements.
To manage a site, a site owner will be required to apply to the local authority for the relevant person—themselves or their appointed manager—to be included in the local register of fit and proper persons. In the application, site owners will be required to provide certain mandatory information to enable the local authority to assess the applicant’s suitability for managing sites. That information includes whether the applicant is able to secure the proper management of the site and whether they have committed certain offences or contravened relevant legislation. An up-to-date criminal record certificate will also be needed for the individual being assessed as the fit and proper person and, where applicable, for other individuals responsible for the day-to-day management of the site.
In cases where a company is being assessed as the fit and proper person or a company is responsible for the day-to-day management, a criminal record certificate will be required for the individual with responsibility for the day-to-day management of the site. If that individual is not a company officer, a criminal record certificate will be required for the officer to whom the individual reports, as if the officer was the individual. It is important that local authorities have some flexibility to take account of other factors that might affect a person’s suitability to manage a site. Local authorities will therefore have the discretion to take account of other relevant matters, including the conduct of any associates of the site owner.
The regulations require local authorities to establish and maintain an online register of persons whom they are satisfied are fit and proper persons to manage a site in their area. The register will enable existing residents, prospective purchasers and other local authorities to know who the person managing the site is and whether there are any concerns of which they should be aware. For site owners who do not maintain high standards of conduct and management, a local authority will be able to review their entry on the register and either remove them, attach new conditions or vary an existing condition that is attached to that entry. If the local authority rejects an application or removes a person from the register, the site owner cannot find an alternative fit and proper manager. The local authority will be able to appoint a new manager with the consent of the site owner.
In recognition of the serious abuses that the regulations are designed to tackle, there will be serious penalties for site owners who do not comply with them. The regulations introduce three criminal offences: operating a site in contravention of a fit and proper person requirement; providing false or misleading information in, or withholding information from, an application for inclusion in the register; and failing to comply with a condition of inclusion in the register. If a site owner is convicted of any of the offences under the regulations, they will face an unlimited fine.
The regulations will also enable a local authority to revoke a site licence in certain circumstances. We expect local authorities to revoke a licence only as a last resort, as it could lead to the closure of a site and put residents at risk of homelessness. However, we want to ensure that where it is necessary to revoke a licence, local authorities are able to do so without putting the welfare of residents at any risk. The Government will therefore introduce management orders as part of potentially forthcoming primary legislation. Management orders will give local authorities powers to appoint an interim site manager to take over the management of a site where a site licence might need to be revoked.
Our local authorities are working hard to enforce standards in the park homes sector, so we are mindful of the risks of putting new burdens on them. That is why we have given them the power to charge an application fee and annual fees to cover the cost of their work. We will publish detailed guidance to assist local authorities and site operators to understand their responsibilities under the new legislation.
The changes we are making through the regulations are substantial and build on the improvements that have already been made by the Mobile Homes Act 2013. The changes form part of a comprehensive programme of work that we announced in 2018 to further improve the sector and the lives of park home residents. The regulations are necessary to drive up standards of management and conduct across the park homes sector, and they ensure that residents’ rights are respected. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
May I affirm that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone? I welcome the new Minister to her place, and I think she will be pleased to know that the Opposition support the measures before the Committee today. I do of course have comments to make, but I am sure people will be mightily pleased when I reaffirm that they will be kept brief.
We welcome this legislation, although it has probably taken several years too many to bring it to the House. That was an inevitable outcome, given the stories of exploitation and harassment experienced by residents of mobile homes and sites, which were pointed out by the Minister in her powerful introduction. Many of them have been documented in contributions from hon. Members across this House over the years.
The Minister will be aware that this legislation presents a huge amount of work for local authorities in dealing with applications and maintaining a register of those whose applications are successful. In order for these changes to work and protect people, local authorities need the funding and resources to deal with the applications and to be able to enforce action in the worst cases. I therefore seek clarity from the Minister about what meaningful support the Government are offering to local authorities to implement these measures and ensure that enforcement does take place in the worst cases.
There may be complex issues where parks are managed by companies or other corporate entities and, if proper support and expertise are not ensured, inconsistent decisions could lead to these well-intentioned regulations being undermined. I look forward to hearing the Minister speak in a little detail about how this will work beyond the simple question of funding.
I know my colleague Lord Kennedy raised this point in the other place, but it is worth getting a response from the Minister in this place. Although mobile home owners are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and harassment, such issues are present across the rental sector. When I inquired in July about the rogue landlord database, I was told by the Department that only 13 landlords had been added to it, despite a previous Government estimate of more than 10,000 rogue landlords operating in the UK.
I do not believe I should have to ask, so will the Government commit to looking at that, especially considering that legislative attention will turn to the private rented sector very soon? It has been more than a year since the Government said they wanted the list to be public, and they will have an opportunity to make it so very soon.
In conclusion, as I noted, these regulations have been a long time coming. Many stakeholders, such as the British Holiday & Home Parks Association, welcome them, as I am sure everyone in Committee does. I want reassurance that the new measures will be properly resourced and I look forward to the Minister’s reply shortly.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I, too, greatly support these regulations, because park homes matter and the people who live in park homes also matter. I warmly welcome the fact that we have got to this point. I have been part of the all-party parliamentary group on park homes since my arrival in this place in 2010, and I, too, pay tribute to the excellent work that our hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) did in 2013 to pass the Mobile Homes Act. It was a landmark moment for the sector, and the fit and proper persons test that we are enacting today is a key moment in that journey.
As the Minister says, that legislation paves the way for the regulations today, but I agree with the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale, that it has taken too long—some seven years—to get from Royal Assent for the Mobile Homes Act to the commencement of section 8, which gives reality to the fit and proper persons test. There are clearly many issues going on in the world and in Parliament today, so some people might question why this is needed; I just have a couple of remarks and a couple of questions.
I have a number of park homes in my constituency. When I talk to hon. Members, I am amazed by how many reel off the list of them in their constituency; we all have them. I have Colden Common, Littleton, Alresford, Oliver’s Battery, Sutton Scotney and Morn Hill. It must be said that the owners of those sites are not what anyone would describe as rogue owners; they are professional and the local authority would back me up on that.
Having worked on the subject for many years and spoken about it in this place many times, I have heard some pretty awful stories of owners abusing their position, residents terrified in their own homes, and family members worried sick for their loved ones. I will share one example with the Committee, which was given to me by the excellent Sonia McColl, who runs the National Park Home Owners Justice campaign and brings huge numbers of people to Committee Room 14, when she is allowed to.
This week, a lady who called the campaign’s helpline left a message to say that she was facing daily demands for cash for site fees and threats of eviction if she did not pay up. The police have shown little interest and if she calls them while the threats are being made, they ask her to put her phone on speakerphone, so they can hear what is being sad. She says that her council will not take any action because it cannot contact the licence holder and the landowner is currently in prison. She ended by saying that she had recently obtained a crowbar, and she will use it if she needs to. Clearly, that is not a happy situation, but it is by no means a one-off according to the helpline. I have heard many stories like that over the years.
People need the regulations to be enacted as soon as possible, because poor practices and unprofessional behaviour have a significant negative impact on the finances and health of residents, many of whom are elderly and on low incomes, and who choose to live in park homes for a little bit of peace as they hit old age or the back nine.
I have a specific point to make about the statutory instrument. I welcome the Minister to her position. I was going to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) on being the Minister finally holding the baby when the music stopped on getting it over the line, but my goodness, he missed it by a couple of hours. She will now be a hero of the park home sector for doing it. I can understand why local authorities have until July 2021 to get their house in order, but with another three months to get the applications in, that means it will be another year, which will be frustrating to residents.
I also have a couple of questions that came to me via my local authority, Winchester City Council. The fit and proper persons test is not just for new owners entering the market of park home owners but for current owners, which is absolutely right. My hope is that rogue owners will see the writing on the wall and change their ways or get out of the game. If they do not, however, and the local authority finds them not fit or proper, what happens to that site and the stability of those who call it home? That will create uncertainty and worry.
What mechanism is there for local authorities to liaise with one another, and how accessible will one local authority’s register be to another authority when assessing an individual? In the same way that police forces in England are separate bodies, but share intelligence to help to keep us safe, what will the sharing mechanism be? What data will local authorities be able to ask for from other statutory bodies? I am thinking about the police and the courts as two clear examples.
In the case from the helpline, I referred to the difference between the licence holder and the site owner, and I am keen to understand how the law will handle that distinction. I think the Minister said that in her opening remarks. Surely the fit and proper person test has to be applied to the site owner and the manager. If that is not done, the fear in the sector is that rogue owners will try to circumnavigate the measure. I am therefore concerned about the and/or approach. I am not asking the Minister to respond to that point, because I think she already has, but I wanted to put that on the record as a concern.
The problems of rogue owners have been out there for many years, but in my experience, local authorities rarely intervene effectively. Do local authorities have a duty to intervene? Do they have the resources and expertise to take on rogue site owners, who are often powerful, wealthy and almost exclusively men?
Finally, where next in the search for justice for park home residents? There are rumours of a park homes Bill during this Parliament, which I think would be very welcome. As the Minister will soon know, there are many issues to be grasped, such as the 10% commission issue, which we still put up with in the park homes sector but would not put up with in any other. That was also considered in the 2013 Act, and it needs careful attention. There are many other issues with park homes, and I am sure that many Members would be keen to get an update on what is next for the sector. I appreciate that the Minister is only a couple of hours into her brief, and she may wish to write to me with answers to some of these questions if she cannot answer them today—I would fully understand that.
DRAFT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Order. Before we begin, I remind Members that social distancing should be observed at all times. Hand sanitiser has been provided. It is obvious that some colleagues present have not served on a Delegated Legislation Committee before; the Government and Opposition Whips are available to explain to Members, if they have any queries, how to proceed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Intellectual Property (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and it is a pleasure to speak in my first Delegated Legislation Committee as a Minister, particularly on such an important area as intellectual property. Intellectual property forms a vital part of the UK economy. A well-balanced IP system supports our citizens in their creativity and ingenuity, providing incentives for our businesses to innovate through research and development. We have seen the importance of innovation and creativity throughout the pandemic: the repurposing of old treatments to combat the virus, new technologies supporting social distancing, and theatre companies bringing performances into our homes.
IP enables society to benefit from sharing knowledge and ideas while rewarding creators. Innovation will be crucial in the years ahead to support our recovery from the impacts of covid-19, and the UK is already a global leader. Just last week, the World Intellectual Property Organisation ranked the UK as the fourth most innovative country in the world, and the Government are committed to ensuring that we maintain that position.
So why are the regulations needed? As the Committee knows, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 brings across EU law that applies to the UK at the end of the transition period, making it into domestic law. To safeguard against the possibility of leaving the EU without an agreement, six statutory instruments were approved last year, covering various IP rights. They ensure that EU law on IP will work correctly when brought across. Of course, the withdrawal agreement meant that the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 in an orderly way. At the end of the transition period, we will have control of our laws and will operate once again as a sovereign, independent nation. However, it is still important that we do so with a statute book that functions effectively.
This SI, which was laid before Parliament on 13 July, therefore has three objectives. First, it updates last year’s SIs on IP so that they will work correctly at the end of the transition period. There will be changes to previous references to “exit day”. Updating also allows us to fix some small errors that were found when revisiting the text of those SIs.
Secondly, as EU law continues to apply to the UK during the transition period, the SI deals with the new EU law that has been introduced since last year’s SIs were made. It fixes inoperabilities that will arise when the law is brought over into UK law in December.
Thirdly, the SI ensures that we fulfil our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. The agreement commits the UK to preserving IP rights that had effect by virtue of our EU membership. Of course, that is what last year’s SIs were already doing, but there are some practical differences that must be reflected.
On trademarks and designs, last year’s legislation ensured that an equivalent UK right would be created for any EU right that is in force on exit day. Since EU rights continue to apply in the UK during the transition period, the SI moves the date of that process to 31 December. That will safeguard as many as 200,000 additional IP rights that will have been granted by that time. Where the validity of the EU right is being challenged and a decision is still pending at the end of the transition period, the withdrawal agreement requires us to apply that decision to the equivalent UK right once it has been made. The SI sets out how the process will work. It means that third parties will not require the expense of separate action to get rid of the equivalent UK right. The changes ensure that holders of such rights have certainty that their rights will be properly protected in the UK.
Another important area of IP law is supplementary protection certificates—SPCs—which provide additional protections for patented medicines and pesticides. This reflects that those must be approved by a regulator before they can be sold, which can take many years. SPCs help protect our most innovative drugs. For example, the asthma medicine Nucala has been protected for a maximum period of five years. Developed by GlaxoSmithKline, it has had world sales of more than £200 million in the last quarter. SPCs balance supporting innovation and developing new drugs with the need for patients to have access to drugs cheaply through competition from generic manufacturers.
The UK’s SP system derives from EU law. Last year’s legislation ensured that the system would function in the same way before and after exit day, giving certainty for both right holders and the wider interests. Since then, the EU law on SPCs has taken effect, introducing what is generally referred to as the manufacturing waiver. This allows third parties to make SPC-protected medicines in certain specific circumstances while the SPC is in force, without requiring the permission of the SPC holder. We consulted stakeholders on how the waiver should work in the UK. They were clear that we should keep the circumstances in which it can be used the same. That is the approach we have taken in this instrument to ensure we maintain the fine balance of this complex area of IP law.
Finally, the SI also deals with copyright and database rights, as well as the principle of exhaustion of rights. The changes in those areas are all concerned with simply updating last year’s legislation to reflect the end of the transition period. This instrument will ensure that the UK’s IP system has a firm footing when the transition period comes to an end, giving our innovative and creative citizens and businesses the certainty they need in this important area. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I welcome the Minister to her first SI Committee; it is a pleasure to shadow her. Science is an area on which there is general agreement in our aims, if not always in our implementation, approach and support for it. The Opposition’s aim is that the UK should be the most innovative nation in the world. Although our fourth place is something to be proud of, it is not something to be satisfied with.
As the Minister said, intellectual property makes a significant contribution to the UK economy each year. The 2017 report by the Intellectual Property Office estimated that UK firms invested £133 billion in knowledge assets, compared with £121 billion in tangible assets. A really important distinction often overlooked is that much of our property and business assets are in intangibles and IP, as opposed to bricks, mortar and manufacturing. The sector is estimated to represent 4.2% of total GDP. As the IPO has noted, it is growing UK investment in intangible assets that is protected by intellectual property, rising by £23 billion since the millennium.
The Minister said that intellectual property laws have been seamlessly—perhaps she did not this emphasise this enough—harmonised across Europe for many years, with much of the UK’s legislative framework in this area composed of EU regulations and directives that are shared across the 27 member states. These rules have protected businesses and benefited consumers. This is not just a debate about academic legal terms; it will have very real effects and will help support many of our constituents. It is the shared, for example while abroad —although obviously travel abroad is much limited these days.
Labour recognises that the purpose of the statutory instrument is to address a semantic issue and move the implementation date of several regulations from the exit day to the end of the IP competition day. We acknowledge that this measure is important and will ensure that a series of key rights remain in place until the end of the transition period, enforceable where necessary. We also recognise that the Government’s intention is to provide a degree of certainty to businesses between now and the end of the year by amending the existing 2019 regulations, which will ensure that UK and European Union proprietor rights remain in place at the end of the transition period and are fully protected for their duration. We welcome that.
However, we are concerned that existing sensible harmonised and reciprocal protections will cease to be available to UK nationals, residents and businesses after the transition period. The Minister spoke a good deal and very well on the rights of UK citizens and businesses in the UK. We are concerned about the rights of UK citizens and businesses within the European Union.
The Conservative party once claimed to be the party of business and, as such, the Government must understand that providing certainty for only the next three months is not really any certainty at all. Businesses of all sizes across the UK, and European Union businesses wishing to trade effectively with us, remain in the dark on what the future regime will look like. Many have told me how worried they are that they are not going to be able to plan to ensure that their intellectual property is protected immediately following the transition period.
Despite many rounds of negotiations, as we are all too aware, the Government are yet to make any progress on a future relationship with the European Union, which is causing huge uncertainty for businesses, which, as we all know, have already been hit hard by the unexpected coronavirus pandemic. This lack of progress puts UK businesses at a huge disadvantage.
As things stand, UK trademark attorneys will no longer have a right of representation at the European Union Intellectual Property Office, but European economic area practitioners will still continue to be able to provide an address for services before the UK Intellectual Property Office, which may lead to UK businesses and good jobs leaving for the European Union. The Minister and I have corresponded on this issue, and I have met the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys, for whom this issue is really important—as it is for those who depend on those jobs.
The Government have said that the rights of representation before EU institutions and courts are the preserve of the single market, but it is deeply concerning to UK businesses and the Labour party that the Government will not include that as a part of the UK’s approach to negotiations with the European Union. What is the Minister doing to address that imbalance, which will give an advantage to European Union trademark attorneys and put ours at a significant disadvantage? What is she doing to support UK IP practitioners? We acknowledge and welcome the consultation that the Government ran over the summer, but time is fast running out and we need action.
The political declaration, which the Government co-produced with the European Union, makes an explicit commitment to seek enforceable and reciprocal intellectual property protections,
“going beyond the standards of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the World Intellectual Property Organisation conventions”.
Unfortunately, we have seen the Government rowing back on some of the principles laid out in their own political declaration, which has left businesses unsure about what they can rely on the Government to deliver. Will the Minister take this opportunity to confirm whether harmonised IP and copyright-related protections are still a key negotiating objective of the Government, and give us an update on what progress has been made in this area of negotiations?
Businesses in the UK benefit from automatic database protections that are a unique feature of European Union law. Labour is pleased to see that this statutory instrument recognises the importance of that provision by extending it to the end of the transition period for all European economic area nationals, residents and businesses. However, it is unclear what protections will be available to businesses that, for example, might have multiple sites across the European Union, with shared databases being accessed across borders. That could lead to the absurd situation where one outpost was automatically protected by the harmonised European Union legal framework and another was covered by a UK limited legal framework. What are the Government doing to ensure that does not happen?
Equality and support for the disabled is one of our core values in the Labour party and something we take very seriously, so it is concerning that the proposed legislative change would lead to blind or visually impaired people in the UK having no automatic right to accessible format copies of materials under the widely celebrated European Union directive 2017/1564. As the UK is not currently party to the Marrakesh treaty, the additional opportunity to secure the right outlined here will not be available immediately after the transition period comes to an end without a bespoke agreement. Can the Minister be clear about what steps she is taking to ensure that there will not be a negative impact on blind, visually impaired or otherwise print-disabled people when we leave the transition period?
Finally, some businesses have communicated to me their concern that the sheer number of European Union trademarks that need to be converted into UK rights before the end of the transition period will place additional pressure on the registrar, and that gaps in cover could therefore occur. Can the Minister reassure those businesses that the Government have taken all necessary steps to ensure that the UK IPO is adequately resourced and ready to deal with the added red tape that comes from the predicted 700,000 trademarks that now need to be transposed? Can she tell us how many have been transposed to date?
Will the Minister take this opportunity to outline what consideration she has given to how the UK and the European Union, whatever the future trading relationship looks like, can co-operate and exchange information on issues of intellectual property, copyright and approaches to trademarks design and patents, as laid out in the political declaration?
Labour has always supported intellectual property; it was the last Labour Government that transformed the Patent Office into the Intellectual Property Office in 2007, and 30 years earlier it was a Labour Government that introduced the Patents Act 1977. We are happy to support the Government as a constructive Opposition on this issue, when they are right, and there are many examples of that within this SI. However, we have also raised many questions about how the UK will move forward following the end of the transition period. It is vital that British businesses, IP practitioners and consumers get the answers to these questions as soon as possible, so that they can navigate any future relationship in just 118 days’ time, and potentially at a time when we see a resurgence of the pandemic. I thank the Minister in advance for her response.
Amanda Solloway
I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for her comments and acknowledge her great passion for science and this particular field. I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft regulations and hon. Members for their valuable contributions.
In response to the specific questions that have been asked, of course we are interested in protecting UK rights here and abroad. This and other legislation ensures that we do that by, for example, creating comparable rights in the UK for trademark and design holders.
One of the questions was about consultation. The Government have taken on board the concerns raised by UK attorneys about their loss of rights and representation at EUIPO. The IPO has recently finished an online call for views on this issue, which received more than 1,000 responses. We are considering whether to reciprocate by requiring a UK-only correspondence. The IPO has been planning for some time for the end of the transition period. It is the most robust place to cope with the additional IP rights that will come across from the EU. No EU rights have yet been transferred; they will come across at the end of the transition period.
Intellectual property matters. The IP system exists to encourage innovation and the sharing of information, and gives confidence to invest time, money and energy in developing something new—a business, a new book or a new piece of technology. The UK IP system is consistently rated as one of the best in the world, and I agree with the hon. Lady about wanting to make the UK the most innovative country in the world—I thank her for that.
Earlier in the summer, the Government set out our long-term objective for research and development through the new R&D roadmap, which I believe is a strong foundation for the way forward. We are committed to strengthening science, research and innovation further across the UK and making them central to tackling the major challenges that we face, including disabilities such as blindness. Intellectual property has an important role to play in supporting those objectives.
The IPO will continue to deliver high-quality rights, grant services, lead best practice for the enforcement of IP rights and retain its central involvement in international discussions on the development of the global IP system. Alongside the roadmap and the IPO’s work, these draft regulations will play their part in helping to ensure that our IP system is in a good place to support the Government’s goals and innovation so that the UK is best placed to develop and grow innovative businesses. I hope the Committee will support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
If anyone has a sense of déjà vu about this debate, that is not surprising, because we have debated this provision before. For one reason or another, it did not get through its due processes in Parliament, which is why we are here today. These regulations were laid before the House on 15 June 2020. I know that a great many statutory instruments come past your desk, Mr Hosie. I am not sure that many of them do inspire you, but we have the word “INSPIRE” in the name this time, so if we have done nothing else, we have ticked that box.
The origin of the UK INSPIRE—infrastructure for spatial information in Europe—regulations is an EU framework directive. The regulations have been in effect in the UK since 2009. The INSPIRE regulations established a UK spatial data infrastructure using common standards for spatial data and spatial data services. Spatial data, which is also and often referred to as geospatial data, is data that identifies the geographic location of features, boundaries and events. Just for clarity, so that members of the Committee reflecting on that know exactly what we are talking about, I point out that it includes data about natural features, such as rivers, elevation and marine features; constructed features, such as roads, buildings and wind turbines; and events, such as noise levels, air quality and industrial emissions.
The use of common standards means that spatial data is interoperable and can be easily found, used and combined with other data. The rationale for the INSPIRE regulations is to improve environmental policy making at all levels of government. Interestingly, there are 34 different categories of data that should be recorded under the regulations.
The amendments to the INSPIRE regulations before the Committee today are introduced purely to update two earlier sets of EU exit regulations relating to the operation of INSPIRE. The point of the update is that we ensure that the UK spatial data infrastructure continues to be effective and operable, having left the EU.
The first legislative update is to the INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were laid in the House on 12 December 2018. Those regulations brought the majority of the INSPIRE directive, and its directly applicable implementing rules, into legislation covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has its own INSPIRE regulations and made its own amending legislation in 2018.
The second legislative update is to the Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Those regulations brought the remainder of the INSPIRE directive into UK legislation. The regulations were debated in the House on 17 July 2019 and made on 15 October 2019. The regulations concerning legislative functions transferred to the appropriate authority the functions of the European Commission in the EU INSPIRE directive and other directives. The functions transferred by those regulations in respect of INSPIRE are for the appropriate authority to make new sets of implementing rules and to revoke implementing rules that are no longer needed.
This SI amends the Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which means that the SI must be debated under the affirmative procedure. As I am sure everyone realises, that is because it amends a power to legislate. The amendment to those 2019 regulations is to correct a reference to an EU implementing rule that was directly applicable and is no longer needed. That reference is replaced with a reference to a new implementing rule, Commission implementing decision EU 2019/1372, which was made in August 2019. At the request of the Scottish Government, similar amendments are made to the INSPIRE (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019.
The amendments in today’s SI will incorporate into UK law new arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the use and implementation of the spatial data infrastructure established by the INSPIRE regulations. So, we have finally got to the bit, Mr Hosie, that tells us what is new and why the regulations ae being updated. It is all to do with the new arrangements for monitoring and reporting. There are no policy changes in the new arrangements, which are designed to simplify monitoring and reporting of the use and implementation of the spatial data infrastructure, and to bring the UK legislation in line with that in the EU.
I should say at this juncture that it was actually officials from my Department—the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—who persuaded the EU Commission to introduce these new, simpler arrangements. Indeed, during our membership of the EU, the UK was considered the leading member of INSPIRE.
The previous arrangements for reporting on implementation and use of the INSPIRE spatial data infrastructure had many faults. The report format was long and required an unnecessary level of detail, which had a cost in time and resources. Every year, our officials had to write a report on how our reporting was going and it was something like 40 pages long. That process is all being simplified.
Even when completed, the previous reports did not allow easy comparisons between member states’ efforts on INSPIRE, so as to ensure a level playing field. The new system for reporting requires the Commission to compile and publish a country fiche assessment on how INSPIRE is being implemented and used in each member state. The country fiche highlights the progress on the various areas of INSPIRE implementation and presents an outlook of planned actions for INSPIRE implementation. It is a short high-level assessment. Member states are then required to check their report at least once a year and to update it as necessary.
Using the same system as our European neighbours to report on INSPIRE implementation after the UK has left the EU will mean that the UK can consider our efforts on INSPIRE against thoseThe purpose of this SI is to update earlier amendments made to UK INSPIRE legislation to ensure that an operable legal framework is in place now that the UK has left the EU. There are no policy changes, and for those reasons, I beg to move the measure.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hosie for calling me to speak. It is good to be with you this morning to discuss the draft INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and to speak for Her Majesty’s Opposition for the first time as the new shadow Minister for the natural environment and air quality. Of course, I should briefly pay tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who took a passionate interest in these important issues and who no doubt would have relished the opportunity to be here in Committee Room 14 at 9.25 am on a Wednesday.
As the Minister will know, this is not the first time this legislation has been laid for debate in the House. The first version was laid last year, but fell due to the Dissolution of Parliament ahead of the December 2019 general election, which meant we lost important time to consider the myriad decisions and regulations required ahead of the end of the transition period on 31 December this year.
We then had a second iteration of this legislation, which was tabled and then pulled earlier this year. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister why it was pulled, so that the House is aware of the smooth operation of this Government’s business. The people of the UK deserve competence and good government, and if the Conservative party does not want to provide those things, I know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) will.
I suspect that all hon. Members saw the media reports this past weekend that Ministers seek to undermine their own legislation by overriding the withdrawal agreement. I have to say that many Labour Members hope that this SI and many others like it do not suffer the same fate.
The Minister and, I suspect, Government Back Benchers present will be pleased to know that Her Majesty’s Opposition have no intention of opposing this SI, but I want to speak briefly to it and to share a word of caution with the Minister. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), the shadow Secretary of State, noted when this business was last considered, those on our Benches welcome the fact that legislation has been passed to ensure that the UK stays in line with the INSPIRE regulations and that we are still committed to sharing our spatial information once the UK leaves the EU. Furthermore, we recognise the important need to create our data in a way that makes it accessible to, and able to be shared with, our friends and allies across the EU and, indeed, further afield.
The Opposition are proud of having internationalist values, and our collective commitment to solidarity, which bind us together as a party and form the basis of our vision for the country and the future of our planet and natural environment. We believe in working together and sharing information. We believe in being good neighbours and taking whatever steps are necessary for a sustainable future for all of us.
Members will know that sharing information has its benefits, whether it is information about energy, water, transport networks and accessibility or—and this is of course important to me as the shadow Minister for air quality—air quality and pollution. There have been many examples over the years where sharing information and data has saved lives, informed responses, and tackled problems. It is of some small comfort to me, and, I suspect, to the Minister, that the biggest cheerleaders of a hard Brexit have yet to move their focus to the sharing of spatial data. I hope that their lack of attention is a recognition of the vital nature of that important area.
Like many who pay attention to such issues, the Opposition are clear that as we move forward it is vital that the country should keep pace with the EU in various areas, including the one we are considering. It is vital that Ministers indicate properly and clearly how we will do that. When the UK had a seat at the table, with a voice, vote and veto, it could improve and influence the standards that we rely on and ensure that important data were shared effectively. Ministers need to ensure that we progress only forward, and that we improve. There can be no slippage and no going back. That goes for science and industry, farming and agriculture, access to water and air quality, and how the House does its job. The Opposition reiterate their commitment to the INSPIRE set-up and the framework and guidance around it, and we encourage Ministers to make all efforts to ensure that there will not be a slip in our approach and standards with our departure from the EU.
Lastly, I restate our concern at the Government’s approach to taking legislation through the House, and their wider approach to our departure from the EU. Government by statutory instrument cannot be the default, and neither can Ministers leave major pieces of legislation until the last minute. We stand ready as a proactive and objective Opposition to work with Ministers where we need to, and I hope that our approach to the SI today demonstrates that, but I caution the Minister that we will continue to hold her and her colleagues to account every step of the way.
Rebecca Pow
I, too, very much welcome the new shadow Minister and look forward to working together on many issues with regard to the environment. I thank her for her remarks. The amendment in the statutory instrument ensures that we have operable legislation in place to allow the UK spatial data infrastructure established by the INSPIRE directive to continue to operate. Maintaining reporting on the use and implementation of our national spatial data infrastructure equivalent to that of EU member states, and particularly our neighbouring countries, will allow for easy comparisons.
I am glad about, and welcome, the shadow Minister’s comments about the importance of environmental data. The very fact that the UK has led on spatial data, and played a great role, indicates how important we believe it is. It is geospatial data that is referred to in the SI, but what I am saying applies to all environmental data.
I will disagree with the hon. Lady on one point: she suggested that perhaps not enough time had been given to considering the matter, but I assure the Committee that all the time necessary has been given to thinking about it—the roll-over and all the attention needed—because it is so important. Indeed, that time was devoted to the matter in October, and everyone has had a re-look at it to bring it back to the Committee this time.
We are debating it today, as I explained in my opening remarks, purely and simply because the legislation did not quite get through all its processes. That is why we are back here today. It was stopped by the election and coronavirus, and the delays that they caused, but that did not have any impact on the scrutiny the measure has received. I assure the shadow Minister that that is absolutely the case.
To wind up, I hope that Members fully understand what we have been debating today and the need for the regulations. As I outlined, the SI updates earlier amendments made to UK INSPIRE legislation to reflect new arrangements for monitoring and reporting on use and implementation. It does not make any policy changes. The SI ensures that the UK will have an operable legal framework for INSPIRE on EU exit day, which will be equivalent to the EU member states’. I am not sure whether we have inspired you or not, Mr Hosie, but on that note I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Act 2020 (Exception) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Draft Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Act 2020 (Exception) Regulations 2020.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell; I think it is for the first time, and I hope that it will be the first of many such happy occasions.
I will be extremely brief. The purpose of this instrument is very straightforward. Colleagues will recall that a few months ago we passed the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Act 2020, which is a precursor to the introduction of a sentencing code. One of the things that Act does is a so-called clean sweep, which consolidates all previous sentencing legislation into a single code, for the ease and convenience of both the judiciary and the public.
However, certain important exceptions to that clean sweep have been made to ensure that no offender who committed an offence previously—that is, before the consolidation—is exposed to a more serious or heavier penalty than would have been the case without the consolidation. That is just a matter of fundamental natural justice. A change has been made recently—in April—to the victim surcharge, which has been increased by 5%. As a matter of fairness, any offence committed before the change to the victim surcharge should be charged at the old rate. It would be unfair if someone was charged at the higher rate even though the offence had been committed previously.
The purpose of the instrument the Committee is considering is to make an exception to the clean sweep, adding to the other exceptions that we put in the Act, to make sure that, for offences committed before the change made to the victim surcharge in April, the old surcharge applies and not the new one. Colleagues, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North, will recall that we debated this provision at some length in Committee, and it is doing exactly what we said we would do to ensure that fairness applies. On that basis, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is also my pleasure to serve under you for the first time, Mr Mundell. I hope I can make it a happy occasion by being relatively brief, although I have a number of points to make and a couple of challenges for the Minister.
It was, of course, a Labour Government that introduced victim surcharges, in 2007, to ensure that all offenders bore some responsibility towards the cost of supporting the victims of their crimes. It was also a Labour Government that enshrined into UK law the rights and freedoms contained in the United Nations convention on human rights, with the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998—a feat that Labour Members are enormously and rightly proud of.
Article 7 of the Human Rights Act specifically protects individuals from being punished for something that was not against the law at the time the offender committed the act. It also means that if someone is found guilty of an offence, the penalty cannot be more severe than it was at the time the crime was committed. That is a critical safeguard for the rights of defendants and is crucial in upholding natural justice and public confidence in our justice system. So it is surely clear why today’s measure, which ensures that offenders do not pay higher victim surcharges than would have been applicable at the time of their offences, is in line with article 7, and it has the support of Labour Members.
Safeguarding these protections is always important, but never more so than now. The court backlog continues to grow at an alarming rate, because of court closures and the impact of the pandemic. Unconvicted people are spending longer and longer in prison before trial. Just this week, a statutory instrument extended the custody time limit prior to trial by a third, from six months to eight months. I am grateful to the Minister for briefing me on that particular SI last Friday evening. Sadly, however, the Government tried to slip that major change under the radar, by opting to publish it as a negative SI. Given that the instrument can lead to the incarceration of people without trial for an extended period, the Government ought to have announced their intentions in the form of a statement so that these issues can be debated.
We already know that some members of the judiciary are far from happy with the Government’s proposals and, worse still, do not think they will help solve the crisis in our courts and the administration of justice. Ruling just yesterday, His Honour Judge Raynor, in being asked to extend the custody period of a person who would not be subject to the new arrangements, discussed the issue. I will quote from that judgment, as it illustrates the anxieties of judges and others about the Government’s shortcomings in administering justice, which is highly relevant to the SI before us this afternoon.
His Honour Judge Raynor discussed the relevant issues and responses, including new legislation:
“What is the immediate impact of the new legislation expected to come into force on 28th September 2020, which will, for a 9-month period, extend the custody time limit from 182 days to 238 days? The extension will apply to new CTLs that begin during the temporary 9 month period for which time the amended Regulations will apply.”
He accepted that the new regulations did not apply to the case he was hearing, but he went on:
“Mr T has been remanded in custody for 321 days. He is innocent until proven guilty. That is at the forefront of my mind. He has been held for 139 days beyond the CTL which applies to him and 83 days beyond the new CTL which would apply to a defendant remanded into custody under the new proposed law. b. Article 6(1) and 5(3) of The European Convention on Human Rights.”
Judge Raynor continued:
“Has the State failed to organise its legal systems so as to allow the courts to comply with the requirements of Article 6(1) to ensure trials within a reasonable time of unconvicted defendants remanded into custody, whether the appropriate test is ‘regardless of cost’ or even a lesser requirement of ‘high cost’ or ‘cost proportionate to the exceptional situation’?”
He said yes.
Judge Raynor talked about the exceptional situation. He asked:
“Does the current coronavirus situation still amount to an exceptional situation?”
Yes, ruled the judge. He talked about exceptional and routine cases:
“Does the coronavirus itself turn every routine case into an exceptional case?”
No, said the judge. On good and sufficient cause, which may be the crux of the matter, he asked:
“Does the evidence now available to me indicate a lack of funding by The Ministry of Justice/Her Majesty's Court Service?”
The judge ruled yes. That is a very significant point. He continued:
“Do the new proposed measures announced in the press release dated 6th September 2020 and in The Criminal Courts Recovery Plan (CCRP 1) have a realistic prospect of success in the sense that they will significantly reduce the backlog of outstanding trials for those in custody?”
The judge concluded that no, they do not.
Confidence in the Ministry of Justice’s ability to deal with the crisis is clearly at an all-time low. I invite the Minister to tell us how he can reassure the country that the issues we currently face will be sorted out, and sorted out soon. We are witnessing the delay and denial of justice for thousands upon thousands of victims and defendants and, while we have not opposed the extension, on the basis that it is for a limited time, we believe that the Government should have been more open about it. The Minister may like to take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will not seek to have these powers extended beyond the nine-month period and outline what he sees as the impact on our already overcrowded prisons.
This SI at least ensures that the delays do not have any further unfair consequences for defendants in relation to victim surcharges. It would be against the principle of natural justice if anyone awaiting trial due to a court backlog of the Government’s own making were forced to pay an increased victim surcharge due to the extended length of time taken to appear before a court. It is only fair that the surcharge is representative of sentencing provisions at the time the offence was committed.
Ultimately, this SI ensures that when a court deals with an offender for an offence committed before 14 April 2020, the amount payable will be the same as it would have been at the time the offence was committed. It maintains that safeguard for fair sentencing, which is a principle that is unreservedly supported by those of us on the Labour Benches—all two of us. We welcome the amendment and look forward to working with the Government to defend human rights and uphold the law.
Chris Philp
I will reply briefly to the shadow Minister’s comments. First, I welcome his support for this measure. I lament the absence of his colleagues—it is a shame they are not here with him to debate this important matter.
The hon. Gentleman raised a couple of points. Let me start by addressing the number of cases waiting to be heard before the courts. Obviously, coronavirus has enormously disrupted the operation of the courts because of social distancing and so on, but in the magistrates courts, for the last few weeks, disposals have exceeded receipts. We have been dealing with more cases than have been received and therefore the outstanding case load has begun to decline. That is an important, seminal moment in our recovery plan.
In relation to the Crown court, which the shadow Minister talked about, and jury trials, he will be aware that the Lord Chief Justice completely suspended jury trials in late March, and they did not recommence until May. Inevitably, if jury trials are suspended for health and safety reasons—for covid reasons—cases will back up. Since then, we have got Crown court jury trials up and running across the country, but in a way that is safe, so that jurors do not get contaminated by one another or by anyone else. That has necessarily limited the number of court rooms available, but we are now back to about 110 operable Crown court jury rooms as of today, and the intention is to reach 250 by the end of October. That will enable us to hear 333 Crown court jury trials per week by the end of October, which is back up to the pre-coronavirus level. That will be done in a safe way through a variety of measures to do with social distancing, perspex screens and separate jury retiring rooms. [Interruption.] I can see the shadow Minister is twitching eagerly, so I will give way.
Alex Cunningham
I am keen to understand whether the Minister will start bringing his Nightingale courts in as part of that. He must accept that, even before the coronavirus crisis, there was a crisis in the courts, with 1 million cases in magistrates and Crown courts, and tribunals outstanding at the end of last year.
Chris Philp
The number of Crown court cases outstanding at the beginning of this year was lower than it was in 2010. A great deal of progress had been made, and the Lord Chancellor had authorised, prior to coronavirus, additional Crown court sitting days that would have enabled further progress to be made.
In relation to Nightingale courts, all 10 announced in July are now up and running operationally. Further Nightingale courts are being announced, and we have secured further Treasury funding to the tune of £83 million to expedite the recovery of the court system after coronavirus. On the comments about funding that I heard quoted—I was surprised to hear such comments made by a judge in a judgment—the issues around funding have been and are being addressed.
On custody time limits, there is a short-term, nine-month extension because the hiatus caused by coronavirus means we need to extend those custody time limits temporarily. The shadow Minister accused us of trying to slip that past Parliament and the Opposition, but he also acknowledged that I phoned him personally to flag the changes. If I was trying to slip it past him, I would hardly have picked up the phone and telephoned him. That would have been an ineffective method of subterfuge, even by my standards.
Alex Cunningham
I did make the point that the Minister was kind enough to inform me, but the whole of Parliament learned of this in a written instrument—a negative SI—which is not really the way to do business.
Chris Philp
We did telephone everybody with an interest. I made phone calls, so I do not think that an allegation of subterfuge is one that I would accept. I am happy to phone anybody who wants a phone call on a Friday evening. It is a free service courtesy of the Ministry of Justice.
We have strayed a little beyond the strict terms of this instrument, so perhaps I should sit down. I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Square Kilometre Array Observatory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Square Kilometre Array Observatory (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2020.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The order was made and laid before the House on 14 July 2020 under the affirmative process. I will explain the rationale behind it. The order confers immunities, privileges, reliefs and exemptions to the new intergovernmental organisation, the Square Kilometre Array Observatory, the SKAO, under the International Organisations Act 1968. If the Committee agrees, the order will complete the UK’s ratification of the convention signed in March 2019 and laid in Parliament in July of that year under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
Before I go into detail, I would like to set the context with a few words about the Square Kilometre Array project and the new intergovernmental organisation, the SKAO, which is being established to deliver and operate it. The Square Kilometre Array is an international megascience project to build the world’s largest and most sensitive radio telescope. It is truly a global effort, involving 11 member countries and the participation of about 100 organisations across 20 countries. The SKA is one of the most ambitious international science projects of the 21st century, co-located in South Africa and western Australia. It will use hundreds of dishes and thousands of antennae connected together by optical fibre to monitor the sky in unprecedented detail. The SKA is many times faster and significantly more sensitive than any current radio telescope and of a scale never seen before, which will enable scientists to test some of the key questions in physics about the nature of the universe. For example, was Einstein right about gravity? What is dark energy and why is it so important in our universe, and where did magnetism come from?
The SKA will deliver significant technological advances in data processing and opportunities for business innovation. It will help to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers. The SKAO, based in the United Kingdom at the Jodrell Bank Observatory, will be the inter- governmental organisation building and managing the SKA. It will manage the construction, operation and data processing of the telescopes.
The SKA is a flagship project for the UK Government and underlines our commitment to worldwide partnerships as part of the modern industrial strategy ambition, to ensure that the UK remains a global leader in science, research and innovation. The Government have already committed £100 million to the construction of the SKA—we are one of the largest contributors—and a further £85 million for running costs over a 10-year period to 2026-27. Such investment gives the UK a leading role in the project during the construction and operation phases. That investment and the UK’s hosting of this new intergovernmental organisation at its Jodrell Bank headquarters is a demonstration of our world-leading position and influence in radio astronomy and wider scientific collaboration and exploration.
On the details of the order, the convention was formally laid in Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act in July last year and was completed in October. The order is part of the UK’s ratification and provides the privileges and immunities to enable the SKAO to function as an intergovernmental organisation in the United Kingdom.
It is standard practice for intergovernmental organisations and their staff to be accorded privileges and immunities by member states, but I reassure the Committee that the privileges and immunities afforded to officers of the SKAO in the UK are limited to those required for them to conduct their official activities and are not for their personal benefit. They are in line with those offered to officers of other intergovernmental organisations of which the UK is a member and include limited immunity from jurisdiction and inviolability for its officers and employees, including immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts, and tax exemption. They do not include immunity from UK road traffic law. The SKAO convention also requires that the SKAO has legal capacity so that it can enter into contracts and take such other action as may be necessary or useful for its purpose and activities.
The order applies to the whole UK. However, some provisions of the instrument do not extend to, or apply in, Scotland. A separate Scottish Order in Council has been prepared to deal with those provisions within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament. That was laid before the Scottish Parliament on 10 August.
This order confers on the new SKAO and its staff the privileges and immunities that are necessary for the organisation to function effectively and conduct its official activities. The order will enable the UK to complete its ratification of the SKAO convention and make the global SKA project a reality. Completing ratification of the SKAO convention will bring us closer to answering some of the most important questions in advancing our understanding of the universe. The SKA will provide huge opportunities for technological advances and innovation, notably in the field of big data processing and in areas in which UK industry and research establishments are poised to benefit.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to follow the Minister in this debate on a subject of the greatest importance to humanity and to all of us. Space and its many unanswered questions inspire awe and excitement across the globe. For nearly 70 years, the official British space programme has been seeking to answer those big questions—as the Minister suggested—drawing on our world-leading science and research sectors. In fact, the British Interplanetary Society is the oldest space advocacy organisation on earth—there may be others elsewhere. As a nation, we have a proud history of space exploration and international collaboration. In 1957, British Skylark rockets were launched from Woomera, Australia. In 1962, the UK partnered with NASA to launch the Ariel satellite programme, launching rockets from an Italian base off the coast of Kenya. And at the turn of the millennium, the British National Space Centre was the third largest financial contributor to the European Space Agency.
This statutory instrument is a welcome continuation of Britain’s ambition and international collaboration in space exploration. I have been particularly inspired by the SKA since I attended a reception at South Africa House to present South Africa’s bid back in 2011.
As the Minister said, the SKA is an intergovernmental radio telescope project, with headquarters based at our own Jodrell Bank and bases built in Australia and South Africa. It was first conceived of as a project in the early 1990s and has seen many delays over the years. On the expected completion date in 2027, the SKA will be 50 times more sensitive than any other radio instrument on earth and it will provide the highest resolution images ever seen in astronomy, surveying the sky 10,000 times faster than ever before. This is a significant step forward in our ability to understand our universe, and the UK will be playing a leading role.
The convention, Command Paper 154, treaty No. 27, signed by the UK Government in March 2019, defines the Square Kilometre Array Observatory as an international organisation and provides the appropriate framework—the framework required for it to function internationally. This SI will provide the SKA Organisation with the legal capacity and immunities that are granted to multinational intercontinental projects, allowing it to function freely. This ensures that the UK is acting in accordance with article 4 of the convention and is taking the necessary action to ensure the legality of the SKA Organisation.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate British scientists and researchers on establishing the UK’s world-leading capability in space to the extent that we are taking such a leading role in pushing back the boundaries of our understanding. The Minister and I agree on the importance of that. I do wonder, however, the day after a Government Secretary of State admitted to seeking to breach international law, whether the Minister thinks that our standing in relation to international agreements of this type will be undermined.
Has the Minister spoken with the Foreign Office or others to get a timetable for ratification from other signing nations? I found it difficult to discover which nations have signed and where we are in that process. What effect does the status of other member countries’ ratification processes have on our ability to develop the SKA infrastructure needed in the UK?
This statutory instrument depends not just on international law and our rules-based order, but, as the Minister indicated, on the integral role that international collaboration plays in space exploration. The UK Space Agency recognises that, and has provided up to £152 million in grants over five years to the international scientific community as part of this international partnership programme. The programme closed in April, so I would be grateful if the Minister can tell us how much of that £152 million has been released in the first year of the scheme.
Even in space, there is no escape from Brexit. In December, the UK Space Agency committed to contribute £374 million a year for the first five years to the European Space Agency, ensuring the UK’s continued participation in programmes such as Lunar Gateway. As we have said, this order is possible only because of the UK’s leadership and international collaboration, so will the Minister confirm that that commitment will remain in place, regardless of the outcome of the ongoing Brexit negotiations? What does she want the future relationship between the UK and European space agencies to look like following the initial five-year investment?
In addition to the SKA, UK firms have recently secured funding to play a key role in the European Union’s Copernicus Earth observation programme. Can the Minister guarantee that UK businesses that have contracts with delivery dates that run past 1 January 2021 will be able to deliver that work? Will she tell us what the Government are doing to ensure the long-term strategic and commercial benefits for UK businesses through the UK Space Agency from this programme and others? As we have heard, the UK is a world leader in science and research, and playing a key role in the SKA project is mutually beneficial. Some £6 million has already flowed into the Jodrell Bank facility in Macclesfield, which I visited—it is a credit to us all.
Space research is not only about broadening our horizons and venturing into parts unknown. NASA estimates that discoveries originating from space research have saved nearly half a million lives. UK Government figures estimate that the UK space industry has contributed £5.7 billion to the wider economy. The Minister spoke of the breakthroughs in big data anticipated as part of the SKA programme. What is her Department doing to secure the long-term viability of third-party organisations, and ensure the wider supply chain benefits from UK space research?
Labour is passionate about the long-term future and potential of the space sector. It provides high-skill, high-paid jobs, which are needed to address some of the challenges that we face. To achieve that, the space sector needs a long-term plan and clear direction from the Government so that it remains an attractive place for future projects similar to the SKA. Will the Minister commit to publishing a space industrial strategy to provide a roadmap for UK space exploration?
The Chair
Order. Some of the hon. Lady’s comments are straying very wide indeed. This debate is quite narrowly framed, so we need to get back to the observatory and Jodrell Bank.
Chi Onwurah
I appreciate that comment, Sir Edward. I am just trying to set the order in context.
The Government have recently made a £400 million investment in the OneWeb satellite programme. Can the Minister set out whether that is a wider UK Space Agency programme, like the subject of this order?
Labour is eager to support the long-term future of the UK space sector, and this order is a positive step, but we need to see a clear strategic outline of the Government’s vision for UK space. The SKA can provide the world with another giant leap, and we must see it as an example of the potential that can be unlocked through ingenuity, expertise and collaboration.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Thank you—I always want to call you Mr Leigh, but I suppose you are Sir Edward. It is an irony of being be-knighted that that is what happens. I am scandalised that the Minister says we have to discover where magnetism comes from, because it clearly comes from somewhere between Gainsborough and Rhondda. I do not think any more investigation is needed.
I have some serious points. Of course I support the measure before the Committee but I want fully to understand the dispute process—should there be any disputes. Clearly that is important whenever we enter into any international organisation. I remember when similar legislation was brought forward for the Olympic Delivery Authority and we had to be careful about the disputes process then. As I understand it from article 14 of the convention, disputes would happen in the Permanent Court of Arbitration, but is the Minister absolutely confident in the belief that we would get a good outcome from that if there were to be a problem?
Secondly, of course I understand the concept of immunity from suit. That is standard for all such international organisations and has been around since just after the second world war. However, I note that the Minister said it does not include road traffic law. I presume that means the congestion charge, parking and things like that; but does it include fraud? What other elements of criminal activity in this country would be exempt? Obviously quite a lot of people in this country are anxious about the way diplomatic immunity is waved around at the moment to protect people in relation to serious legal infringements.
Thirdly, obviously China is one of the signatories. That worries me to some degree. I note that it has not yet ratified, but I worry about its access to the intellectual property that is inherent in the matter, not least because article 11(1) of the convention, I think, says that IP policy has to be agreed unanimously. Obviously therefore China would have a veto on any intellectual property policy that it was not happy with. I worry about that, if I am honest, and I hope that the Minister can assuage my concerns.
I worry also about the measure relating to archives and premises. It is the archives bit that I am concerned about. I do not know what that means in terms of freedom of information—what access we would have in the UK to information, or whether there would be a bar to access. Who makes those decisions and how do we make sure that money is being correctly spent? I would be grateful to know who the two British Council members are, how they were appointed, and where they have come from.
Finally, article 8(8) of the convention says that the HQ, which obviously as things stand will be here, is decided by consensus. What happens if that consensus changes? Again, what role would China play? I note, incidentally, that the original convention refers to India, New Zealand and Sweden as signatories, but the explanatory memorandum that we have had merely refers to South Africa, Australia, China, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal. I wonder what has happened to India, New Zealand and Sweden. Have they fallen off the list somehow?
Amanda Solloway
I acknowledge all the enthusiasm and passion expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central. As she knows, we share a passion for the subject. I will attempt to answer most of the questions that have been asked but, if there are any I do not answer, we have already organised a further meeting.
I thank the Committee for its consideration of the draft order. We are looking at all the negotiations, and clearly, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central mentioned, we have been talking to the Netherlands, Italy and South Africa. We are making sure that we have those continuing conversations. It is likely and expected in respect of those that we shall ratify shortly.
The hon. Member for Rhondda made many interesting points, and I was writing down some answers as I went along. We are working on all of the points that he raised, and we are more than happy to share that work as we do it. He is right that we have an international obligation. We have been working towards our roadmap, in which we have put all the things that we hope to do, and the UK Space Agency is at the heart of much of what we seek to achieve.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned diplomatic immunity. Clearly, what happened with Harry Dunn was unacceptable and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pursuing that in the best way that we can. The order confers privileges and immunities on the new Square Kilometre Array Observatory only as far as is necessary for its function as an intergovernmental organisation in the UK.
It is enormously exciting for the UK and our astronomy community to be a key partner in a global project. As the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, we want to be the best in the world and unlock all the secrets of the universe. We remain committed to strengthening our position as a world leader in astronomy and space exploration. The order takes us one step closer to bringing the SKAO into operation. As one of the host countries, the Government remain committed to bringing the SKAO into being as soon as possible. By hosting the intergovernmental organisation in the UK, the UK will play a key role in bringing the project to fruition. Therefore, I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Merger of Department for International Development and Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Written Statements
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Commonwealth Chair-In-Office Report 2018-2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
My hon. Friend the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, has made the following written statement:
In April 2018, the UK hosted the 25th Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting (CHOGM). The summit was the largest of its kind in our history. Forty-six Heads of Government and 49 Foreign Ministers met and agreed a range of actions to build a Commonwealth which is fairer, more sustainable, more prosperous, and more secure.
Since then, the UK, as chair-in-office, has continued to work with the three pillars of the Commonwealth—its member states, its Secretariat, and its organisations and networks—to deliver commitments made at CHOGM. This work has been supported by over £500 million of UK-funded projects and programmes under the four themes of the summit.
A detailed report, entitled “Commonwealth Chair-in-Office 2018-20”, will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses. This succeeds the interim report which the then Foreign Secretary provided to the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons on 15 May 2019. It gives a comprehensive overview of outcomes and achievements against CHOGM 2018 commitments. This statement highlights some of those.
To build a fairer Commonwealth, the UK has worked with member states to support the delivery of 12 years of quality education for all by 2030. The Girl’s Education Challenge, for which the UK announced £212 million funding at CHOGM 2018, is now active in 11 Commonwealth countries, working to ensure marginalised girls have access to quality education. On inclusive and accountable democracy and promotion of human rights, the UK has supported Commonwealth secretariat election observation missions to eight Commonwealth countries, a number of which have since undertaken electoral reform. In Geneva, UK-funded human rights and trade advisers have supported Commonwealth small states to engage more effectively with international human rights and trade mechanisms. The UK-funded Equality and Justice Alliance has provided support to six Commonwealth countries to repeal or reform outdated legislation which discriminates against, or fails to protect, women, girls and LGBT communities.
To build a more sustainable Commonwealth, the UK has continued to champion the Commonwealth Blue Charter launched at CHOGM18. The “Commonwealth Clean Ocean Alliance”, co-led by the UK and Vanuatu, now has 34 members, which have committed to tackle marine plastic pollution. The UK-funded extension of the Commonwealth Marine Economies programme has supported 17 small island developing states to further develop sustainable and diverse marine economies. On climate change, the UK has co-funded a centre of excellence on nationally determined contributions based in Fiji, which is now working with 10 Commonwealth Pacific countries on their plans to reduce emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change.
To build a more prosperous Commonwealth, the UK has continued to be an advocate for intra-Commonwealth trade and has facilitated the delivery of the Commonwealth connectivity agenda. The UK has co-led with South Africa work on digital connectivity, and supported Barbados as the lead on regularly connectivity. The UK-funded trade facilitation programme has been working with 18 priority countries to adopt more efficient customs procedures. The UK-funded Commonwealth standards network now comprises the national standards bodies of 50 Commonwealth countries, supporting the effective implementation of international standards which increase opportunities for trade. Gender equality has also been at the forefront of our Commonwealth prosperity work: over 3,000 women- owned businesses have so far been supported to enhance their ability to trade; an extension of this programme was announced by the International Development Secretary in January.
To build a more secure Commonwealth, we have prioritised implementation of the Commonwealth cyber declaration, helping member states to enhance their cyber-security capacity. Thirty-eight out of 54 countries have now completed national cyber-security capacity reviews—a cornerstone commitment of the declaration’s implementation plan. Thirteen of these reviews have been completed since CHOGM 2018, of which seven were funded by the UK. We have worked with Commonwealth partners to apply and strengthen legislation on modern slavery and human trafficking. In July 2019, with the support of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and UK funding, Malawi launched four landmark regulations on human trafficking and labour protection.
Following the postponement of CHOGM 2020, we look forward to the gathering of the Commonwealth family in Kigali next year. In the meantime, the UK will continue to serve the Commonwealth family as chair-in-office. In that role, we were pleased to facilitate agreement of a comprehensive statement issued by Commonwealth leaders on 16 July 2020, setting out their commitment to work collectively with international partners on the full range of responses required to mitigate the many adverse impacts of COVID-19, and to ensure that no one will be left behind.
[HCWS441]
Subsidy Control Regime
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
I am today updating Parliament on Government plans for a subsidy control regime to replace the EU state aid rules at the end of the transition period on 31 December this year.
From 1 January, the Government will follow the World Trade Organisation rules for subsidy control. These are the internationally recognised common standard for subsidies. The rules apply to goods, not services. They ban subsidies that are dependent on either how much a company exports to other countries or the use of domestic goods over imports. For all other subsidies, they provide a mechanism to resolve disputes between countries. These rules are designed to facilitate an effective international trading system and are followed by the vast majority of countries.
Before the end of this year, the Government will publish guidance for UK public authorities to explain these rules and any related commitments the Government have agreed in free trade agreements.
The Government will also publish a consultation in the coming months on whether we should go further than those existing commitments, including whether legislation is necessary. As our approach will affect businesses and all public authorities that grant subsidies with taxpayers’ money, including the devolved Administrations, we will take the necessary time to listen closely to all those voices and to create a system that promotes a competitive and dynamic economy throughout the UK.
We will shortly lay secondary legislation to remove redundant EU state aid rules from the domestic statute book at the end of the transition period. This will provide the necessary legal certainty for businesses.
The UK Internal Market Bill, which I am introducing into Parliament today, will set out that the UK Parliament alone should legislate for the regulation of subsidies, and will ensure that there is no confusion or ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of the state aid elements in the Northern Ireland protocol.
As regards this Government substantive approach, one of the benefits of having left the EU is that we have the opportunity to design our own subsidy control regime, in a way that works for the UK economy. The EU’s state aid system is designed for the particular circumstances of the EU, in which it is the responsibility of the Commission, as an independent authority, to police against subsidies distorting competition between EU member states within the single market. This approach is not suitable for the UK in the future and indeed their particular approach has not been followed in other advanced economies.
We are very clear nevertheless that we do not intend to return to the 1970s approach of Government trying to run the economy or bailing out unsustainable companies. We do not believe that the Government of a modern, competitive market economy should stand in the way or prevent adjustment to underlying market conditions. That is and will remain our guiding philosophy.
Equally, just as other countries do, the UK will need a modern system for supporting businesses to grow and thrive in a way that suits our interests and is consistent with a dynamic and competitive economy. As we rebuild and recover from covid, and given the broader uncertainty in the economic environment as a result, we must also maintain flexibility to support and bolster the UK’s strategic interests, and to be able to intervene faster and more easily when it is necessary to do so.
Subsidy control is an important issue in the negotiations on our future relationship with the EU. The Government have always been clear about its position: we are seeking a precedented trade deal, similar to those the EU has previously agreed with countries like Canada. Such free trade agreements do not prescribe the specifics of either party’s subsidy control arrangements, but instead provide for transparency in subsidies granted and for appropriate means of settling disputes between them. We have proposed such arrangements to the EU and we believe this is the right way forward. We will not give away our ability to determine our laws and funding arrangements in this area in an international treaty: the UK’s subsidy arrangements are a matter for people across the UK and Parliament, now and in the future.
[HCWS443]
National Data Strategy
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government are today publishing the UK “National Data Strategy”. This framework document sets out the Government’s ambitions and global-facing vision for maximising the benefits of the effective and trusted use of data. This publication brings together the UK’s ambitions for data within a single, coherent narrative. It also launches a 12-week consultation period.
The “National Data Strategy” aims to place the UK at the heart of the data revolution. It will harness the power of digital technology to drive our recovery from coronavirus—to boost growth and productivity, create new businesses and jobs, improve public services and position the UK at the forefront of the next wave of innovation.
The Government announced they would develop a national data strategy in 2018, as part of their unashamedly pro-tech, pro-innovation approach. The coronavirus pandemic has made that commitment more urgent than ever.
Data has been one of our most important tools in the battle against covid-19. The ability to share information quickly, efficiently and ethically has saved lives, while enabling us to keep the economy going and stay connected with loved ones throughout the pandemic. The strategy aims to build on that high watermark, and free up businesses and other organisations to keep using data to innovate, experiment and fuel a new era of growth.
The strategy proposes five priority missions, where we think we can take action now to have the biggest impact, and captures a further suite of proposed actions that will support delivery. The missions are:
Unlocking the value of data across the economy.
Securing a pro-growth and trusted data regime.
Transforming Government’s use of data to drive efficiency and improve public services.
Ensuring the security and resilience of our data infrastructure.
Championing the international flow of data.
In order to drive successful implementation, we will develop a monitoring and evaluation process for the strategy. We will provide further details of this monitoring and evaluation process in a future publication. The Government’s response to this consultation will be published following the closure of the consultation period.
A copy of this report will be placed in the Library of the House today.
Attachments can also be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/writte-questionsanswers-satetments/written-statement/Commons/2020-09-09/HCWS442.
[HCWS442]
Building Safety: Northpoint Building
(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)
I am today informing the House of a contingent liability for the Northpoint building for £200,000 to enable them to sign a basic asset protection agreement (the agreement) with Network Rail and progress remediation. Northpoint is a private residential building in Bromley which, over three years after Grenfell, has unsafe aluminium composite material (ACM) which remains un-remediated. It is our expectation for high-rise buildings with dangerous ACM to start remediation work on site by the end of the year.
The Northpoint building is adjacent to a railway line managed by Network Rail. For remediation construction works to advance, an agreement needs to be signed between Network Rail and the Northpoint Management Company. Northpoint leaseholders are paying significant sums in “Waking Watch” costs for each month the building is not remediated, while the building poses a safety risk. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) is funding the remediation of (ACM) cladding at the building through the private sector cladding ACM remediation fund. However, the risks associated with the agreement cannot be covered by the fund. This building is in a unique position, as it is an unsafe ACM building, over 18 metres, which is adjacent to a railway and managed by a resident management company who require surety for a capped amount of liability. MHCLG will, therefore, underwrite Northpoint Management Company for £200,000 of risk.
MHCLG has undertaken a contingent liability during parliamentary recess. HM Treasury approved this liability before it was activated. The contingent liability was urgent, because it was needed to ensure the remediation of an unsafe building could take place as quickly as possible. This is in line with my Department’s aim to ensure that residents of high-rise residential buildings are safe and feel safe from the risk of fire. The liability is capped at £200,000.
If a Member has any further enquiries by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in parliament, the Department will be happy to provide a response.
[HCWS444]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering, except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park
That the Grand Committee do consider the INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that the INSPIRE Regulations 2009 established a UK spatial data infrastructure by requiring common standards for spatial data held by public bodies as part of their public task and for the spatial data services used to make that data available for use and reuse. The origin of the UK INSPIRE regulations is an EU framework directive. The regulations have been in effect in the UK since 2009. The INSPIRE regulations established a UK spatial data using common standards for spatial data and spatial data services.
Spatial data, also and often referred to as geospatial data, is data that identifies the geographic location of features, boundaries and events. Spatial data means data about natural features such as rivers, elevation and marine, and constructed features such as roads, buildings and wind turbines, and events such as noise levels, air quality and industrial emissions. The use of common standards means that spatial data is interoperable and can be easily found and used and combined with other data. The rationale for the INSPIRE regulations is to improve environmental policy-making at all levels of government. The amendments to the INSPIRE regulations before your Lordships today are introduced purely to update two pieces of earlier EU exit regulations relating to the operation of INSPIRE. The update is to ensure that the UK spatial data infrastructure continues to be effective and operable after leaving the EU.
The first legislative update is to the INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 which were laid in this House on 12 December 2018. These brought the majority of the INSPIRE directive and its directly applicable implementing rules into legislation covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has its own INSPIRE regulations and made its own amending legislation in 2018. The second legislative update is to the Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Those brought the remainder of the INSPIRE directive into UK legislation. They were debated in this House on 17 July 2019 and made on 15 October 2019. The regulations concerning legislative functions transferred to the appropriate authority the functions of the European Commission in the EU INSPIRE directive and other directives. The functions transferred by those regulations in respect of INSPIRE are for the appropriate authority to make new sets of implementing rules and to revoke implementing rules that are no longer needed.
The SI debated today makes an amendment to the Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. This amendment means that the SI must be debated under the affirmative procedure. The amendment made to the Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 is to correct a reference to an EU implementing rule which was directly applicable and is no longer needed. The reference is replaced with a reference to a new implementing rule, Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1372, which was made in August 2019.
At the request of the Scottish Government, similar amendments are made to the INSPIRE (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. The amendments in the SI debated today are to incorporate into UK law new arrangements for monitoring and reporting on the use and implementation of the spatial data infrastructure established by the INSPIRE Regulations. There are no policy changes in these new arrangements, which are made to simplify monitoring and reporting of the use and implementation of the spatial data infrastructure and bring the UK legislation in line with that in the EU.
It was officials from my department who persuaded the Commission to introduce these new, simpler arrangements. During our membership, the UK was considered the leading member state on INSPIRE. The previous arrangements for reporting on implementation and use of the INSPIRE spatial data infrastructure had many faults. The report format was long and required an unnecessary level of detail which cost time and resources. Completed, the reports did not allow easy comparisons between member states’ efforts on INSPIRE, to ensure a level playing field.
The new system for reporting requires the Commission to compile and publish a “country fiche” assessment on how INSPIRE is being implemented and used in each member state. The “country fiche” highlights the progress on the various areas of INSPIRE implementation and presents an outlook of planned actions for INSPIRE implementation. It is a short, high-level assessment. Member states are then required to check their report at least once a year and update it where necessary.
Using the same system as our European neighbours to report on INSPIRE implementation after the UK has left the EU will mean that the UK can consider our efforts on our national spatial data infrastructure against those of our European neighbours. Environmental matters do not respect borders. By continuing to use the common standards of the INSPIRE spatial data infrastructure it will be easy for the UK to track and compare data from our neighbouring countries on, for example, marine matters and air quality.
This instrument makes a number of adjustments. Regulation 1 is the commencement and citation. Regulation 2 amends the new Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/1372 on monitoring and reporting to incorporate it into UK law. Regulation 3 amends the INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 to update the reference to the new commission implementing decision. Regulation 4 amends the INSPIRE (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019. Regulation 5 amends the Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to update the reference to the new commission implementing decision. That legislation was debated in this House on 17 July and made on 15 October. The amendment made in Regulation 5 is to legislation that provides a function to legislate and means that the SI must be debated under the made-affirmative procedure. It has followed that process from the outset.
The SI was sent to the JCSI for pre-scrutiny and returned without comment. This SI does not change policy, so there was no statutory duty to consult on it. Defra officials have worked closely with colleagues in the devolved Administrations and have received their consent. In line with published guidance, there is no need to conduct an impact assessment for this instrument. This is also because there is no policy change. The territorial application of the SI is the UK, apart from Regulation 3, which applies to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Regulation 4, which applies to Scotland. There is only a positive impact on resources. Officials in Defra, the lead department for INSPIRE, are responsible for reporting on the use and implementation of the SDI, which is simplified. This instrument is purely to ensure that the UK INSPIRE regulations provide an operable legal framework going forward. There are no policy changes.
I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive introduction. I will start with the Explanatory Memorandum; I then have some general questions. My noble friend said that Scotland has its own regulations. Paragraph 4(1) states that the only differences are in Regulations 3 and 4. So is there any other dimension where Scotland is different to England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
To move on, Regulation 6(1) on legislative content states that it also confers temporary powers to make secondary legislation. Is there any definition of “temporary”? That seems to me to be quite important. What is the procedure if the UK, outside the EU but operating obviously within the total context, wishes to propose future changes? Are there any difficulties in that format or not?
Paragraph 10 talks about the consultation, which the Minister touched on. The phrase used is “informally engaged stakeholders”. Can we have an assurance that this informal consultation did actually contact all the normal stakeholders that we know about?
Paragraph 13 refers to regulating small businesses. As there is no definition within the context of this SI of what a small business is or is not, when does a small business become, in effect, a partner in this SI itself?
Finally, Part 2 of the SI says:
“In my view, INSPIRE … do no more than is appropriate”.
Who made the judgment on what is or is not appropriate?
Those are all my questions on the printed SI. I have a couple of questions arising from the briefings that we have received, principally from the Library. One of them says:
“In 2019, the European Commission published and implemented a decision intended to simplify the way in which INSPIRE operated.”
Although the Minister mentioned that, nothing was said about the way in which it has been simplified. Is it a matter of quantum, or some other aspect that is not self-evident to those of us who come to this only warm?
My final question is quite important. How much is it costing the UK to remain within INSPIRE? If the Minister does not know now, I rather hope he might have asked the question himself. Does it cost us anything as UK Ltd or does it not? If it does cost us something, is it on a fixed-term basis or reviewed periodically every three years, five years or whatever? That is an important element that I wanted to raise.
I have a couple of other questions. On the Environmental Information Regulations 2004, is anybody excluded? It talks about “most” UK partner bodies, but that means that somebody has been excluded. Does the Minister have anything on that? The regulations refer to working with all central government departments and all local authorities. As far as I can see, “local authorities” are not defined here. Obviously, we have counties, unitary authorities and district councils, but if we are dealing with environmental matters, they ought to cover town councils. I declare an interest, because I live in Sandy in Bedfordshire, which has a very active county council Local authorities need to make good use of the Local Government Association. That needs to be re-emphasised to those involved, because it is absolutely key to it.
I have two more questions. The regulations say that publishing INSPIRE location data requires “most” geospatial data to be published. Which bit is not published? That seems to be of some relevance. Finally, I am sorry to come back to coronavirus. Has it affected record-taking at all? Has it changed it at all? Has it slowed it down or has it in effect had no impact?
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I agree with what the Minister has said. The INSPIRE (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations laid on 15 October 2019 were considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. [Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Lord Bhatia, I am afraid we have a problem with the quality of your connection. May I suggest that we try to sort that out and, in the meantime, we will move on to the next speaker and come back to you once it is sorted? I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I welcome this opportunity and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing the changes today. As these are technical changes, I hope I am permitted to ask some general questions about how the INSPIRE regulations have been working to date and what changes might flow from the end of the transition period. My question is not dissimilar to that of my noble friend Lord Naseby. Does the Minister know the costs for district councils, county authorities and unitary authorities, for example, to provide this information? It may seem an odd question, but who looks at this data? It seems an extraordinary amount of data is being collected and for anyone interested in the environment, as I am, it is immensely interesting, but do we know how widespread its use is? Is it mostly used by other public bodies, universities and official bodies such as the Commission itself? What is the purpose of collating all this data?
I notice that it says that charging arrangements are in place. Does my noble friend know roughly the average charge for accessing this data? If there is no right to appeal, how does my noble friend know that the charge that is being levied is fair? I would be particularly interested to know whether the charge relates, for example, to the mapping that is being done for flooding. I congratulate successive Governments and the Minister’s department for the mapping that has been done. Ideally, if one looks at the mapping that is available to a district council, this is much more detailed and it would be of enormous benefit to the householder to know to whether and to what extent, particularly in terms of surface water flooding, which is a relatively recent phenomenon—we have only really recognised it since 2007—they are likely to be specifically at risk of such flooding. The reason I ask this is that I understand that district councils are reluctant—this may have changed—to provide this level of detail, because it could have adverse implications for the householder’s insurance. Presumably the whole point of accessing this information is that the Environment Agency is giving more global mapping, but it would be extremely interesting to get hold of what the district and county councils are setting out. It would be helpful to know that.
How will any complaint be made about the way in which the data is accessed or how the cost of accessing such data is levied? It would also be helpful to know that. Also, is the Minister confident that public bodies have the resources, particularly looking at the fact that resources available to councils—to local authorities—is extremely tight? We have seen this in things such as environmental health and trading standards being potentially compromised. Is the Minister confident going forward that these public bodies have the resources available to fulfil their obligations under the regulations?
Finally—I am sorry not to use up all my time but my noble friend might well be relieved about that—can my noble friend confirm that this information is also provided to the European authorities, such as the European Commission, the European Environment Agency and others? Will that continue to be the case? Obviously, in terms of the European environmental directives such as the water framework directive and the waste water directive, this type of information is extremely useful for seeing whether patterns are emerging, particularly in terms of climate change.
Sorry, I did say “finally” but it was very inadvertent. Does my noble friend have plans to look, for example, at data that is currently being collected by water companies through their normal daily work? That could show at a very early stage that Covid may be present in a particular community—perhaps not narrowing it down to a household but to a community. Do the Government have access to that information, which will be extremely important in preventing and controlling community outbreaks?
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing these regulations before us in the form of a statutory instrument.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I understand that the sound issues have now been sorted out, so I again call the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Lord Bhatia, I am afraid that we still have major problems understanding you. The problem has not been resolved. We will try to come back to you; the staff will try to do that. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument. On first reading it, I fear I did not understand what it was all about. I am grateful to the Library for the briefing it provided, which greatly assisted my understanding.
Like the majority of statutory instruments, this is a transference from EU law into UK law and makes little difference to how the country will operate post Brexit. In this case, data sharing is key to environmental planning. As this data is already collected, it may not add an additional burden to those who collect the data.
INSPIRE—the Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community—is basically a data collection methodology. Regulation 2 provides for the common provision of monitoring and reporting. Proposed new article 2.2, to be introduced by Regulation 2(2), states:
“The appropriate authority shall make all results of monitoring in accordance with regulation 14(3)(b) of the INSPIRE Regulations … accessible to the public on the internet or using other appropriate means of telecommunication.”
That is to be welcomed, but just how easy is it for the public to access this information? Do they know that the information is there?
As the Minister said, INSPIRE was established in 2007 and requires public bodies in EU member states to produce certain datasets. The publication of this data is intended to improve environmental decision-making by government. Proposed new article 9, to be introduced by Regulation 2(9), covers the publication and updating of summary reports. Proposed new article 9.1 states:
“By no later than 31 March 2021, the appropriate authority shall publish a report containing summary descriptions of … how public sector providers and users of spatial data sets and services and intermediary bodies are coordinated, the relationship with third parties and the organisation of quality assurance … how the infrastructure for spatial information is used … how public authorities share data … the costs and benefits”,
et cetera.
All this is extremely interesting and important. Can the Minister say who these public bodies and public authorities are? Who is likely to want to access this information? Is it local authorities, the police, the fire service or the NHS? Who are the appropriate authorities collecting the information—and for whom, if not for their own purposes—in terms of environmental planning? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked a similar question. Accident statistics for highway improvements and data on river catchment areas to assist with flood alleviation are obvious targets. There is reference to charities. Can the Minister say which charities are required to collect this type of data?
The Explanatory Memorandum tells us:
“This instrument corrects deficiencies that arise in the INSPIRE Regulations 2009 … This instrument also amends The Environment (Legislative Functions from Directives) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 [1350/2019] to address deficiencies that arise from the amendments to the INSPIRE Directive.”
The Minister referred to that. However, neither he nor the Explanatory Memorandum says what those deficiencies are. Can he tell us what the deficiencies were and how this SI will improve the outcomes?
The Government have not produced an impact assessment for these regulations. However, they have said that they would not have a
“significant impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies”
or the public sector
“as existing regulatory standards have not changed.”
Can the Minister reassure us that the changes will result in fewer rather than more bureaucratic burdens?
I note that both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee looked at this SI and have no concerns. I therefore feel I should be content to agree to its passage, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer some of my queries.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of this SI. He provided some welcome context for its stop/start history and updates. However, we remain concerned about its drafting given that, in addition to the version that expired when the election was called, another version of this instrument was laid in May and then withdrawn in June. Was that as a result of errors? If so, presumably those errors existed in the made SI agreed last year?
The Minister may be aware of our continuing concern about drafting errors and the lack of a robust scrutiny process to weed them out. This discussion has been ongoing during many of the debates on SIs that we have had over the past couple of years. If, as we expect, there is another rush of SIs to clear up before we finally leave the EU at the end of the year, can the Minister clarify what lessons have been learned from the errors that have been dotted through various pieces of secondary legislation to date? What improved processes have been instigated to overcome them? In many ways, we are running out of time. When we leave at the end of the year, that will be D-day. We want to make sure that our legislation at that moment is absolutely accurate and robust.
Having said that, I can confirm that we support the legislation. We welcome the fact that the House has already legislated to stay in line with the INSPIRE regulations, and we share the Government’s desire to continue sharing spatial information in a meaningful way with our EU friends after Brexit. This data sharing is increasingly important in a globalised data world. Whether it is on energy, ground water, air quality, water quality or a whole host of other datasets, we stand to benefit as much as others from accurate and timely environmental information, much of which can be time-critical.
On a more specific point, I echo a couple of the questions from the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bakewell. Can the Minister say who actually uses this information? Obviously the public have access to it, but is there a wider review of it? The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about universities using it. It feels like we are producing a huge dataset, so it would be good to know that it is being used meaningfully, both locally and nationally. It would be useful if the Minister could reassure us on that.
Bearing in mind the question from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about resources, what sort of quality assurance process takes place for that data? Is it double-checked in any way? Can we be sure that it is accurate, or is it just a tick-box exercise that nobody really follows up?
On a wider point, I will ask the Minister about the future programme of EU exit SIs that will require updating before December. This SI incorporates new arrangements set by the EU for monitoring and reporting. Presumably other SIs need updating because of changes in EU practice. As a result of the election, and then Covid and lockdown, we have not been dealing with the normal flow of secondary legislation for quite a while, and Defra staff will understandably have been called on to deal with more pressing matters—but is there a backlog and can we expect a flurry of other updates in the next couple of months? I look forward to the Minister’s response and I hope he can clarify these issues.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Having left the EU, it is essential that we have operable legislation in place to allow UK spatial data infrastructure established by the INSPIRE directive to continue.
My noble friend Lord Naseby asked what difference there was between our approach and that in Scotland. Scotland’s legislation mirrors that for E, W and NI, so there is no other difference. As I mentioned, there are regular meetings between Defra and all stakeholders in the devolved Administrations. He also asked about costs. There is no cost to being in INSPIRE, although Defra has spent £3.5 million on new burdens. He asked whether we have contacted all normal stakeholders. Absolutely—Defra has been engaging widely with all appropriate and obvious stakeholders.
I am afraid I did not catch the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency makes all flooding data available for free. She asked about the purpose of this change. The use case for INSPIRE is principally about environmental reporting. Beyond that, we are aware of some local authorities, particularly Manchester, using INSPIRE data for planning. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked a similar question, so I refer her to that answer.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, also asked whether the data would be easy to access. All data has metadata on a catalogue published on data.gov.uk. That will include a link to the data, so it should be very easy to access. She asked about the impact on small business. There should be no impact at all on small business. We know that some small and medium-sized businesses provide some INSPIRE services. To respond to one of her additional questions, charities are not required to collect data. It is important to make the point that INSPIRE provides a framework; it does not require the collection of new data. All data comes from public authorities and relates to public tasks.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked why a previous iteration of the SI had been withdrawn in June 2020 and re-laid on 15 June, shortly after. The SI laid in early June 2020 contained two references to 31 March 2020 in new Article 9, inserted by Regulation 2. Having this date in the SI breached the prohibition on retrospectivity, as contained in Section 8 of the EU withdrawal Act. We could not require publication of the report before the commencement date of the regulations. To answer her question, this was a drafting error on our part, which the statutory instrument registrar confirmed we could not correct by way of a correction slip. He advised withdrawing the SI and laying an amended version with the new date of 31 March 2021 instead, which we did. The amended SI was re-laid on 15 June 2020 and it is the one we are debating. There were no policy reasons why the statutory instrument was withdrawn and re-laid. It was purely as a result of that drafting error.
I hope that I have covered most if not all of the questions raised. If there are any that I have left off, I will gladly write to noble Lords with answers. I hope that noble Lords fully understand and accept the need for these regulations. As I outlined, the SI updates earlier amendments made to UK INSPIRE legislation to reflect new arrangements for monitoring and reporting on use and implementation. It does not make any policy changes. The SI ensures that the UK has an operable legal framework for INSPIRE.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.45 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for the debate to follow is three hours.
Science Research Funding in Universities (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Patel
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Science and Technology Committee Science research funding in universities (4th Report, Session 2017–19, HL Paper 409).
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my associations now and in the past with academic and professional organisations, all of which are in the register of interests.
It is with great pleasure that I open this debate on science research funding in universities. I thank all noble Lords most sincerely for taking part. I am pleased to see that the desk clerk today is Donna Davidson. She was the Science and Technology Committee clerk at the time of the inquiry and a key person in writing the report. I take this opportunity to thank her for all her work during her tenure. My thanks go also to: Dr Amy Creese, our policy analyst; Cerise Burnett-Stuart, the committee assistant; and Dr Simon Cran-McGreehin, our current committee clerk, who joined us in the latter part of the inquiry. I am indebted to all the committee members, whether they are able to speak today or not, for their support.
I am pleased to see that the Minister responding to the debate is the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. To avoid him getting withdrawal symptoms, I promise that I will not finish my speech without mentioning Brexit.
My task today is to introduce the findings of our report but, as it has been a year since we published it, it may be right also to consider the effect that government policies on science funding will have on research and innovation in the United Kingdom going forward.
We launched our inquiry on science research funding in universities in May 2019. During it, the Augar review of higher education was published. UK universities are recognised internationally as the best place to conduct scientific research. Traditionally, the dual funding system for research has worked well but, over time, its flaws have begun to have a negative impact. For example, quality-related, or QR, funding has stagnated and fallen by more than 12% since 2010. This has come at the same time as a decrease in the percentage of cost recovery for research from funding councils and charities, which has added to the problem.
The committee looked at the recommendations of the Augar report in the context of research funding in universities. We were more than surprised to hear that, in making its recommendations, the review had not considered the impact they would have on universities’ ability to conduct science research—one of the key roles of universities. Furthermore, it did not think it within its remit to do so.
As the Government prepare their response to the Augar review as part of their spending review, they should be in no doubt that, if Augar recommendations are implemented, it will seriously affect the Government’s ambition to make UK a science superpower. I could not put it more strongly. Stagnation in QR funding for over a decade, a decrease in full economic costs to 70% from funders and a shortfall in support funding from government in relation to charities’ research grants leaves universities to have to cross-subsidise costs, mainly from international student fees. Added to these ongoing funding issues, there is now the significant and unknown effect of Covid-19 on university finances and research.
In 2018-19, universities reported a £4.5 billion shortfall between income and costs of research. Universities predict a reduction in the number of international students; if that happens, it will further add to financial pressures. Also predicted is a possible shortfall of approximately £790 million from other streams of income. The effect of temporary removal of controls on student numbers this year may further add to costs. Other effects of Covid-19 on UK research have included restrictions on research activities, closure of labs, et cetera, as a result of lockdown, and also reduced numbers of postgraduate students coming from overseas.
Medical charities with a shortfall in their income have cut or cancelled 18% of their research funding, amounting to hundreds of millions of pounds. The biggest threat to universities from the reduction in funding is a reduction in research talent. Early-career researchers are particularly likely to be affected. Research students’ funding is funded only to 45% of costs, resulting in a £1.5 billion deficit. Cuts to charity research funding are likely to disadvantage early-career researchers such as PhD students, postdocs and research fellows. Covid-19 clearly is going to have a significant effect, and no one knows for how long.
I turn to the government response, which in some terms is positive and is much appreciated, as far as it goes. The Government have provided short-term funding of £100 million in QR-related funding that is brought forward. A research sustainability task force engaging with the university sector to discuss science research and issues is most welcome. The £280 million sustaining university excellence fund—the so-called SURE fund—is another initiative. That is all good, but how do you plug billions of pounds-worth of shortfall? Some questions remain about the long-term level of support.
In December 2019, the Government announced their ambition to make the UK a science superpower. The recent research and development road map reaffirmed the pledge to increase R&D spending to £22 billion by 2024-25. By the way, our report identified a key issue of the large number of scientists who will be needed with this scale of increase in R&D. Estimates suggest that an increase of as much as 50% in the numbers of research scientists and technicians will be needed; in the short term, this could be met only by international mobility. The government R&D road map sets out the framework, but now it needs the Government to engage with the university sector to get the details right.
I said that I would not disappoint the Minister by not mentioning Brexit. Agreeing a sensible deal and associating UK with the Horizon Europe programme is important. It will enable the UK, a leading science research country in Europe, to continue and enhance the strong links with academia and the private sector, not only with other European counties but more globally. If the UK fails to secure association with Horizon Europe, it will be necessary to have schemes focused on international partnerships, with bottom-up, excellence-based frontier research put in place, with funding and the ability to tap into Horizon Europe on a third-country basis. Is the Minister able to comment?
Putting this all together, I have the following questions for the Minister. What steps will the Government take to improve the financial resilience of university-based research and innovation? Will this include addressing the shortfall in funder contribution to full costs and short-term and long-term adjustment to QR funding? When do the Government intend to publish the terms and conditions of the SURE fund? What involvement will the university sector have in developing the R&D road map? What involvement will the universities have in the Government’s place-based strategy for research? I look forward to the Minister’s response and very keenly look forward to listening to the speeches of other noble Lords. I beg to move.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Royal Veterinary College and, until recently, chancellor of Cranfield University. I was very pleased to be a member of the Science and Technology Committee working on this report and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his excellent chairmanship. However, this report is almost ancient history; it was published over a year ago, and much has changed since the government response in October.
Research, development and innovation, building on the excellence of science in UK universities, has always been incredibly important, and is even more so now, when we need urgent solutions to serious problems—Covid, climate change, security and, most particularly, rebuilding our economy post Covid. The Government have recognised this in the R&D road map, as the noble Lord mentioned, with its commitment to public investment reaching £22 billion per year by 2024-25. But this would take it only to about 0.8% of GDP; the target of spending 2.4% of GDP by 2027 will need big changes to bring in institutional and business investment in research. I hope that the Minister can tell us how the Government intend to do this. The road map has high ambitions, which are much to be welcomed, but it is really still a series of asking absolutely the right questions without yet filling in the answers. We need to see the colour of the money, particularly in the spending review.
Universities are still experiencing many of the problems that we outlined in our report. University research is cross-subsidised from other sources, with a particular one being overseas students’ fees. It remains to be seen, as we will do very shortly, whether those students will turn up this year—or, indeed, possibly next.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, outlined, Brexit puts at risk not only access to European funding sources such as Horizon Europe. The Government have committed to meet any funding shortfalls, but Horizon Europe is as vital for open and free collaborations with the brightest and best across Europe as it is about the money. The Government must land an association agreement with Horizon Europe. The changes that the Government have offered to the visa system for researchers still leave visas as a potential barrier, due to their high cost.
I hope upon hope that there is one silver lining in Covid—that it has killed Augar. I mean the report, not the man; at least, I think I mean the report not the man but, when he gave evidence to the Committee, I felt decidedly homicidal towards him. Funding further education properly is important for our economic future; the last thing that hard-hit universities need right now is for the funding of further education to face a reduction in student fees. Can the Minister assure us that this frankly bonkers idea is now officially dead?
I turn to the dual funding system, which must be preserved, with a reversal of the quality-related funding stagnation of the last 10 years that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, talked about. This is particularly important, not only because of the funding levels but because dual funding gives universities important flexibility in creating research collaborations and developing research infrastructure. That ability should not be eroded.
Lastly, we must find ways of ensuring that the fruits of UK university and other research benefit the UK. All too often, as was shown by a previous report from the Science and Technology Committee, innovations researched and developed in the UK are snapped up and grown up by US investors and leave these shores. This is one of the things that we ought to learn about from the US. Can we not import that, rather than chlorine-washed chicken?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chancellor of Cardiff University, and my husband is part of a research team which receives Research Council funding. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the committee on an excellent and very clear report. I am particularly pleased by its perceptive analysis of the dangers inherent in the recommendations of the Augar review, where there was a strong risk of a race to the bottom. The problem is that this report is from a different world: a pre-Covid world, in which we still expected to get an agreement with the EU for a post-Brexit deal.
So the problems that this report sets out are compounded and magnified, first, by the lack of any sign of an agreement with the EU—for instance, on our future involvement in Erasmus or in Horizon Europe. Given the lack of progress and the short time left for a solution, the lack of firm plans from government on replacement funding is already putting UK research on the back foot, as it takes a long time to plan and work up a research proposal. That cannot be done until you know the terms of the funding you need to apply for. Eleven per cent of research funds have come from the EU—enough to create a major gap—and most of these projects were by definition international collaborations, providing kudos and intellectual reach for our universities.
Secondly, there is the massive impact of Covid, which is serious for universities for several reasons. They use fees paid by foreign students to cross-subsidise their research, and this has been encouraged by successive Governments. We do not yet know how many foreign students will actually arrive to start courses this year, or return to complete them. The next month or so will tell, but it is very likely that there will be far fewer of them. Universities were already at an international disadvantage in attracting foreign students. The report quotes £1,200 for the cost of a visa for foreign students wanting to do a PhD here, compared with around £300 in Canada or Australia. Despite promised changes, there will still be huge costs.
I remind the Government that prior to the pandemic we were already struggling to maintain our international competitiveness and our reputation as an open and welcoming country, which has taken a huge knock as a result of the rhetoric surrounding the Brexit debate. As an aside, the A-level results fiasco has been an additional cost for universities, particularly those already struggling to balance their books.
On other sources of funding, charities have funded 15% of research over past years but they have been badly hit by the virus. Demand for their services have gone up but donations have gone down. Many charities have seen a big drop in donations. Four per cent of university research income comes from business, mainly big business—companies such as Rolls-Royce and Airbus. We all know what has happened to them during the pandemic. At a time when they are making thousands of workers redundant, they are unlikely to take up the slack left by our departure from the EU. So we rely on government as a source of funding, and that government funding has stagnated in recent years. The Government now have to take up that challenge, increase funding in real terms and fill the gaps left by the other traditional sources of funding. We cannot take our position at the head of world research for granted.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I begin by declaring my interests, particularly as the chancellor of the University of Leicester, a visiting professor at King’s College, London, and a member of the board of UKRI. It really is an excellent report and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the other members of the committee on it. Of course, this report appears already to have had an influence. When it was written, there was unhappiness that QR funding had not been increased; it has now been increased by almost £100 million. We have also had an excellent R&D road map, produced by my successor as Science Minister, Minister Solloway, which has been widely recognised as an important document identifying all the key issues facing our research system.
I would like to put three points to the Minister. First, there is an assumption in the widely used language of “top”, “leading” or “best” universities—the ones which tend to get the articles in the prestigious journals and score most highly on the REF—that they are the be-all and end-all of excellent research. We can be very proud of those universities, but if we are to get to 2.4% of GDP going on R&D and apply it, as several Members of the Committee have already said, we need a range of types of research and a range of types of institution. That includes the training of technicians—people who are expert in maintaining and innovating in the equipment that researchers use. It would therefore be a mistake to think that we can get anywhere near 2.4% if our research activities are concentrated in a small number of elite universities. The system as a whole needs to be healthy and well funded, with universities coming in many different shapes and sizes.
Secondly, I welcome the statements from the Government and No.10 about the importance of continuing to attract international talent. I fear that we have reached the point where the costs of our visas and, even more, the immigrant health surcharge will be a major barrier. Perhaps I can give just one example. A postdoc researcher with three dependants coming to work in the UK for three years would, given the proposed increase in the immigration health surcharge per person and their visa costs, over those three years face a total bill of approximately £9,900. A typical postdoc researcher might be earning £34,000, so 10% of his or her gross income would go on paying for visas and the NHS surcharge. This is therefore a barrier to the very job mobility and attraction of workers from overseas which the Government rightly call for.
Thirdly and finally, where do we go on our ODA spending? There is a lively debate about this but, even without any change to the 0.7% target, if GDP falls that 0.7% will be a percentage of a smaller sum. There must inevitably be a debate on priorities. One of my frustrations in my time was that the DfID culture was very much to focus on the poorest people in the poorest countries. That is admirable, but it cannot be the full story of ODA expenditure. I was very aware of the resentment among low to middle-income countries, such as South Africa and India, which no longer passed the DfID test as being the poorest countries and therefore faced the loss of any ODA funding. Along with the then Foreign Secretary, I was able to go to those countries and say, “You may no longer be getting DfID money, but we are now offering you a partnership in research and development”. I hope that offer will be retained and very much hope that the Minister will be able to acknowledge these points in his wind-up.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to speak after my noble friend Lord Willetts, who is a source of wisdom, experience and intellectual authority. I strongly agree with him on the ODA point, having been a PPS at the ODA with my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes when Geoffrey Howe was Foreign Secretary and it was part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In my opinion, it had a great deal of merit.
Let me congratulate most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the distinguished Science and Technology Committee. They add real authority and integrity to scientific debates in this place. I need to declare my interests. For the past 14 years I have been chancellor of the University of Hull, in which I take enormous pride. I took over from Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. For 30 years I have been a governor or an emeritus governor of the London School of Economics. For many years I was a pro-chancellor at Surrey.
Perhaps I should also declare that I have always been strongly under the influence of my noble and close kinsman, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton. All families have their snobberies. When I became a Cabinet Minister—I think only the eighth woman—my family members were pleased and congratulated me. But when the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, became a fellow of the Royal Society—the third in the family to do so—there was jubilation, waving of flags and massive celebration. It was evident that being a fellow of the Royal Society was very much more significant than being a Cabinet Minister—so there you go.
As has been said, this report was published a long time ago, and the response by the right honourable Chris Skidmore MP, again, was just on a year ago, and much has happened in that time. I hope that we can all still agree with the Minister’s closing points in his response then that the UK remains committed to creating mutually beneficial opportunities for research collaboration, including in our universities, with both our European and international partners.
Since then, as has been said, the tectonic plates have been shifting. Covid-19 has had a profound effect, but it has also generated a showcasing of the quality of British science, whether in research towards a vaccine or in providing critical recommendations for quarantining and lockdown. So I hope that it has reinforced the public and media appetite for promoting research and innovation.
A key theme of my early work was trying to make sure that the London teaching hospitals were closely related to the medical schools and their local universities. Each time the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh, who was then rector of Imperial, made another step forward in his research or innovation programme, he would write and say that closing hospitals is never popular for a Minister, but that if I had not done it they would not have been able to make the progress that they had made. I took great comfort in this, and also at that time worked most happily with the chair of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
As a social scientist, let me continue to reinforce the importance of social science. The University of Hull is not one of the great, elite global universities but is always hugely committed to and serious about specific areas of research. It is world leading in applied health research, incorporating wider areas such as education, criminology and environmental sciences. Its insights are extraordinarily important in the development of policy formation. Hull, like so many others, has had an excellent track record in EU research. With others, I ask the Minister to update us on the Government’s ongoing discussions with the EU concerning Horizon 2020. It really has been the generator of a vast amount of research, innovation and collaboration.
Collaboration is the hallmark of the best research. Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell, one of our most outstanding vice-chancellors, speaks in this month’s FST magazine about the importance of national and international collaboration, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Willetts for his work as chairman.
Finally, I will say that, along with the responses we await on many subjects, the noble Baroness had unkind things to say about Dr Augar. More important perhaps is Dame Shirley Pearce’s independent review of the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework. She and her team were commissioned by the former Secretary of State. There has been no response whatever for more than a year. It was a tremendous report, with an ONS survey and expert committees. It has been a gross discourtesy not to respond for more than a year. As we make our plans to go forward, there are many encouraging signs and there is more to do. We need a coherent road map if we are indeed to become the scientific superpower that the Government claim is our aim.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure for me to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley. I have been a follower of hers since we were under- graduates together and she said some very interesting things again today. I declare my interest as a former general secretary of the AUT and a Minister for some time for higher education, attending to issues of quality, and I have various fellowships from UK universities.
I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his lucid and accurate introduction to an excellent committee report. Two issues flow from it that I will address briefly. The first, along with the noble Baronesses, Lady Bottomley and Lady Young, is the issue of co-operation. The EU joint research funding programme, Horizon Europe, has been an incredibly important feature of higher education in this country—as its likely successor will be next year. The Government have said frequently that they want to ensure that conditions are right. But I too ask the Minister, what possible reasons could there be not to do it—not to give the universities the confidence that we are not going to be ducking and diving in some kind of ideological thing about this?
It is about the money, of course, but even more it is about collaboration. It is about the culture of friendly co-operation and what I sometimes call the “mood music” of higher education. We are seeing it very strongly at the moment in the work that is being done on Covid-19. The best work is being done when people are working together and not relying on exceptionalism in their own countries. Sir Jeremy Farrar, the head of the Wellcome Trust, made this very point in articles during the week.
The second issue is of course the issue of funding—alongside the issue of retaining the independence of universities—some of which we committed ourselves to in 1997 in a UNESCO treaty that this country signed. I share with others the view that the Augar terms of reference were too narrow to provide a credible proposition for higher education. Whatever insights there might be into further education, it is a seriously inadequate report. Of course it would be desirable to see a decrease in the grip of student tuition fees on an early working life, and indeed on much of the working life, of people who are in debt. But there are no alternatives being expressed to meet the shortfall. The Science Committee is 100% right about this, and cross-subsidies are a poor model—but the question is bound to arise and I hope that the Minister will answer it. How will we make good these gaps?
The key to the Dearing report was essentially that those who benefit from higher education should contribute. Students benefit and they make a contribution. It is important that they make a similar contribution and that we do not penalise the more expensive subjects such as science, medicine and others. We do not want to disincentivise anybody. The public benefit. We have doctors, nurses and medical specialists—any number of people whom Mariana Mazzucato, in her excellent research work at University College, London, has described as the “significant public investment” in the sorts of specialties that we need.
Business also benefits. I argued with the then Sir Ron Dearing that a hypothecated bond might be a way of looking at another stream of funding for higher education. I understand that the Treasury does not like hypothecated bonds, and Sir Ron made the point that, if it was to be done, we should try to make sure that it was not the Government who did it but the private financial institutions. Be that as it may, the purpose was to create an entirely different stream that had to be applied to higher education.
I conclude by saying that we cannot leave this, I am sad to say, to the vice-chancellors. Their discussions have been very narrow and they have been focused on the competitive interests of their own universities, and that trumps everything else. There has also been a lack of imagination. But we are now in a position where we can look at alternatives, and indeed we must do so.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will start by declaring not so much an interest as a prejudice, which is in favour of research in STEM subjects —given that I am a physicist and former university researcher myself.
In my subsequent career as a patent attorney, I came face to face with the inability of our universities to build on technical developments that came from their research. In a country that prides itself on financial services and capital markets—something that has occupied me for the last 15 years of my career—we are still broadly incapable of finding the domestic investment that means innovation can get much beyond start-up before it is sold on to foreign companies. That is not just my sentiment—it was said by the head of Cambridge Enterprise, and similarly just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Young.
No doubt such buyout counts as “foreign direct investment”, just as takeover of our companies does, but it does not retain control of profits or allow the scale-up in British industry that is so desired in numerous policy statements.
We rightly flatter ourselves on our university research but, until we transfer the 15% of most highly cited papers into 15% of the world’s most productive technology, we are failing. We can reap only what we sow, which means that until the industrial strategy White Paper target of 2.4% of GDP being spent on R&D happens, we waste potential economic benefit and end up paying to buy back our own innovation. It certainly flows in the wrong direction not to have quality-related funding that reliably keeps up so that the true economic costs of research are covered. The various impacts of Brexit will also need addressing.
Right now, our universities are under the threat of reduced income as the number of international students falls. As the committee’s report explains, it would be very damaging if the Augar review were cherry-picked for a headline of reducing the cap on student loans without correspondingly increasing the government teaching grant, the full package of which is not Treasury-friendly.
The Economic Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, had a jolly good stab at unravelling the intricacies of student loan financing in its 2018 report, Treating Students Fairly: The Economics of Post-School Education. Giving students value for money and not treating tuition fees as cash cows was a primary concern. A squeeze on university finances would push that in the wrong direction and away from the more expensive STEM subjects that the economy requires.
The committee also proposed removing the various fictions and anxieties surrounding student loans—my paraphrase—by lowering interest rates and removing the deferred recognition of loan losses used in the national accounts, which differs from international corporate norms—a correction which has now been made. So, if a headline student debt cut is needed, go for the interest rate: it causes alarm and is unfair, yet significantly adds to the amount that is not eventually repaid, serving little purpose now other than appearing as a loan loss in the national accounts.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB) [V]
Our research universities are major assets because of the collective expertise of their faculties and the consequent quality of the graduates they feed into all walks of life. They are a seedbed for new ideas, some of which have major potential impact, but our top institutions will not retain their standing unless they continue to attract top talent from this country and abroad. Some nerds—I am one of them—will become researchers come what may but a world-class university cannot survive on just these weirdos. It must attract a share of ambitious young people with flexible talent—the kind who are savvy about their options and increasingly associate academia with uncertain prospects, bureaucracy and undue financial sacrifices, as measured by this report.
Even if we continue to generate 10% of the world’s best science, 90% of clever new ideas still germinate elsewhere, so we should not overfocus. The system as a whole must retain enough across-the-board expertise to sustain a “watching brief” across all global science, and thereby seize on a new idea from anywhere and run with it.
Achieving the social and economic benefits of research is a prolonged process. The inventors of lasers in the 1960s used ideas that Einstein had developed decades earlier; they could not themselves foresee that their invention would be used in eye surgery and in DVDs. Likewise, the pay-offs from, for instance, quantum computing and graphene still lie ahead.
Research universities are not optimised to spearhead long-term R&D, especially when they are constrained by perverse incentives such as the REF. That is why it is good that they are embedded in an ecosystem of small companies, NGOs and so on; that is why the catapult centres were set up. Government research establishments provide, in some areas, valuable long-term programmes. Indeed, such establishments already exist for fusion research, biomedicine and environmental science, but we need more. For instance, the new Faraday Institution for battery research—a welcome step—could be the nucleus of a larger venture, meshing public and private funds and encompassing other energy technologies.
There is an especially compelling case for prioritising energy R&D. Without innovation, we will not meet our 2050 net-zero target, but that in itself cuts global emissions by less than 2%. It is more important that these innovations could have a benign multiplier effect and perhaps accelerate the developing world’s efforts to leapfrog to clean energy. Then—I suspect the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, would approve of this—we would reduce global emissions by far more than 2% and help the developing world.
Likewise, our leadership in plant science could facilitate the switch to the sustainably intensive agriculture that is needed to feed the world’s 9 billion people by 2050. It is hard to envisage a more inspiring challenge for young scientists than providing food and energy for the developing world. We need to ensure that these scientists are educated, motivated and supported. Our schools, universities, and high-tech businesses—supplemented by national laboratories—must all match the international best if we are to prosper.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to have the chance to contribute to this debate. There are so many things in this report. I really want to speak about the disastrous impact of the dysfunctional system of tuition fees, the impact of Brexit and the failure to resolve so many relevant issues as the Brexit transition period comes to an end, many of which are clearly highlighted in this report and, in the year since, have only become more pressing.
What I have chosen to focus on, however, is the scope and approach of the whole report. I understand that it is the Science and Technology Committee, and that this was a report about science research. A limited scope is therefore, on one level, fair enough, but what is lacking in this report is even a hint of understanding that to assume that “science” can be walled off as a separate area of study, relying on test tubes and instruments rather than being integrated as part of systems thinking about the goals of the whole of society, is disturbing. I am also very concerned to see this in government thinking often. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone, referred to the excellent social science at the University of Hull—something I encounter regularly as a resident of the region.
We hear some rhetoric from government and official sources about the need for systems thinking, the removal of silos and importance of cross-disciplinary research, but everything I hear from researchers and academics on the ground is that it is just that: purely rhetoric. I am told time and again that is very hard to get funding for truly cross-disciplinary work and get full professional credit for it.
I encounter many in “science” who treat the economic, social, cultural and political environment as a given—the permanent, unchanging reality in which they have to work—rather than as a constantly shifting landscape where they need to work with economists, sociologists, political scientists and many others so that they can understand the interaction of their activities with broader society. That limits and damages the quality of their work and its effects.
Excellent work is being done in the UK in some of these areas. Some that I have encountered include the Grantham Centre for Sustainable Futures at the University of Sheffield, the Centre of Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity at the University of Surrey and the sadly discontinued Centre for Research into Economic and Socio-Cultural Change, which did brilliant work on everything from care homes to pig farming. There are also independent organisations such as Forum for the Future. But when I look around the world, leadership chiefly rests elsewhere. One example of the kind of work we need far more of is that done by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Vienna.
What does this lack of systems thinking mean in practical terms? With the Agriculture Bill before the House, that is a good area to focus on. A very useful Food Ethics Council research paper reports that the direction of research funding has remained almost unchanged for 20 years, despite the huge global shifts in thinking about agriculture, particularly the importance of soils, agroecology and systems thinking. There is an “obsessive focus on wheat” rather than crop diversity, which could feed into a healthier food system, centred particularly on fruit and vegetables.
The UK is not on track, as the world is not, to meet any of the sustainable development goals to which it signed up. At the heart of the goals, their whole structure is the understanding that we operate in a complex, chaotic, shock-ridden world that needs to be thought about holistically, not in silos. I hope this will be taken as a constructive contribution and I suggest to the committee that it turns serious attention to these issues. I ask the Minister to address these issues on this or a future occasion.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and other colleagues on a report that, even before we have debated it here, has impacted government thinking in this area. I declare my interests as detailed in the register, particularly as pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Bolton, visiting professor at St Mary’s University, Twickenham, an adviser to the Bridge Initiative at Georgetown and a member of the advisory board of the Glynn Institute at the Australian Catholic University.
I will particularly focus on chapter 3 of the report on the findings and comments relating to the Augar review, and on the changes proposed by the review as commented on in the report. I am not sure whether the review is still supported by the current Government but, in the light of the issues raised in the report, I will speak to these two issues: the proposed way in which we determine the value of a university education, with reference to its social and economic outcomes; and the proposals for future funding.
Can my noble friend detail the Government’s approach to the value placed on a course, and indeed on an individual university? When the latest figures put the BAME attainment gap at around 13%, where white pupils and BAME pupils entering a university at the same time and who attain the same degrees achieve markedly different outcomes, and where the Government’s own race disparity audit identified a pay gap post education, how can we accurately assess the value of specific subjects and outcomes when the system has a level of inequality, irrespective of subjects, for a large and growing cohort of our undergraduates?
The pupil premium, introduced in 2011, was a way that the coalition Government, of which I was a part, implemented a levelling-up agenda long before it became a much-used catchphrase. The premium and the various levels of support given to schools as part of it acknowledged disadvantage and recognised that additional funding goes some way to help institutions support those who face additional barriers and challenges. Yet, the review appears to suggest exactly the opposite: a decrease in funding, described by some as a “pupil penalty”.
On my second point, there is a lack of clarity on the dual aspect of the review’s recommendations, namely that a new cap of £7,500 would be accompanied by an increase in government funding. Various proposals had been floated about how the gaps could be plugged. Some of them have been mentioned today, such as increasing the international student intake. However, limiting capacity for domestic students by increasing international students would impact on social mobility, a point made in the report, which argues that due to the funding gap and the financial consequences that a decrease in tuition fees would create:
“The immediate casualties … will … be widening-participation programmes”—
the very programmes the Government seek to support as part of their levelling-up agenda.
I am afraid that the review did not focus on the overall way in which institutions are run, particularly where students’ needs, whether because of background, because they are mature students with dependents or due to complex health and well-being needs, mean that the cost to provide the overall educational experience and support is more than the precise measurement of a specific course’s delivery cost. As the report cites, even in the report done by KPMG and commissioned by the Government, the baseline costs of a course exceed the proposed Augar cap. I wholeheartedly support the report’s finding that the review’s recommended process of attributing value to a subject is far from straightforward and will be fraught with difficulties. Could my noble friend confirm the status of the Augar review and the Government’s current thinking on the review’s proposed recommendations?
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I am pleased to have the opportunity to consider this report, which sets out so succinctly the issues that need to be addressed to sustain the UK’s international excellence in research. I would be remiss not to compliment the committee on the clarity of the report, which starkly highlights the dilemma facing our universities in delivering the success of the UK’s research base.
It has taken some time to get here, as other noble Lords have said—the report was published in August last year—but given what has happened in the interim, this is an opportune moment to seek to influence the Government’s thinking in advance of the spending review in a couple of months’ time. I pay tribute to the determination of the committee’s chair, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in pressing for time for this debate.
The report makes it clear that the UK is home to some of the world’s most respected researchers and that our universities are recognised globally as some of the best places to conduct scientific research. In 2017, the Government recognised this in their industrial strategy White Paper by setting a target of investing 2.4% of GDP in research and development by 2027—a big ask.
The report helpfully reminds us that 62% of research in UK HEIs is publicly funded. It also reminds us that this publicly funded research is, in fact, underfunded and cross-subsidised by the entrepreneurial success of each university, including the recruitment of international students. The financial and social consequences of Covid-19 have hit universities hard and some of these sources have dried up. The Government have promised to increase spending on research in the UK. The package recently announced by the Government is a response in part to the decline in international students. The overall decline is not yet clear, but can the Minister assure us that the 80% support offered will be sufficient to fill the gap?
In setting the conditions for the distribution of the package, will the Government ensure flexibility so that universities can allocate funds where they think best, in line with local needs and an institution’s priorities? I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, on the breadth of research in our universities. I urge the Government to boost collaboration with local partners, such as local government, local businesses and public services, in which so many of our universities excel.
A major issue highlighted by the report is the need to address the falling full economic cost return on research. I echo others in asking the Minister what steps the Government will take to improve the financial resilience of university-based research and innovation activities. Will they assist in persuading funders to increase the contribution they make to the cost of research? What plans do they have to halt the outflow of research talent as universities are forced to end research projects? How will the Government help to address the loss of early career researchers, who are so fundamental to maintaining the stream of long-term research?
I will make one final point on the future of our links with the European Research Council, in particular its funding for discovery research, which is so important for furthering the UK’s status as a science and technology superpower. Access to the ERC requires full association, as opposed to third-country status, so the current apparent impasse on the wider negotiations is worrying. I realise that the negotiations about full association with Horizon Europe are separate from the UK’s wider negotiations, but can the Minister assure the Committee that our negotiators will seek to ensure that the wider challenges with the UK-EU negotiations will not lead to tensions that might endanger our access to the ERC?
Research and innovation are essential to diversify our economy and drive growth and productivity. Now more than ever, could be Government forgive themselves if they did not heed the clear messages in this report?
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was not a member of the Science and Technology Committee, but I read the report and the Government’s reply with great interest.
My first concern relates to the availability of public money for research. Cross-subsidising research budgets by individual universities could never be a long-term solution to pressure on those budgets. There is now, at least in theory, a welcome commitment by the Government to increase research funding to 2.4% of GDP by 2027. The problem is that if GDP declines, so does research funding. This is unwise, because if the economy is stalling, investment in research becomes increasingly important to drive future growth. The GDP figure to be used for 2027 should be the 2019-20 GDP figure—before the coronavirus pandemic began—plus annual inflation. That seems a reasonable way of approaching the problem and it would give universities greater clarity on future funding streams.
This takes me to Horizon funding. A no-deal Brexit will imperil our leadership status in global research because we will not be part of Horizon Europe, worth £85 billion in 2021-2027. I cannot understand why the Government have failed to show clearer leadership on this vital issue. Associate status is a weak position to be in, and to secure awards will require us to contribute to the pool anyway. We should note that in Horizon 2020’s proof of concept awards, UK applicants secured 13 awards, the largest number of grants. In the current Horizon round, the UK has secured a fifth of the awards.
This is clearly of enormous benefit to our spending on research, the research status of our universities and the geographical areas that they are in. The Government rightly are committed to a levelling-up agenda across the whole country. Many universities play a central role in their local and regional economies, notably in jobs, research and investment. The Government’s industrial strategy talked of the importance of place and it is important to remember that this relates directly to the levelling-up agenda. I do not argue that research money should be spread thinly, because investment must relate to specific sectors and to excellence, but it is the job of a Government to lead research capacity building across the whole country.
Last week, the annual world rankings of universities were published in Times Higher Education. They showed a drop in the positions of some UK universities. The comparative improvement of some non-UK universities is an obvious reason, but we should not underestimate the importance of investing to maintain our world rankings.
In the early summer, London Economics reported that the five north-east universities could lose £118 million as a result of a predicted downturn in student numbers, both domestic and overseas, caused by coronavirus. Things may yet turn out a bit less severe, but the importance of the local income generated from students should not be underestimated, and nor should Horizon income, which in my own city of Newcastle-upon-Tyne alone has generated some £90 million over the past seven years.
I look forward to hearing the Government’s proposals for solving the problems that the committee has so clearly identified.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as I hold an honorary professorship at Cardiff University and chair the board of Cardiff Metropolitan University, which has climbed 41 places in this year’s Guardian University Guide and was the highest-ranked post-1992 university in the 2014 REF. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel on his introduction to this important debate on his report.
International student income has supported research intensive institutions, but Covid-19 puts this at great risk. Tuition fees are essential. Cuts will decrease research activity and student exposure to it. Understanding how to experiment and innovate will be the driver of economic survival for the UK.
The Government’s proposed UK advanced research projects agency could bolster responsive investigations, promote interdisciplinary high-quality research in higher risk novel lines of inquiry and boost impact through its non-bureaucratic programme approach. To support the Government’s levelling-up agenda, demonstrate UK commitment and avoid culture capture, Cardiff could welcome hosting the agency.
Quality-related research—QR—funding is essential in developing and sustaining research and innovation centres. Examples at Cardiff Met, a small post-1992 university, include the food industry centre and the product design research centre, designing from concept to production. In Russell group universities such as Cardiff, QR funding sustains infrastructure, particularly as UK Research and Innovation funding of university research has gradually decreased relative to full economic costs over recent years, so QR funding must be maintained and increased.
Brexit means that we now need a domestic alternative to Horizon Europe, the ERC, Marie Curie and other funds. Can the Minister assure us that the new discovery fund is intended to replace these sources in the event of no deal, with no time gap between when European funding ends and domestic replacement starts in the event of a no-deal Brexit? Can he also confirm that the UK shared prosperity fund will match in real terms the EU and UK funding streams it replaces and be allocated to narrow prosperity differences across the UK, not only in England, with framework-agreed guidelines that ensure the devolved nations can target areas of strength in university research?
Cardiff has strong regional collaborations: the GW4 Alliance, with its unique assets, the data innovation accelerator, using data assets, and the world’s first semiconductor cluster in CSconnected. Cardiff University’s ambitious “moonshot” approach in translational neuroscience brings together research strengths in genetics, genomics and brain research imaging. The net-zero regional collaboration aims at swift socioeconomic transformations, R&D growth and increasing business investment. Major projects include stability of the national grid, the built environment and equitable energy systems, yet these will all slip if we are left behind in new government funding sources.
After the hit of Covid, which decimated charity research funding, we must focus on rebuilding the economy and reshaping society through five key priority areas: developing a new approach to deliver place- based economic growth; turbocharging investment in fundamental research; launching strategic science-based missions for high-risk, high-return; strengthening the high-level skills talent pipeline; and maximising opportunities for global collaboration. To achieve any of this means heeding not only the recommendations of the Science and Technology Committee, but also noble Lords’ comments today.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome this debate on the important report from the committee. It is a wide-ranging report covering a large area, so I will confine my remarks to two elements.
First, I refer to the useful co-operation that has existed for many years between our academic institutions and those in the EU, and programmes such as Erasmus, Erasmus+, Horizon 2020—from which we had considerable billions of euros in support—and next, the Horizon Europe programme, which has been referred to already and will be very highly funded in Europe. The exchange of expertise, ideas and student experiences between nations across the continent has been a great help, especially in the field of scientific research and development. The Government have indicated their strong intention to seek an ongoing relationship to the EU programmes. Perhaps the Minister can update us on exactly how that aim is progressing.
Not only have we benefited greatly from the various EU programmes, which we get back substantially more from than we pay in, but we have done well from our joint research work with other EU institutions and exchanges of students and research fellows from neighbouring states. How we maintain this momentum is of great concern to vice-chancellors across the UK.
There are also genuine concerns about the Immigration Rules and the funding position post-Brexit. We must continue to attract the best researchers and research students from Europe to remain in the forefront of international work in many scientific fields. Currently, non-UK EU citizens still provide a high proportion of our academic workforce. As has been referred to already, it is likely that we are going to lose a lot of these people after December, especially if our new Immigration Rules make us less attractive.
As the committee’s report suggested, in order to meet the Government’s desire to see investment in R&D rise to 2.4% of GDP by 2027, and ultimately to 3% to retain a world-leading position, we will need to increase the number of those involved in research by at least 50%. This can be achieved only by greater international exchanges and a focus on the appropriate subject teaching and encouragement in our schools, as well as academic institutions.
The second area of interest to me is that of ongoing funding in more general terms. The committee heard that the division in funding sources was roughly two-thirds from public funds to one-third from other sources—interestingly, only 4% was from UK corporate entities. In view of the vital benefit to our businesses and the overall effect for UK plc of much of our sharp-end higher research projects, surely we could and should look for a much bigger contribution from businesses. The University of Cambridge fills its research costs gap partly from philanthropy, but not all universities are as well-endowed as Cambridge. Also, as the report states, because of complex cross-funding, many institutions do not separately ring-fence funds for research.
There are some notable relationships between businesses and higher academia, often established to mutual advantage, but much research cannot be so polarised. Often, more speculative work ultimately produces results—sometimes world-beating—which become available for wider benefit. It should be possible for government intervention to produce a fiscal climate that would encourage greater investment in research by our business community and help to fill the current shortfall experienced by the institutions, especially in these pressured times. Many people respect and even envy the UK’s scientific research. We must do our best to try to keep that leading position.
Lord Turnberg (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his committee on producing the excellent report. It is not his fault that it is now more than one year old. So much has happened since 2019 and we now have many new issues crowding in on us.
I want to focus my remarks on the devastating impact of Covid-19 on the medical charity world and how that now affects our capacity to undertake much important medical research. I express my interests as a past professor of medicine, as past scientific adviser—for almost 20 years—to the Association of Medical Research Charities and now as a trustee of a number of medical research charities, including the Wolfson Foundation. I should say that the Wolfson Foundation is relatively protected because it is an endowed charity and is doing its best to be as flexible as possible. But among the other charities, a huge number are suffering the most. Among the biggest, Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation, and Diabetes UK are suffering, but a large number of smaller charities are finding it even more difficult to keep supporting niche areas of research that are ill-supported from other sources. I fear that research into childhood leukaemias will suffer, as will that into mental illness, tuberous sclerosis and the many rare and congenital disorders that rely on a single source for research support.
The figures are frightening. The 150 member charities of the AMRC expect a 40% fall in income. They currently offer almost £2 billion of support for medical researcheach year—more than the Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research put together. They will have a shortfall of several hundred million pounds. Noble Lords can imagine the impact that will have if they recognise that charities support 17,000 research workers’ salaries. It is little wonder that universities are facing redundancies in their research staff and that over half the 1,300 clinical trials they support are being stopped or delayed. These are devastating figures and facts. The problems caused to university research are exacerbated by all the other pressures being borne in on them by Covid-19 and a potential no-deal Brexit. Research collaboration across Europe is being threatened, as we have heard, and the longer-term future of the Horizon Europe and Erasmus schemes is far from clear.
The prospect that the UK will be able to afford to fill the gap as we emerge from a Covid-induced depression is diminishing by the day. It is certainly encouraging that the Government produced a £250 million grant extension in June and some longer-term low-interest loans. However, that was when the Chancellor was distributing largesse like there was no tomorrow. Now tomorrow is looming and it is payback time, when the UK has a £2 trillion national debt and the prospects for longer-term support are receding.
It is therefore of interest that the AMRC is proposing a joint funding programme with the Government. It calculates that if each side contributes £310 million per annum in matched funding, it will go some way to filling the gap in medical research charity funding that seems inevitable during the next four or five years.Will the Minister give careful consideration to this proposal? Now is certainly the winter of discontent in our precious university research, unless we do something more to support it. Will healso tell us how the Government will encourage the international research collaboration that we will certainly need post-Brexit? What efforts are being made to remove barriers to joint research with such research-active countries as the USA, Singapore and Israel? I use the example of Israel with its remarkably innovative life sciences, where enhanced co-operation would give added value to research in both countries. As we lose European research support, we need to spread our net.
Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con) [V]
As a member of the committee which produced the report, I pay tribute to the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. It was always fair, enthusiastic and intellectually rigorous. It had a light touch but nevertheless a strong hand. It was a pleasure to serve under him and with others on the committee. I declare my interests as a visiting professor at the City University and a senator of the University of St Gallen.
I wish to make only one point today about what I believe was the thrust of the whole report: that if government policy on science research funding in universities is to be successful, it must focus on making the case for its long-term benefits. I say this because the Government are under tremendous pressure to focus on the short term, because of Covid; so are universities. Clearly, the short term is important but the real benefits of investing in science research are long term, leading to increased productivity and sustained growth. They are crucial to job creation and prosperity for our children and grandchildren.
That is now abundantly clear, with scientific research being the basis of new technology and new ways of advancing healthcare, tackling climate change and making things—just think of lithium, graphite, new vaccines and electronic cars. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees, mentioned, these are also examples of fundamental research, which will raise productivity in a future decade. The report recognises that UK universities are some of the best in the world, but even those which are one rank below the best contain departments which are world class. We also have a tie-up between university research institutes and business, which provides a unique opportunity.
The report makes a strong case for increased funding. The Government have stated that they want to reach 2.4% of GDP by 2027. That is a huge aspiration. Raising a percentage point of GDP takes enormous commitment by government. At present, we are 11th among the European countries.
The report was published in 2019. Since then, universities have faced much greater uncertainty. Foreign students are a key source of income. The pensions deficit is huge for universities. In recent years, foreign students have subsidised research. The key test in terms of the Government’s commitment to universities will come in the October Budget and the economic review. We should all feel sympathy for Rishi Sunak, but what is needed at present is some sort of medium-term financial plan in the context of a long-running commitment. Only on that basis will universities feel that they can play a real part in contributing to future prosperity and jobs.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I must first declare an interest. It is a financial interest; I am not an eminent vice-chancellor or visiting professor. Two of my children—my son, Bertie, and my daughter, Clementine—are at university or are going to university. I mention this not just as a point of paternal pride that they have managed to do something I really am not intelligent enough to have managed myself, but because they are both studying mechanical engineering.
As a side point, despite the complete nightmare of the grading system, which seemed to cause particular problems for those taking sciences, my daughter has a place at Manchester. During the open day visits, it was clear from the people in the audience how we are failing at dealing with the gender gap in the STEM subjects. We should be looking at that.
I raise this as a financial issue because the report talks about differentiation in fee structures. It is a not inconsiderable amount considering that many students will come out the other end with considerable debt. It is also an issue because many of those debts are met by families. For the poorest students, that will be a real issue. It will be an issue of whether they can take a STEM subject or will have to look for a humanities course at a cheaper price.
Universities are clearly caught between a rock and a hard place on this, but I found the report an interesting example of just how schizophrenic universities are. The problem is, are they there for the teaching of students or are they bodies for the creation of new knowledge? They cover both, obviously, but universities’ finances are based far more on the first, although they are subsidised by the second.
I will not go into research, because that has already been covered a great deal. It is something of a perennial. I remember being a member of the Science and Technology Committee when it looked at this subject back in 1993. But obviously we are living in a new age now.
I do not believe that the Minister will be able to answer any questions on Brexit, because we seem to be heading straight for a no-deal situation where all bets are off, but I will say that we are in a new world not just because of Covid but because, as my son’s course has shown, almost all the courses and lecture notes are now online. We are moving to a situation where universities may in future be far more on the web than in person.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, so comprehensively introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the committee’s excellent chairman. It was my real pleasure to serve a full term as a member of the committee; it was always stimulating and enjoyable. I was a member for this report. I draw attention to my entries in the register, specifically as chairman of Royal Brompton and Harefield Trust and master of Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge—I was previously at King’s College.
Of course, this report was written in a previous world, pre Covid, but the pandemic has served only to emphasise the vital importance of the UK’s science base and the main things that we highlighted in our report. It might be useful to look briefly at some of the themes partly from a Cambridge perspective, because sometimes tangible examples can help—others, frankly, probably know more about Cambridge than I do yet, and of course there are other fantastic examples around the country.
First, on impact, I will start with Covid. Cambridge is conducting hundreds of research-intensive projects. Specifically, there are 41 projects on Covid R&D, 36 on therapeutics, 16 on the effect on mental health, 15 on social behaviour during Covid, 15 on diagnostics, 14 on NHS demand, capacity and health, 11 on PPE and front-line facilities, 10 on Covid modelling and, crucially, 25 on post-Covid recovery, including 10 based on the economy. So they go much wider than just a narrow view of science.
There has also been a partnership with AstraZeneca on testing. Today, the university announced that it will be able to offer weekly Covid-19 testing for all students in college accommodation, to give confidence to them and to Cambridge more widely, as recommended by SAGE. One hopes that work will help in working out whether this is effective more widely across the HE sector.
Secondly, on place, we all know that we must enhance the role of universities in city and regional economies. Obviously, that has to fit with the Government’s industrial strategy—I confess that I am not completely clear where that is now up to, but it would be good to hear from the Minister how they fit together. Practically, it seems to me that universities have to provide cultural networks and professional expertise, financial support and market expertise to help nurture IP into commercially viable products, recognising however that there is still a capital gap, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, talked about. We also need hard infrastructure and innovation districts, and, crucially, a resource and recruitment pool of highly-skilled students—that is fundamental.
Thirdly, innovation—a sort of magic dust—is very important in Cambridge, as it is everywhere else. Great universities need to attract and retain great people. In the Cambridge cluster, for example, 61,000 people are employed by more than 5,000 knowledge-intensive firms, with a total turnover of £15.5 billion. New initiatives and long-lasting initiatives both contribute to keeping great people. I cite the Whittle Laboratory, which has long done work with aviation and power, and, much more recently, Cambridge Zero, a new interdisciplinary climate change research project.
However, none of this research, impact and innovation is inevitable; it needs constant and consistent support from government, business and society. It is not a tap that can be turned on and off. Competition is global and fast-moving, and we need confidence for the future. Obviously, the spending review will be crucial. We have to maintain a focus on the funding of research and innovation, and broader investment in R&D. We need to maintain central funding and innovation funding—the whole, broad ecosystem. We need to strengthen existing partnerships and forge new ones around the world, and to be ambitious and global in our reach. Crucially, we have to invest in people, domestic and international; in STEM and STEAM at school; in post-16 high-quality pathways, teachers and technicians; and in high-quality HE courses. We have to be open and eager for international talent. We have to deal with the issues around visa and health costs, and consistently we have to mean what we say—and that means being joined up across government.
Lord Mair (CB) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests on the register. In particular, I am an emeritus professor of engineering and director of research at Cambridge University. It has been a privilege to be a member of this House’s Select Committee on Science and Technology under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Our report had recommendations focusing on three key areas: current funding issues, the Augar review and the effects of Brexit. I shall address the effects of Brexit and its implications for future science research funding.
A number of noble Lords have referred to Horizon Europe. Our report urged the Government to associate the UK with Horizon Europe, which will operate 2021-27, as soon as possible. This will ensure certainty and stability for researchers in universities and industry. We strongly recommended that the Government should communicate to the EU and the rest of the world that the UK is committed to continuing international research collaborations after it has left the EU.
Soon after completion of our report, the excellent Smith-Reid review of international research collaboration was published. Their report concluded that research and innovation were towering strengths of the UK, and that the country’s reputation for outstanding research is respected throughout the world. The review rightly drew attention to the crucial importance of international collaboration for successful research and innovation. The UK’s previous association in successive EU research programmes has proved to be a highly productive and effective way of creating pan-European partnerships.
The review highlighted the consensus of the academic, business and charity communities that the UK should fully associate with Horizon Europe. Full association with Horizon Europe will ensure access to the European Research Council, which has been crucial to the success of UK science in recent decades, but whether this will happen will depend on negotiations with the EU, which may or may not lead to the UK associating with Horizon Europe. The science community is increasingly concerned by this lack of certainty in the UK’s position on seeking an association agreement with the EU. Europe is our biggest and fastest-growing scientific collaborator. The possibility of the UK falling out of European research programmes at the end of 2020 carries significant risk to UK science.
The Smith-Reid review makes the important point that, whatever the final arrangements with the EU, continued participation in EU research programmes will require additional financial justification within the UK, and there are a number of options. The R&D road map recently published by the Government addresses the relationship with the EU, as well as many other aspects of science research funding. The Government’s intention to cement the UK as a science superpower is to be welcomed. The road map also provides welcome assurances of funding to replace EU research support in the event that the UK does not associate with EU programmes. It says:
“If we do not formally associate to Horizon Europe or Euratom R&T, we will implement ambitious alternatives as quickly as possible from January 2021 and address the funding gap.”
Can the Minister confirm what is indicated in the R&D road map: that whatever option is chosen, science research funding of international collaborations with EU researchers and others will not be diminished post Brexit?
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, first, I thank the committee for its excellent report. I declare an interest as a former university chancellor. I was honoured to be the first black chancellor of a British university at Bournemouth University, which rightly prides itself on equipping its students for the world of work, in particular in technology. I was especially privileged during my time as chancellor to open a new business school there to encourage even more local and international partnerships with companies.
I was also privileged to present in this House the Bill that created Britain’s first ever DNA database. Over recent years, the importance of data and data protection has become increasingly apparent. The present Covid-19 situation emphasises the need for accurate and up-to-date data. This requires people with the rights skills in that field. Further, the search for a safe and effective vaccine is reliant on the scientific research currently being carried out in our leading universities.
In a different context, for 10 years I was vice-president of the British Board of Film Classification. Some of the more eccentric films that we had to censor had a very happy ending, in that you were very happy when they eventually ended, but there were many excellent films. What became apparent was the increasing influence of special effects and CGI technology; they have helped to keep the British film industry at the forefront of the entertainment world, which is so vital to the British economy.
Artificial intelligence and automation are fast changing the nature of work. One of employers’ biggest complaints, as we all know, is the lack of job applicants with sufficient technical skills, but it would be wrong to think of scientific knowledge as only a modern revelation. One of the gospels was written by Luke, a physician and scientist. Indeed, there are several references to science in the Bible as being important to the progress of man.
I am sure that the Minister will comment on the committee’s claim that public funding has not kept pace with inflation since 2010, which has led universities to subsidise research from other funding streams, such as funding for teaching. I also share the concern expressed in the report that the Government did not include science research in the terms of reference for the review of post-18 education and funding by Philip Augar, published in May 2019. That seems a surprising omission.
The committee made an important recommendation that the Government should ensure that any new post-Brexit immigration laws do not prevent UK universities being able to recruit and retain researchers. The Government responded by arguing that their new fast-track immigration scheme, announced last August, would ensure that “elite scientists and researchers” can work in the UK. However, since then, we have had Covid and air travel restrictions. The support package announced in June is welcome but it will still leave a funding gap—and, of course, part of that package are loans that will have to be repaid.
Some very high-profile and wealthy internet companies, in particular Amazon, Google and Twitter, have made vast profits from the British people. Surely some sort of formula could be found. There could be targeted taxation, whereby such companies can help to fund research in science and technology. After all, those companies would benefit themselves.
Although we are living in an uncertain world, one thing that is certain is that the need for science and technology will only increase. Research is vital to that progress and funding is vital to that process. There is no such thing as a free launch.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, because of Covid-19, we are in a different university world from that envisaged in the flurry of recent reports on science funding in our universities. I take this opportunity to make two points. One is that we all acknowledge the pre-eminence of Oxford University research in the urgent quest for a vaccine and drugs to beat Covid—indeed, the university was recently ranked number one in the world league tables. We must pray that the reported adverse reaction we heard about today is not a setback.
It is time for Oxford-bashing to stop. We have had too many ill-informed and damaging statements, largely from the Opposition, implying that Oxford discriminates in admissions and ought to abandon its painstaking quest for excellence in intake and consequent outcome. Oxford has invested in building up internationally leading teams over the years and providing the right environment for them; this has paid off. The whole world cannot afford to let this go. We need to prepare for other pandemics to come. The UK can provide the leadership in Covid treatment that has not come from the US, the EU—which has chosen to cut Horizon funding—or the World Health Organization. Oxford’s recent success points to its integrity in seeking and retaining the brightest from all over the world and from every quarter. It is time to dispel the clouds of distrust.
Secondly, I recall that at a meeting of vice-chancellors a few years ago, I commented that we were taking too many Chinese students and that, if there were ever a reversal of policy, many universities would be in trouble. One particularly naive and woke vice-chancellor called me a racist. I rest my case.
Colleagues in Oxford tell me that there should be priority for their research into the repurposing of drugs for antiviral and anti-inflammatory use in Covid cases—a particular Oxford innovation. Oxford is leading in the science and technology of fusion energy, which needs a 15 to 30-year perspective on support. It advised me that the UK should not spread its support too thinly but should pick a few renewable technologies and aim to be world leading at those with, for example, generation, storage and transmission of energy.
Universities such as Oxford turn away hundreds of really excellent graduate students every year because there is no funding for them. Many are international. With the Government’s help, we need to do as well as Singapore and Germany in supporting non-EU graduate students here. I hope that the Minister will respond to that.
Finally, there are Chinese students, on whom we are so dependent by way of cross-subsidy. We need to treat them properly—because sometimes they suspect they are cash cows—and integrate them with other students, but we cannot rely on them as we used to. We have to welcome Indian students and others from all over the world. But a word of warning: the Chinese Government are perfectly capable of using their students as a bargaining chip, reducing the outflow to put pressure on the countries that take most of them, which is us, Australia and the US.
We also have to be careful about which Chinese students are admitted here, especially into the sciences. China is trying to curb criticism of its regime on British campuses; senior administrators have been pressured into censoring speakers who would be critical of the Chinese regime. Chinese students emerged en masse at Warwick University to vote down a student union motion supporting democracy and freedom of speech in Hong Kong, and it is thought that the Chinese Government carry out surveillance over their students in Britain. Partnerships between British universities and Chinese companies may pose a risk to national security. This could involve the theft of intellectual property and sensitive technology. We must be aware of their penetration into UK research, no matter how attractive it is financially.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and his committee on an excellent report, to which I would like to add some side notes about the importance of keeping a healthy research culture in UK universities, particularly in those areas where the Government have some ability to influence it. That may particularly be through the REF but also through UKRI, OfS and other routes.
I turn my attention first to replicability. Even in physics, the subject that I studied, the level of replicability is well below what it ought to be. This is a matter of great concern to the Royal Society and others. We must insist on full publication of results, data and methods so that it is possible to accurately replicate what has been done. We must also up the status of replication; we must fund it properly and ensure that the scientists doing it find that it adds to their reputation. We must ensure that we are supporting publications which support reports of replication and do not just consider them too boring. I am encouraged that UKRI has recruited a head of research culture in the excellent Dr Francis Downey—mind you, if you search for her name on its site you find nothing. Perhaps she does not exist, but there are at least rumours of her existence.
Secondly, we must up the quality of statistics in UK research. Too many research publications have basic statistical errors in them. There is no reason for this; there is a plethora of good statisticians and statistical organisations ready to help. All research institutions ought to insist on it.
Thirdly, we really need to move on better public access. I am delighted to see that UKRI is tied in with Plan S. However, to take our own situation, when we are asked to take political decisions on things such as the dangers of particulates or microplastics, or whether you are actually doing anything valuable if you recycle glass with paper, let alone the efficacy of vaccines, we need to have access easily to the truth in a real, quality fashion. We should not be party to a system that hides the truth unnecessarily.
Lastly, there is diversity of thought. When it comes to funding research, we should be prepared, in small quantities, to fund research that seems to challenge the very rules of nature. I would be quite happy to see us put a bit of money into EmDrive, cold fusion, or even into critical race theory. We must never allow our universities to get bound into dogma, in the way James Cook University in Australia has been in its persecution of Professor Peter Ridd, just because he was extremely rude about the quality of its Great Barrier Reef research. That ought to be welcomed; one ought to look for critics. Science ought to be a matter of trying to find people who disagree with you and trying to understand why they are wrong, not sacking and prosecuting them.
I am keen that we support UKRI in its interesting research that falls between silos. I shall be very interested to see whether the Government opt for an advanced research projects agency going elephant hunting for big ideas, or whether they will follow my noble friend and kinsman Lord Ridley’s excellent book How Innovation Works and treat innovation as something that happens in lots of small diverse places, rather than large leaps into the unknown. That is a pretty good formula for Lords reform, but it also brings us back to where I started on the importance of having replicable-based science on which to advance.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the UK’s universities are internationally recognised as some of the best, along with America, in the—[Inaudible]—scientific research. The dual funding system that people have spoken about, including QR funding since 2010, has led to a deficit in funding that universities have had to make up by cross-subsidising, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said in his excellent introduction. I thank him and his committee for this superb report. We have seen a decrease in the percentage of research costs that universities have been able to recover from funders, including research councils and charities. The report says right up front that the Government need to address this deficit and commit to
“increasing QR funding each year by at least the rate of inflation.”
Can the Minister say whether this will happen?
I am proud to say that Cambridge University is the recipient of the highest number of Nobel prizes in the world. The University of Birmingham, of which I am proud to be Chancellor, has 11 Nobel prizes. We are fantastic. However, the international student fees that we are so dependent on need to be addressed, which I will come to.
The report also examines the Augar review’s recommendations. I was really surprised that the Augar review did not look at research. The report again says right up front that the committee is
“sceptical about the impact of many of the proposals made by the Augar Review on research funding in universities.”
Brexit is of course key, and the report highlights how much of a benefit Horizon 2020 has been for the UK and recommends that
“the Government should commit to associating the UK with Horizon Europe”.
Will the Minister commit to this, and that we will continue to receive the same amount of funding the we currently receive from the EU?
To date, we have spent 1.7% of GDP on research and development, compared with Germany at 3.1%, America at 2.8% and Israel at 4%. It is wonderful news that the Government have a target of 2.4% of GDP on R&D by 2027, but this will happen only if there is enough funding for the research. That needs to be addressed.
I have seen time and again how much more powerful collaborative research between universities is, with the weight of impact increasing by two or three times. Professor Alice Gast of Imperial College has said:
“The EU is the UK’s largest and fastest growing collaborator in research; over half of the UK’s international publications are with European partners.”
The report Brexit: the Erasmus and Horizon Programmes, published last year, says:
“The UK is the second largest recipient of Horizon 2020 funding and has received 15.2% of grants”.
It is therefore paramount that now we have left the European Union we continue to partner with Horizon Europe even as a third country.
On international students, I am president of UKCISA, which represents the interests of all 450,000 international students in the country. International students include EU students, who have brought in almost 15% of total income for UK universities. Could the Minister assure us that the EU students will still come in the numbers that we have had—130,000 of them—with the Immigration Rules being changed?
That brings me to immigration. We have to have Immigration Rules that are friendly to students. I am delighted with the reintroduction of the post-graduate work visa, which is wonderful news. I thank the Government. Could they make sure that the Immigration Rules are also fair and attractive for researchers, academics, academic staff and laboratory staff? Can he reassure us that those will also be good, let alone the fees that noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, have spoken about?
International students bring indirectly or directly £26 billion into our economy, so there is no question about it—we need to invest in our R&D and we need to have that commitment from the Government that, if this investment shortfall is going to be there, we retain the fact that, with 1% of the world’s population, we produce 16% of the world’s leading research papers.
Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Patel for his leadership of the Science and Technology Committee, for the thoughtful way in which he led this inquiry into science research funding in our universities and for how he introduced this debate. In so doing, I declare my own interest as professor of surgery at University College London, chairman of UCLPartners, and an active biomedical researcher.
We have heard during the debate that the future funding of the research base in our universities is important not only to the universities themselves, but to our country more generally. It is our ambition that we become an economy driven by technology and innovation, and to be able to deliver that we have to have the appropriate science base in our universities. We have seen in recent months, with the Covid-19 pandemic, the importance of the science base to protect our population and drive forward innovation. Life science, as it has been described in this debate and in previous debates in your Lordships’ House, is, after the financial services industry, the second most important part of our economy. It employs directly some 250,000 people, with a further 250,000 jobs dependent on life sciences in our country.
The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of research developments in the Covid-19 pandemic, demonstrating the importance of the availability of an effective and mature research base in our universities to address critical questions at a moment’s notice. This report, as we have heard, was published over a year ago, before the Covid-19 pandemic and its implications for our universities, and, of course, before the withdrawal agreement from the European Union had been concluded —and, indeed, before the current trade negotiations have run their course. The impact of our departure from the European Union and the broader impact on our economy that it will have on our research funding remain most pertinent.
I will focus on two issues. With Brexit, as we have heard during this debate, it is essential that Her Majesty’s Government commit to three principal areas. Yes, of course, one is funding to ensure that the shortfall that will arise as a result of our no longer being able to participate directly in European funding schemes is met by Her Majesty’s Government. However, that funding shortfall must also facilitate collaborative research within the European Union—that is, our own university collaborative participation—as well as collaboration with research networks elsewhere in the world. Of course, we must also do everything to ensure that mobility of researchers is maintained. In this regard, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, are critical, on ensuring that the visa system facilitates the ability of not only researchers to come to our country, but their families too.
Secondly, on public funding for research, we have heard about the importance of ensuring that QR funding, that second important element of the dual support mechanism, is maintained at levels that guarantee an inflationary increase. We need also to ensure that the shortfall in funding provided by charities to support research in our universities, particularly biomedical research, is addressed. Charities are responsible for some 15% of research funding. As we have heard in this debate, a 1% reduction in support for universities is expected this year.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the committee on an excellent speech and report. I was not a member of the committee when the report was written, but I am now. Nor am I chancellor of any university, which puts me in a minority today. Leaving aside the fact that it has been more than a year coming, this debate is timely in other respects. University funding has been hard hit by Covid-19. A London Economics report suggests an average loss of income per higher education institution of approximately £20 million, with some potentially losing £100 million. This could lead to approximately 30,000 job losses in the sector. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, outlined the other shortfalls in research funding, which can only cause us to lose valuable researchers. Today, students are returning to university, with consequent worries about contagion entailing extra cleaning costs, and the end of the EU transition phase is upon us without a deal yet, with all the uncertainties that brings for the university research sector.
The committee strongly regretted that the Augar report on post-18 education suggested lowering the cap on tuition fees for UK students but did not address the fact that student fees often have to cross-subsidise research. Such cross-subsidy has been a result of quality-related funding not keeping up with inflation since 2010, so a deficit has built up. Can the Minister confirm the rumours that this idea has been shelved? If not, can I join my noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted in asking the Minister to confirm that the teaching grant will be increased to cover the shortfall in funding from students? If not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, warned, important spending areas such as widening participation programmes could be affected. This consequence could not be described as “levelling up”. It is vital that funding covers the full economic cost of research or else the resilience of the sector will be adversely affected as subsidies will not be available from elsewhere.
On foreign students, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, mentioned, several factors have affected the number of these high-fee-paying students starting this year, among them the Covid pandemic and the uncertainties over our exit from the European Union. This is bad enough, but also to lower the domestic fee cap would be pretty disastrous unless it was compensated.
The Augar review also proposed wider powers for the Office for Students to rule on the value of courses. The committee was very sceptical about this, suggesting that it would erode university autonomy. It rightly emphasised that funding should be based on research excellence. I strongly agree that we need to be very careful about this. I hope that we will be given details of the criteria very soon, with an opportunity to question Ministers about them, because they could badly affect pure scientific research. During the Covid-19 pandemic, we have greatly benefited from research about the nature of the virus itself. This has underpinned the work on vaccines, treatments and mitigations and public behaviour recommendations. It has been vital and therefore I would not want any system that disadvantaged discovery research.
Noble Lords have received briefings from several medical research charities warning that their share of funding for research and clinical trials will be reduced by at least £310 million this year because the pandemic has badly affected their ability to fundraise. The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, gave us some detail about this issue. Although the Government have offered some money to charities, for some strange reason medical research charities have been left out. I join the noble Lord in asking the Minister whether the Government will consider the AMRC’s proposal to rectify this.
The pandemic has highlighted the strength of our scientific and medical research sector. Our rapid progress in understanding, modelling and predicting the nature and spread of the virus, and ongoing work to develop treatments and a possible vaccine, is the result of investment in research over many decades allowing the build-up of highly-skilled teams of scientists collaborating across the globe. It is likely that many lives have been saved through this research, so it is vital that the resilience of the sector is protected.
In its response to the committee, the Government repeated their manifesto commitment to increase investment in research and development to 2.4% of gross domestic product by 2027. Total R&D spending is currently 1.7%, so one might be encouraged by this commitment. However, as my noble friend Lord Shipley pointed out, GDP has been badly hit by the pandemic and it is anticipated that this will continue for several years, so there would be a consequent reduction in the absolute amount of money which would become available through the commitment. He suggested the solution that the baseline for the 2.4% should be 2019 GDP before Covid-19 hit it. Will the Minister recommend this idea to the Chancellor?
During our membership of the EU, the UK has been particularly successful in attracting EU scientific and medical research funding, as well as bringing collaborators here from EU countries. In order to address concerns about the loss of such funding, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, strongly supported the committee’s recommendation that the UK Government negotiate strong association with Horizon Europe so that UK research groups would not be disadvantaged by our exit. I heard this week that Canada, Australia and other countries are applying to join this excellent programme and yet, despite 40 years’ close relationship, the UK Government have not yet been able to negotiate membership or association. Indeed, with the way things are going and the Government by their own admission planning to break international law and renege from elements of the withdrawal agreement, I would be surprised if the EU wanted us as a member of something as vital as Horizon Europe. How can anyone trust a country that tries unilaterally to change elements of an international agreement signed only eight months ago? Can the Minister therefore say what progress has been made in negotiations to enable the UK to take part in the benefits of Horizon Europe?
Several noble Lords mentioned international mobility, and the committee expressed great concern that new immigration laws should not prevent or deter researchers and technicians from other countries from coming to the UK to join international teams. They particularly mentioned science technicians, who may fall below the salary threshold. It is not just getting the visas that matters but the costs. As my noble friend Lady Randerson pointed out, up-front visa costs here are four to six times higher than in other leading science nations. Besides that, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, emphasised, a researcher wanting to come to work in our NHS on clinical trials, for example, and to bring their family would have to pay thousands of pounds to use the very NHS in which they are working. That is a deterrent. What do the Government propose to do to correct this?
It is tempting at this time of the Covid pandemic to focus on medical research and the contribution of our university researchers to tackling it, but another crisis is looming—the climate crisis. It is vital that our universities are enabled to provide us with information about the progress and effects of global warming and to develop innovative ways of preventing it going any further and mitigating the effects it is already having on our planet. I was fascinated to read one example in the briefing from Imperial College about Dr Qilei Song, who is researching cost-effective redox flow batteries which are energy storage devices large enough to power cities. This research aims to accelerate developments in renewable energy, mitigate climate change, and solve the mismatch between intermittent supply of renewable energy and the variable demands of the power grid. The noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, mentioned the work of the Faraday Institution on battery research, an example of the diversity of research institutions for which the noble Lord, Lord Willets, was calling. This vital work must not be put at risk.
Finally, I return to the next immediate crisis, Brexit. As the UK has been so successful in the past at attracting EU funding for scientific research, the Government must take into account that to replace that funding they are going to have to put in more than our former contribution to the Horizon programme and not just match it. Can the Minister assure the Committee that they will provide sufficient funds to avoid a shortfall?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and other members of the Science and Technology Select Committee, for the comprehensive manner in which they examined such an important sector of the economy, and for the clarity of their report and its recommendations.
A year may have passed, but many of the issues highlighted by the committee are now even more pressing, as many noble Lords have demonstrated today. The UK’s world-leading university and research institutes and their academic staff, researchers and students are a national asset, which is why it is so important that steps are taken to ensure their future and its future. As the report makes clear, if the Augar review recommendation of reducing the tuition fee cap in England to £7,500 was ever implemented, then without compensating direct government funding, the financial consequences for universities would be serious. As my noble friend Lady Young said in colourful terms, it is to be hoped that Augar’s proposal remains just that.
A recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report stated that the Covid-19 crisis posed a significant financial risk to the UK higher education sector, predicting that 13 universities would end up with “negative reserves” and would be at risk of insolvency without a bailout. Yet for those institutions, such assistance is by no means a given. The Government have recognised the threat to universities by establishing a higher education restructuring regime board. Alarmingly, however, at the board’s launch, the Secretary of State said that he is prepared to see universities go to the wall. Perhaps the Minister could let us know the circumstances in which that would be allowed to happen.
In part, the threat to some institutions stems from the impending drop in the number of international students, but it emanates also from threats to research funding, and of course, the two are linked. University research is underfunded against its true costs—the latest official figures showing a gap of some £4.2 billion across the UK—and as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, universities close this gap using the international student fee cross-subsidy. Each international student pays an average of £5,000 more than it costs to educate them, so this contribution will be severely reduced by the inevitable fall in numbers this year.
In recent years, domestic student numbers have remained static, with international students responsible for overall growth. The UK higher education sector had almost 350,000 international students in 2018-19—14% of all students at UK universities—so the effect of the reduction in numbers will be stark and the resulting drop in funding will carry through the system for several years.
Regarding research, capacity must be maintained in the face of competitor countries already actively and aggressively pursuing UK academics with offers. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that we cannot take the UK’s pre-eminent position for granted, which is absolutely the case, and the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, graphically illustrated the constraints on post-doctoral researchers coming to the UK. The research community extends worldwide and if researchers have their contracts terminated because of short or medium-term funding issues due to Covid-19, they will find work elsewhere and be unavailable whenever the sector regains strength.
In the Government’s response to the committee’s report, the then Universities Minister, Mr Skidmore, said:
“We have asked UKRI to provide formal advice to BEIS … on the balance of funding across the functions of Research Councils and Research England in preparation for the Spending Review.”
That was 11 months ago and under a different Government, but what formal advice did UKRI subsequently provide to the Minister’s department, and what decisions were taken as a consequence? Perhaps I should have directed that question to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, as a UKRI board member.
On the subject of the spending review, is it still the Government’s intention to proceed with one this autumn? If so, will it be comprehensive or, perhaps, a curtailed version in response to the particular effect on the economy of the coronavirus pandemic? I hope that the Minister can enlighten us.
International students, which will now include those from EU member states, provide £6 billion a year to higher education institutions, with a further £7 billion spent in the UK economy. Exact numbers, and therefore losses, will not be known until later this month, but analysis for the University and College Union by London Economics forecast a reduction of around £2.5 billion. The British Council’s survey of international student intentions produced a similar figure.
There is an urgent need to protect—indeed, enhance—domestic and international research. Under the EU’s Horizon 2020 project, UK research received £3.5 billion and was a crucial part of hundreds of international research projects. I add my name to those of the many noble Lords who have urged the Government to follow the committee’s recommendation that the level of funding that the UK currently receives from the EU for research be matched in full.
Currently, 62% of research in UK higher education institutions is publicly funded. The committee report noted that public funding has largely not kept pace with inflation over the past decade, which it said has led universities to cross-subsidise research from other funding streams, such as resources for teaching. Public funding for research in universities after we leave the EU should seek to replace not just the total amount of funding but other areas it supports in quality-related unhypothecated research.
Earlier this year, BEIS and the DfE established the snappily titled Ministerial University Research and Knowledge Exchange Sustainability Taskforce. It has an impressive membership, including representatives of the devolved Administrations, so can the Minister say what consideration the taskforce has given so far to the most pressing issue facing university research, namely the future of funding when Horizon 2020 comes to an end?
Horizon Europe uncertainties must be resolved. In June, the Government confirmed that continued participation in that programme formed part of the negotiations currently being conducted with the European Union. We know all too well that those are not exactly going swimmingly and that the situation is unlikely to improve now that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, cited, the Prime Minister is planning to act illegally by reneging on his own treaty—a treaty on which he successfully fought a general election just nine months ago. That sort of tactic—if indeed that is what it is—is hardly likely to increase the likelihood of the UK being welcomed as participants in Horizon Europe. It is a matter of trust.
In a Written Answer on 6 August, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, stated this in relation to ongoing negotiations:
“If we do not formally associate to Horizon Europe we will implement ambitious alternatives as quickly as possible from January 2021.”
He suggested that a new discovery fund might be introduced. I hope that he will be able to say a bit more when he comes to reply about such a venture and how the funding attached to it would measure up against the opportunities available through Horizon Europe. Research teams are entitled to know the likely extent of the funding pool to which they will have access from next year.
In their response to the committee’s report, the Government committed to increasing levels of R&D to at least 2.4% of GDP by 2027. That is to be welcomed, although the research community is rightly sceptical, given that, according to the Office for National Statistics, the current figure is just 1.71%. I wonder whether the Minister can say something about the manner in which he and his department foresee that figure increasing towards 2.4% between now and 2027.
I must say, the Government are due some credit for their support for the higher education sector in reaction to the coronavirus pandemic. In May, they brought forward the relatively modest amount of £100 million of research finding as well as £2.5 billion of advance tuition fee payments. In June, they announced a support package for university research and a pledge was made to increase public funding for R&D to £22 billion a year by 2025. That is welcome and is all well and good, but what will the sector look like by 2025 if the pandemic is not brought under control and the UK’s universities remain unable to admit international students in significant numbers?
No deal with the European Union looks increasingly likely. The cost of that in terms of jobs and the general standard of living, particularly for those least able to withstand it, will be filed by government zealots under the heading “collateral damage.” That collateral damage is very likely to include the excellence of the UK’s research base, and with it would go the sector’s international reputation. The Government must decide whether that is a stain on their record that they are willing to accept.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I am supremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this important debate and for the excellent contributions made by other Members, demonstrating once again the wide range of expertise that exists in this House. I also thank the committee for its inquiry and report, and for raising the important issues affecting science research funding in universities.
I also pay tribute to the universities themselves, which have played and continue to play a vital role in the national response to Covid-19. If I may offer a few examples, we have seen our world-class science and research base in universities across the UK support our Vaccine Taskforce by working tirelessly to research a vaccine for coronavirus. It is thanks to their valuable medical and research expertise that vaccine candidate clinical trials are now taking place at the University of Oxford and Imperial College London. I take a moment here to echo the strong praise of the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Walmsley, for the outstanding work of these two world-leading institutions.
In addition, universities have offered vital services such as lab space and accommodation, applying research capabilities to develop the medicine and equipment needed to combat this terrible virus. Many have also repurposed their facilities to carry out testing on those with coronavirus symptoms, and collaborated with industry partners in producing ventilators, PPE and testing equipment for our National Health Service. As of 13 August, UKRI has committed more than £95 million to new research aimed at tackling Covid-19. It has also repurposed research grants of around £80 million to address the effects of the pandemic.
The UK’s world-class universities will continue to play a critical role in delivering local and national economic prosperity, but of course they have been hard hit by Covid-19. That is why we have announced a range of measures to support universities at this difficult time. We have established a joint BEIS-DfE ministerial taskforce on the sustainability of university research, to identify and assess the risks and impacts of Covid-19 on universities and to consider approaches to help manage these risks. A reprofiling of quality-related research funding in England also brought £100 million forward as a short-term measure to help to safeguard university research and as a reassuring signal to the research sector. Some £280 million of funding will sustain UKRI and national academy grant-funded research and fellowships affected by the Covid-19 pandemic.
In sharing responsibility for the future of science and research with our world-leading university system, from the autumn the Government will provide a package of grants and low-interest loans through the sustaining university research expertise fund, or SURE, to cover up to 80% of a university’s income losses from international students for the academic year 2020-21, up to the value of their non-publicly funded research activity. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, and other noble Lords highlighted the importance of research funding from charities and the impact of Covid-19. Ministers in BEIS and the Department of Health and Social Care have met the Association of Medical Research Charities. Officials continue to engage regularly with the AMRC to discuss these issues and the challenges that the sector faces. The SURE fund aims to help sustain the research capacity of the university research base as a whole. Universities will be asked to demonstrate how they will use that funding to sustain research in areas typically funded by charities and business. Ultimately, we want critical university research capability, including charity-funded medical research, to be sustained and able to contribute to our future R&D ambitions.
We have also announced the pulling forward of an estimated £2.6 billion-worth of forecast tuition fee payments to ease cashflow pressure this autumn. This is on top of the unprecedented package of support for which higher education providers are eligible, previously announced by the Chancellor, such as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and a range of business loan schemes.
In addition, in July, the DfE also announced the establishment of a higher education restructuring regime for those institutions at risk of financial failure. This regime can be deployed as a last resort if a decision has been made to support a provider in England, when other steps to preserve a provider’s viability and mitigate the risks of financial failure have proved insufficient.
Last month we published our R&D road map, which my noble friend Lord Willetts rightly highlighted as a key document, to ensure that the UK is the best place in the world for scientists, researchers and entrepreneurs to live and work, while helping to power up the UK’s economic and social recovery and level up the UK, which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly highlighted as a key part of the Government’s agenda. The road map builds on the ambitious commitment set out in the Budget to increase public spending in R&D to £22 billion by 2024-25. I therefore assure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that this puts the UK on track to reach 2.4% of GDP being spent on R&D across the UK economy by 2027.
Through the road map we will test in detail how we can increase our investment in research, unlocking new discoveries and applying research to solving the most pressing problems in government and industry, and across society. In the longer term, we will review how we fund and assess discovery and applied research to cut unnecessary bureaucracy, pursue ambitious “moon shots”, and ensure that institutional funding and international collaboration can support our ambitions. I also assure the noble Lord, Lord Patel, that we are working with a wide range of stakeholders, including universities, to develop the proposals in the road map into a comprehensive R&D plan.
We also recognise that research and innovation are global endeavours, as the noble Lords, Lord Triesman, Lord Mair and Lord Bilimoria, all rightly emphasised. Our aim is to sustain, improve and grow opportunities for international collaboration. Our R&D road map sets out our wider ambition and the steps we will take to deliver this goal, including our relationship with Europe and the next EU research and innovation framework programme, Horizon Europe.
The noble Lords, Lord Patel, Lord Mair, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Shipley, and my noble friend Lady Bottomley all raised points on Horizon Europe and international partnerships. Let me reassure them that fostering international partnerships and global collaboration will play an important part in helping to achieve our ambitions to make the UK the international partner of choice for cutting-edge scientific and research discovery. We have made it clear in the road map that we aim to maintain a close and friendly relationship with our European partners, seeking to agree a fair and balanced deal for participation in Horizon Europe and Euratom research and training programmes.
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, asked what conditions would prevent association with Horizon Europe. The Government have set out that any agreements relating to Union programmes should contain fair terms for UK participation. This should include fair treatment of participants, a fair and appropriate financial contribution, provisions allowing for sound financial management by both parties, and, of course, appropriate governance and consultation. We will make a final decision once it is clear whether such terms can be reached.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about alternatives to the Horizon programme. As a responsible Government, we are developing alternative schemes to support international research and innovation collaboration, in tandem with the Horizon Europe negotiations. If we do not formally associate with Horizon Europe, we will quickly implement ambitious alternatives as soon as possible from January 2021 and therefore address the funding gap.
We know that universities value research collaboration with the EU and beyond. We are grateful to universities for their ongoing policy insight and engagement with government, including convening round tables for the Smith-Reid review, which considered the future funding landscape, including our relationship with EU research and innovation funding.
Alongside international co-operation, we also want to send a global signal that the UK welcomes scientists and researchers. Our new global talent visa will help this skilled cohort of individuals to access the UK, empowering them to significantly enhance our knowledge base and make critical contributions to scientific and medical research.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, my noble friends Lord Willetts and Lord Kirkhope, and the noble Lord, Lord Rees, all raised the important issue of attracting talented graduates to the UK. We have announced changes to the graduate route to make it easier for some of the best young international graduates to secure skilled jobs in the UK and contribute to our economy and society. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, rightly raised the contribution of international students to the UK. That is why the Government are offering those who complete a PhD from summer 2021 a three-year visa after study to live and work here. Students who have successfully completed undergraduate and master’s degrees will be able to stay for a further two years following their studies.
These reforms are just the start. We will now radically improve our approach to attracting global talent to the UK by setting up a new Office for Talent. This will make it significantly easier for top global science, research and innovation talent to come to the UK and make it their home.
Over the coming months, we will work with the devolved Administrations and key stakeholders, including the major funders of research such as UKRI and the national academies, to develop a comprehensive new R&D people and culture strategy.
Looking ahead to the spending review, we will set out details of this historic investment for our universities. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, suggested, this will be critical in giving our researchers and innovators the confidence that they need going forward. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that the Chancellor launched the 2020 comprehensive spending review in July, and it will be published in the autumn.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, raised an important point about improving the financial resilience of universities and adjustments to QR funding. As part of the spending review and taking advice from UKRI, we will consider the scale and balance of funding for university research and innovation, including funding for QR, and will take financial sustainability issues into account. We will continue to look at the balance of dual support for universities and the role of QR, and we will work with other funders to consider what proportion of the full economic cost of research projects in universities they should be funding.
The R&D road map also sets out our ambition to develop a new compact between government and universities in England which could strengthen accountability for discretionary funding, potentially bringing together existing separate higher education research concordats and reducing bureaucracy for institutions and their staff. It also highlights our commitment to research culture, research integrity and open access to research.
Many excellent points were made during the debate and a number of questions were posed. I hope that noble Lords will understand that it is impossible for me to respond to all of them, but I will go through as many as possible in the available time and hope that noble Lords will accept my apologies if I do not get around to their particular point.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked when the Government intend to publish the terms and conditions of the SURE fund. I can assure him that work continues on the university research support package, with officials working closely with the sector to ensure that the fund is in place by the winter. We hope to share more details with universities in due course, including guidance on how they should apply as well as the terms of the loan. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the SURE fund will provide funding which is in addition to the £280 million announced in June for costed grant extensions from UKRI and the national academies.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, the noble Lord also raised the issue of the Government’s place-based strategy for research. We are engaging widely with industry, universities, the research community and civic organisations from across the country to help develop an ambitious place strategy for R&D that supports the priorities of areas and communities across the United Kingdom.
My noble friends Lady Bottomley and Lord Kirkhope, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Watson and Lord Bilimoria, and others asked about the Government’s ongoing discussions with the European Union surrounding Horizon 2020. I can tell noble Lords that we aim to maintain a close and friendly relationship with the European Union to participate in the next generation of European research and innovation programmes starting in 2021—that is, both Horizon Europe and Euratom R&T. Negotiations with the Commission are constructive and we are open to participation but, as I said earlier, only if we can agree a fair and balanced deal.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lord Willetts asked me about high visa costs. The Government recognise the importance of a vibrant and successful science, research and innovation sector to the UK’s continued prosperity, and acknowledge that attracting, retaining and developing research talent is at the heart of the R&D road map. We will look to build on existing initiatives by setting up the new office for talent, driving forward further visa reform by reviewing the uptake of different routes by established talent and those on the cusp of success, and reviewing the restrictions and costs that it brings about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, asked how we will stop the loss of early career researchers. Again, our R&D road map sets out the key commitments already mentioned to ensure that we attract, retain and develop top talent to ensure that the UK is the best place to work, offering careers at all stages that attract a diverse range of people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to the shared prosperity fund. The 2019 Conservative manifesto committed to creating this UK shared prosperity fund, which binds together the whole of the United Kingdom, tackling inequality and deprivation in each of our four nations. The UK shared prosperity fund will be driven by domestic priorities with a focus on investing in people. At a minimum, it will match current levels of funding for each nation from EU structural funds.
In response to questions from my noble friend Lady Warsi, the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Young, and others on the Augar review, we have considered the report and its recommendations carefully. We know that post-16 education has an essential role to play in driving economic recovery and future prosperity, so we plan to respond to the Augar report alongside the spending review. We are determined to pursue high-quality educational opportunities that meet our skills needs, fuel our economy and create world-leading outcomes for students.
As many noble Lords have commented, we are right to be proud of the strength of our research and innovation base and the quality of our universities. Research, innovation and knowledge are the drivers of our global competitiveness and a key source of economic advantage. I assure noble Lords that we remain committed to maintaining the UK’s position as a global science superpower, and that we will continue to invest in our universities and in the science and research that will deliver the long-term economic growth and societal benefits, that my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach alluded to, enriching the UK for many decades to come.
Once again, I thank everyone for the learned contributions from many Members across the House, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for securing this important debate.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
First, I thank the Minister. It is always possible to pick out negative comments in the response to the Minister at the end of a debate, but I shall try to be generous and not do so. I will concentrate on the many positive things that he said. Clearly, the message that he gives us is that the Government understand the needs of the research community and the necessary funding. I look forward to details of the road map, and I am pleased to hear what he has to say about the SURE fund and place-based research. I thank him for that.
I also thank all noble Lords who took part. There have been excellent, well thought-out speeches. I will not pick out any particular speeches—there will be no golden triangles. They have all been golden. One thing I will say is that I have never thought of the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, as a weirdo. Someone who has spent a lifetime gazing at stars cannot be regarded as a weirdo. But I am only joking.
I thank you all most sincerely for joining this debate. We look forward to the spending review and what the Government have to say about funding research. Thank you all.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing; others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please will those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Covid-19: Artificial Intelligence
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation AI Barometer, published on 18 June, what assessment they have made of the benefits and risks of the use of artificial intelligence in addressing the impact of COVID-19.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, artificial intelligence played a very important role in responding to Covid, from identifying potential drug candidates to AI-driven education technology. AI also has the potential to drive productivity gains across sectors, supporting exciting new careers and businesses as an essential part of economic recovery. It is important that we keep society engaged as we do, so the centre’s Covid-19 repositories and its public attitudes surveys inform our understanding of public sentiment. The independent AI Council advises the Government on how best to realise the benefits and mitigate the risks.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford [V]
I thank the Minister for her Answer, and I draw attention to my registered interest as a board member of the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation. A year ago, the Prime Minister set out a vision, in his speech to the United Nations, for the UK to become a global leader in ethical and responsible technologies. We are discovering more deeply and painfully that ethics, good governance, human mediation and public trust are vital to realise the deeper benefits of these new technologies and prevent real harm. Will the noble Baroness affirm the importance of balancing innovation with a continued emphasis on ethics and good governance across the technology sector? In particular, will she confirm that the long-delayed government response to their own online harms consultation will be published this month, paving the way for much-needed legislation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate, all those involved in the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation and all those involved in the ethics area for the important work they do. The UK remains absolutely committed to the ethical and humane deployment of AI and digital technologies, and it is absolutely right that we balance innovation with a continued emphasis on ethics and good governance. Further to the Prime Minister’s statement on this last year, we recently committed to global leadership on this issue as one of the founding members of the Global Partnership on AI, an international and multi-stakeholder initiative to guide the responsible development of AI grounded in human rights, inclusion, diversity, innovation and economic growth. On the second part of the question, we will be publishing our response to the online harms consultation shortly.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend welcome the establishment of the Global Partnership on AI earlier this summer? What are the Government’s hopes from it, and does she agree that we can make a success, nationally and globally, if we have human-led, innovative, inclusive and ethical AI?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right to highlight the importance of the Global Partnership on AI. The Government hope this will be a tool for spreading good practice across the world, allowing us to both innovate and learn very quickly.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the AI Barometer talks of low levels of public trust being one fundamental barrier to the use of AI in both public and private sectors. Trust in government use of AI has been hugely damaged by the A-level algorithm fiasco. What are the Government doing to restore that trust? Is it not now crucial to put the CDEI on a statutory footing and ensure that there is a proper mechanism for ethical compliance across government services?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right to focus on the importance of trust: it is a vital underpinning in the development of AI. I imagine he is aware that we have just published our National Data Strategy, which sets out very clearly the importance of public understanding of both government and non-government data within an ethical framework.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) (V)
My Lords, back in April my noble friend Lord Darzi told the BBC in respect of Covid-19 that
“AI remains one of our strongest paths to achieve a perceptible solution but there is a fundamental need for high quality, large and clean data sets.”
Much of this data gets siloed in individual companies and universities, so what are the Government doing to unify these data sources to allow researchers to apply machine learning to new solutions for vaccines, monitoring and personalising care within an ethical context?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, although I am sure he would acknowledge that the quality, size and integration of those datasets vary considerably, as the recent report highlights, between different sectors of the economy. Again, the National Data Strategy and the consultation on it will be important mechanisms for addressing the issues that the noble Lord raised, as well as the open data initiatives and pilots that we are already running.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) (V)
My Lords, the National Data Strategy has been published for consultation. Can the Minister assure us that the House of Lords will be included in that consultation? Perhaps the Minister would like to organise a webinar for interested Peers and guarantee that we can have a debate on the issues. The CDEI report notes that social care has been much less able to cope with providing data than the healthcare system because the level of training, funding and data collection in social care is so much lower. What plans do the Government have to help to improve that?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My understanding is that the consultation on the data strategy is open to everyone, but I am very happy to go back to the department and explore whether we can have a webinar for those Members of this House who are interested in taking part. Obviously, your Lordships’ Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence has been very influential already in our thinking. In relation to social care, the noble Lord referred to training and funding; it is also fair to say that the fragmentation of that sector is also a barrier to the adoption of AI, but we are also focusing on this.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) (V)
My Lords, the EU White Paper of February 2020 promises legislation in Europe on public trust and regulation for AI next year. Will the Government commit to keeping our legislation on, and regulation of, AI in step with our former EU partners so as to benefit our creative industries?
Baroness Barran (Con)
This Government want to be a leader in the regulation of AI, balancing a pro-growth, pro-innovation economy with one upholding the highest ethical standards.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) (V)
My Lords, the endless development delays to the launch of the Covid-19 contact-tracing app, the Home Office decision, ahead of a judicial review, to scrap the controversial visa applications AI system, which was biased in favour of white applicants, and—most embarrassing of all—the A-level exam results scandal have all reinforced barriers to AI take-up as identified in this report, so what lessons have the Government learned from these fiascos?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will make two points in response to the noble Lord’s remarks. First, it is the combination of the data and the human moderation that allows us to use AI most effectively. Secondly, the noble Lord highlighted some of the problems rather than some of the huge successes that we have had recently, including using AI and big data to identify those who needed to shield, using AI to predict the molecular structure of the virus, and many more important examples.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) (V)
My Lords, will the Minister outline what discussions and engagements take place with the devolved Administrations in relation to using innovation and artificial intelligence, particularly in the whole area of Covid-19?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously, we are working very closely with the devolved Administrations and encouraging as much collaboration as possible.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Office for Veterans’ Affairs
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Polak
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent steps the Office for Veterans’ Affairs has taken to support veterans.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, since establishing the Office for Veterans’ Affairs, the Government have brought the Strategy for our Veterans to life. We have improved access to social housing, we are hiring Armed Forces champions in jobcentres, and we are announcing a high-intensity mental health service. The Government have also announced a veterans’ railcard, guaranteed interviews in the Civil Service, and a national insurance holiday for veterans’ employers. We awarded £6 million of Covid-19 funding to service charities.
Lord Polak (Con)
Next month will mark the first anniversary of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. I commend all those involved, especially Johnny Mercer, for putting the welfare of our veterans front and centre. In these difficult times, can the Minister tell us what the office is doing to maintain and strengthen the mental health of our veterans? Will he agree to meet with me and Katie Reade of the campaign End Frozen Pensions to see what can be done for the 60,000 or so veterans living abroad who have been denied annual increases to their UK state pensions?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind words about the work of officials; he is a great campaigner on these matters. He is absolutely right to signal the importance of work on mental health. The existing services we have established— the Transition Intervention and Liaison Service and the Complex Treatment Service—benefit from over £10 million of investment per year and have collectively received over 10,000 referrals. However, we want to do more, and the forthcoming veterans mental health high intensity service will see even more investment, providing crisis care, therapeutic in-patient support and help with co-ordinating care. We are currently recruiting for this service. I will certainly talk to Mr Mercer about a meeting with my noble friend and we will see what we can arrange.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when does the Minister envisage a full service returning to the Veterans UK helpline, which is offering only limited information to veterans over the phone at the moment? I tested it myself yesterday. Also, when do the Government plan to revisit their totally unsatisfactory policy on war widows’ pensions as a result of the letter from the Secretary of State for Defence to the chair of the War Widows’ Association on June 29? As a vice-president of the WWA, I know that war widows cannot wait much longer.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked two extremely important questions. Government services for veterans have continued throughout Covid, but she is right that there have been changes to ensure safety and social distancing. For a period during the peak of the pandemic, the helpline was closed as it could not operate effectively, but support continued to be offered through email, digital means and a call-back service. I am advised that matters are now returning to normal. I will certainly pursue that in light of what the noble Baroness has said. On war widows, for whom she is a consistent advocate and I praise her for that, we are now exploring the full financial and legal implications of the options in making the move she is seeking so that the Defence Secretary can decide how to proceed. I assure her that work is continuing at pace in the Ministry of Defence and across government.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Will my noble friend join me in congratulating Mr Danny Kinahan on his recent appointment as veterans’ commissioner in Northern Ireland and wish him well? The Minister will be aware that the military covenant has been the bedrock of support for veterans for many years. That requires work with the devolved Administrations. They are required by the Act to report annually to the Secretary of State for Defence, who then puts their communication in a report that is laid before Parliament. Is the Minister aware that the Northern Ireland Executive has never complied with that requirement? What steps can the Government take to ensure and guarantee that services for veterans in Northern Ireland are properly delivered?
Lord True (Con)
I thank my noble friend and add my personal congratulations to those he offered. The covenant is of enormous importance. I am not aware of the position as concerns the Northern Ireland Executive, but we will certainly look into the matter.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in expressing our enduring debt of gratitude to those veterans who upheld democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland and without whose contribution there would never have been a peace process? Does he agree that these veterans would be greatly supported by legislation to limit the scope of the Human Rights Act so that it cannot be applied retrospectively in cases that happened many years before the Act came into force and which have already been extensively investigated?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I wholly endorse my noble friend’s opening sentiments. I understand and share the frustrations he espouses. We will implement the Stormont House agreement in such a way as to provide certainty for veterans and justice for victims, to focus on reconciliation and to end the cycle of reinvestigations into the Troubles in Northern Ireland that has failed victims and veterans alike. This is an ongoing matter.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, when the Government launched the Office of Veterans Affairs, they said that the United Kingdom would lead the world in the care of Armed Forces veterans. That is obviously welcome, but could the Minister enlighten the House as to whether that is intended to include all veterans of the British services, including those Commonwealth citizens who have served us, particularly the Fijians, who occasionally have difficulties with their residency and immigration status?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the position of Commonwealth veterans is of great importance. The Government highly value the service of all our veterans, including Commonwealth nationals and non-UK personnel. For example, Ministers are continuing to discuss visa fees with the Home Office, and I am confident we will find a positive outcome.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as deputy chairman of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, which in 2019 distributed £28 million in support of 70,000 members of the RAF family. To what extent will future funding become available to enable the Armed Forces charity sector to continue to deliver the emotional, practical and financial support that our Armed Forces veterans have come to rely on, especially as charitable income has been affected so significantly by the impact of Covid-19?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the work done by charities such as that my noble friend is associated with is vital. As a supporter of some of those charities, I know what good work they do. In June we announced that 100 UK Armed Forces charities would benefit from nearly £6 million of extra funding to support serving personnel veterans and their families during the Covid pandemic. I hope that is a sign of the importance the Government attach to this work.
Lord Eames (CB) [V]
My Lords, while I welcome the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Caine, can I press him on the particular situation of former veterans and members of the Royal Irish Regiment and the former Ulster Defence Regiment, who have recently given voice to complaints that they have been ignored in many aspects of support, particularly medical support? This is of particular concern to those of us in Northern Ireland at this time.
Lord True (Con)
I understand the noble and right reverend Lord’s point. I repeat what I said to my noble friend Lord Caine: we attach importance to this and will continue to pursue it.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
Some years ago I spent a day as a fly on the wall with a combat stress support worker helping veterans with PTSD. Sadly, another veteran has recently taken his own life in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister update us on progress in improving data collection to help prevent veteran suicides, as set out in the veterans strategy?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I regret to say that I found it extremely difficult to hear the question. I believe it was in reference to suicide. Of course, any suicide is a tragedy and we are committed to addressing it. There is not an epidemic currently, as is often said, but there is an ongoing important problem, which our mental health initiatives are in part intended to address.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Railways
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the future of railways in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, we are committed to transforming the railways and delivering wholesale reform, putting passengers first, accelerating passenger-focused improvements right across the sector and building back better. Our reforms will be informed by the excellent work undertaken by Keith Williams, who, as rail is devolved to Northern Ireland, considered reforms across Great Britain.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for that reply. Will she turn specifically to the question of railway fares? Have the Government received any representations from the train operating companies about the alterations they would like to see in the railway fares structure, particularly season tickets, and to build back confidence in the use of the railway?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is absolutely right that fares and ticketing must be at the heart of the reforms that the Government carry out. We recognise the challenges that the Covid-19 pandemic has caused in the short term, and this could also have longer-term effects on commuter behaviours. In response to that, we proactively sought proposals from the rail industry to ensure better value and convenience, particularly, for example, for part-time workers and flexible commuters. We are considering all of the proposals that we have received, and we will make an announcement in due course.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, on 12 August this year, in Carmont, in the east of Scotland, there was a train crash. The train went into a landslip, and three people were sadly killed. Even Grant Shapps accepts that the landslide was a result of climate change. Do the Government’s plans include talking to Network Rail and the Office of Rail Regulation to put in place further measures to mitigate climate change impacts?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, Network Rail is of course extremely conscious of the changes to our climate and the impact that that might have on infrastructure. The dreadful event that happened at Stonehaven is an ongoing incident and it is being investigated by the RAIB, the ORR and the BTP. We cannot make further detailed comment or speculate at this time, but those investigations continue, and the causes of the accident will be investigated fully.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend give an assurance that any future plans for the railways will not return us to a state-owned monopoly—as has been advocated by some—but keep the franchising principle? This has brought new operators, new ideas and new capital into the railways, and enables the Government to get the best deal for travellers and the taxpayer by the competitive tendering process.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I pay great tribute to my noble friend and his time as Transport Secretary. I had the opportunity to go back and look at some of his words in Hansard from when he was Transport Secretary—I think it was 1995 to 1997. There were also some interesting photographs, which noble Lords might want to have a look at, at some stage. My noble friend is absolutely right that we must retain the benefits of private sector involvement in the railways. That is at the heart of how we can make sure that our railways are as effective as possible. Of course, Keith Williams has looked at all these issues and very much recognises that point. The new model that we are developing will ensure that the railway benefits from all that the private sector has to offer in innovation, customer centricity, investment and so on.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s message on transport at the moment is a bit confusing: get back to work, commute but do not use public transport, and do not work at home. In addition, there are an awful lot of people disregarding this and working at home. Are the Government looking very seriously at the future demand for rail travel, because of both the coronavirus changes and their zero-carbon commitment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the future demand for rail travel is a very important factor in how we will reform the system going forward. However, we need it to be as flexible as possible. I disagree with the noble Lord in that I do not feel that the Government’s messaging around the use of public transport is confusing. The messaging is absolutely clear: use public transport safely.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
Does the Minister accept that planned increases for next January of 1.6% for regulated train fares are totally counterproductive if the Government want to persuade us back to using public transport? Year after year, fuel duty is frozen. Is it not time now to freeze rail fares and encourage people back on to public transport?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government accept that fares sometimes have an impact on the demand for the system and we expect that the increase, when it comes in January, will be the lowest amount in four years. This increase also helps fund investment within the system. However, a number of considerations are currently under way in thinking about more short-term measures on fares, which might encourage people back into the economy.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, first, the Victorian signalling system has been in use for about 200 years. What plans are there to modernise the system, and what is the timetable for doing that? Secondly, as the development of the north-east is now a priority, what is the timetable for developing new rail lines laterally which will be accessible from the new HS2?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As the noble Lord will know, on new railway lines, CP6—the investment period we are currently in—will see investment of £48 billion over the next five years. Over that period, and in the longer term, a lot of consideration will be given to improvements in capacity for the north, including east-west routes. On the issue of signalling, it is the case that some of our signalling systems are very old, and we are looking at various ways of investing in digital signalling. I will write to the noble Lord with further details, if I may.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Great Western emergency measures agreement has been extended until at least late June of next year. Have all the other EMAs been extended for a similar period, or will they be? What is the estimated total additional cost to the taxpayer of doing so, including the cost of the management fee? Secondly, the Minister has referred twice to the Williams review. Why are the Government now declining to publish in full the much-trailed root-and-branch Williams rail review, as opposed to simply publishing the outcomes of that review in a Government White Paper?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The outcomes of the Williams review are the most important part of the review, which is why we are publishing. On the future of the EMAs, we had to put them in place very quickly. They protected services for the people who needed to use them, at a significant cost to the taxpayer, and we had to ensure that the cost was justified. We are reviewing the approach to all the contractual arrangements which will come into place after the EMAs, and an announcement will be made in due course.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, turning to rail access to and from the continent, is the Minister aware that rail transport is becoming the preferred EU means of journeying? Beyond HS2, what plans do the Government have to join up the UK’s national rail infrastructure so as to reach all economic regions of the UK with convenient connections to the markets of the European Union?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The department is looking at and analysing the routes that people take and the modes by which they take them, at all times. That includes looking at how we travel to key economic areas within the EU and elsewhere.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, given the experience of Covid, there will be an element of home-working on a permanent basis. Will my noble friend ensure that the Government will look at more flexible fares, ensuring that more of us travel on the railways? What is the current barrier to rolling out the Oyster card, so that it can be used across at least the whole of England?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Flexible fares will be a feature of the landscape going forward, and the noble Baroness is quite right that some people have changed the way that they work. However, we saw some of that shift before the Covid pandemic actually struck. We are also looking in detail at pay-as-you-go ticketing and contactless travel, which is absolutely essential for those of us who live in London—we know the benefits of the Oyster card. It was a manifesto commitment to extend contactless travel to more than 200 stations in the south-east.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister not realise that the current chaos on the railways is a result of the policies brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and other Conservative Transport Ministers? Is it not about time that the Government had a damascene conversion and returned all the railway system to public ownership?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We will not be returning to the “good old days” of British Rail, my Lords. The noble Lord mentions chaos on the railways. I would like to make him aware that the national public performance measure for our railways is currently 92%, over Monday and Tuesday. There is no chaos on the tracks at the moment.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the next Question.
Hammersmith Bridge
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kramer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial support, if any, they are giving to the repair of Hammersmith Bridge.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, with apologies for jumping the gun, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, that is because the noble Baroness is desperate to hear my Answer, I am fairly sure. We in government and beyond—certainly residents on both sides—are keen to see the bridge open as soon as it is safe so that, at the minimum, people can cycle and walk across, river traffic can pass under it, and in time we can see it returned to full use. To help to find a speedy resolution to this rather tiresome and tardy situation, the Government have announced today that they have established a task force. I will lead it and I shall bring together the key decision-makers in London. We will get a solution, figure out how to fund it, and ensure that action is taken. This has been going on for too long; we need to get something done.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the impact on the community is absolutely dire, in particular on the transport network. More than 1,000 schoolchildren are taking nearly two hours to get to school. We urgently need a temporary solution. Regardless of the task force, under the current circumstances the only body that has the money to provide both a temporary and a long-term solution is the Government. Can she give an assurance that that money will be made available so that this hell can be lifted as soon as possible?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, one of the problems I have faced over my many months in the world of Hammersmith Bridge is that no one seems to be able to decide how much money is actually needed, and what for. That is why I have set up the task force, so that we can lift the lid on all the proposals, see whether we can assure ourselves of their validity, and then figure out how we might fund them. At the moment, I have figures ranging from £26 million, £47 million, £141 million to £164.5 million.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hope that the Minister’s earlier Answer does not mean that this is to be pushed into the long grass. Does she accept that this is a really urgent matter? People on both sides of the Thames are arguing for restoration of the bridge, not just for cyclists and pedestrians, although they are important, but for public transport. Can she give us a timetable of when she expects action to happen?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that this issue is now in the closely cropped grass so that we can see what is going on, as well as who is doing what and when. At the moment, I am confronted with a library full of engineering reports, at least eight of them, all written by a clutch of probably fairly expensive consultants and commissioned by a plethora of bureaucrats. Somehow we have to bring all this together. I intend to hold an engineer think-in where the engineers will decide on the best solutions for both the short term and the long term. This is not about pushing the issue into the long grass; it is about bringing it into the open and getting the decision-makers to come to a decision.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I obviously welcome the commitment of the Minister to treat this as a matter of urgency. I will follow on from the questions put by my noble friend Lady Kramer. Does the Minister not accept that, irrespective of the cost, the only organisation that is going to pay for either the temporary or the permanent solution is central government? Hammersmith, Richmond and Transport for London are clearly not in a position to do so. Does she also accept the enormous urgency of the point made by my noble friend, which is that we must have a temporary solution in the form of either a road bridge or a pedestrian and cycle bridge, as well as a temporary solution for river traffic?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord has outlined the challenge that I face with great detail and correctness. In the short term, we need to look at ferries and whether in due course the bridge might be opened to pedestrians and cyclists after remedial works. It is a complex task but not one that is beyond the wit of man, and I think that we can crack on and do it. He also mentioned funding. Over the past 16 months while the bridge has been closed, Hammersmith and Fulham Council and TfL have both been able to find various sums of money. I accept that they have not said that they can bear the full cost of the restoration at £141 million, but in March this year the Mayor of London said that he had committed £25 million. I am not sure where that money went.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, among the many reports that my noble friend has on her desk, has she seen the Hyder Consulting Ltd report of 1997 which highlighted all the problems that the bridge now faces? It underlines the neglect of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, which has not done anything for the past 23 years. Notwithstanding the fact that the bridge is a grade 2* listed property, will she keep on the agenda the idea that the bridge could be dismantled and re-erected in, say, Bishops Park, and a road bridge fit for modern-day traffic put in its place?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
In terms of long-term solutions, nothing should be off the table, but at this moment we do not fully understand the extent of the damage to the bridge. I am grateful to my noble friend for mentioning the 1997 report. I have to admit that I have not seen that one, but it will be another for my library, for which I am grateful. I point out that the department has brought in National Rail. You may ask what on earth it has to do with a road bridge, but it has a lot of cast-iron bridges, knows what it is talking about, and its engineers will help us to fix the problems.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a Barnes resident and I welcome the task force that the Minister will chair. Will she separate the short-term issues from the long-term ones so that in the short term she can do whatever it takes, with whatever knocking together of heads is needed, to cut through the endless arguments about who should pay and ensure that a cheap and cheerful temporary walking and cycling bridge, which has always been recognised as part of the process, should be funded and put in place without delay?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I intend to do exactly as the noble Lord has mentioned. We are getting bogged down in the weeds where people say, “Oh, you can’t have this, you can’t have that, and we need security to push this forward.” As far we humanly can, we have to progress things independently so that they can get done as quickly as possible.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I noted the intervention this morning of the Secretary of State for Transport. Can the noble Baroness confirm that she does not believe that bashing heads together is what is needed? Rather, what is needed is the provision of government funding. As other noble Lords have said, it is absolutely clear that only central government has the money available to repair and restore this vital and iconic bridge. Perhaps I may press her further on the timescale for her task force. She herself has said repeatedly that the bridge has been closed for quite a long time, and it is a vital connection.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I will not return to the issue of funding because we have been around that house already. The Secretary of State used a turn of phrase about bashing heads together, but all noble Lords will recognise what we are trying to do. This morning I spoke to Stephen Cowan, the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, to explain our intentions to him. He has committed that he will work collaboratively with us while recognising that there will be some political noises off, as there always are in these matters. However, it is absolutely clear to me that we must work together for the people of south-west London. I spoke also with Andy Byford, the new TfL commissioner. He reassured me that his engineers also have some good ideas, so now we have to get all these engineers together to find out what they think.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, let me cite two examples of why urgent action is needed now. First, and I declare my interest here, my niece’s 12-minute walk to school has now become an almost two-hour commute, and this is her A-level year. About 1,000 other children are likewise impacted. Secondly, let me read out an email from my honourable friend Sarah Olney in the other place, which I received a few minutes ago:
“We had a call from a complex casework constituent who has been waiting for the 533 bus at the Lonsdale Road stop for 90 minutes. Apparently, there is a whole crowd of people there waiting for a 533. She is taking someone to Chelsea and Westminster Hospital for a surgery, which she is already late for. The hospital had said if he isn’t there by 12.30, they will have to bump him from the surgery list.”
This is really urgent. Can something be done now?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I know it is really urgent; I do not need an email to confirm that. I can reassure the noble Baroness that when I spoke to Andy Byford this morning, I asked him specifically about the 533 bus. He has reassured me that he will increase its frequency.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
Lord Davies of Gower is not present. I call the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, with not just Hammersmith Bridge closed but also London Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge closed to most cars, this is a total disaster for London’s infrastructure. As Hammersmith and Fulham Council is clearly unable to afford the £141 million to fully repair the bridge, can the Minister assure us that, in line with Prime Minister’s commitment to “build, build, build”, surely this qualifies as a marquee project for government funding. What is the scope for building another bridge, as several noble Lords have mentioned, to serve as a footbridge?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, again, I will not return to the issue of funding, but I will address the point that the noble Lord raised about the other bridges in London under repair at the moment. Of course, noble Lords will know that transport in London is devolved to the mayor. It is a decision for the mayor to close the bridges and do the works when they have been scheduled. I agree that it is not ideal, and we will of course be speaking to TfL to get it to increase the resources for those bridges, if it can, to get them reopened as soon as possible.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Covid-19: Rise of Positive Tests
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the rise in the number of people testing positive for Covid-19.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, our assessment of the recent rise in positive tests is that we are deeply concerned, particularly about rates among young people, and particularly at a time when children are returning to schools and people are returning to the workplace. We are constantly looking at the latest data on the spread of coronavirus and have worked hard to contain outbreaks early to reduce the spread, protect the NHS and social care sectors, and save lives.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I was finding it difficult to know in which direction to point myself in framing a question about our testing system, but he has given me the two issues that I want to raise. First, can he tell the House what effect the increase in Covid infections is having on R? What is SAGE advising? The second question is to do with schools. What is a head teacher to do when they have successfully got their pupils back into school and then inevitably have pupils who have symptoms, are at home and need a test—as do their families—but are unable to get one because the nearest centres are either not carrying out tests or have run out of them, the labs cannot process them, or they have been offered testing many miles away and may not even have a car? How are our schools to remain open and safe if the national testing system is not working as it should, and when will this be resolved?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the impact on R is not entirely clear at the moment. ONS and REACT figures will be published shortly, and they will have the statistical analysis that the noble Baroness asks for. However, it is safe to say that R is up. With regard to schools, the Government have made it clear that our support for the return to schools is completely emphatic. However, I remind the noble Baroness that the average distance travelled for tests, even at this stage, remains 6.4 miles. Ninety per cent of people who book a test travel less than 23 miles, and 90% of tests undertaken in our mobile sites are still converted in 24 hours.
Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have imposed 14 days’ isolation on people travelling from certain countries where the virus is increasing. What steps have Her Majesty’s Government taken to ensure that children travelling back with their parents are not returning to schools—so that a child with the virus goes to school on day one and the children then have to be isolated?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the quarantine arrangements we have put in place are essential for containing the spread of the disease. We completely sympathise with parents who have found themselves caught overseas. However, we implore them to abide by the quarantine arrangements and return their children to school once the 14-day quarantine has passed.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, when Covid-19 first struck, care homes were almost forgotten. Will the Minister explain to the House what is the recommended Covid-19 testing regime for residents, visitors and staff in care homes, and what organisation monitors the tests in those local care settings?
Lord Bethell (Con)
Testing arrangements for care homes have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, alluded to, risen dramatically. Testing is done in a large variety of ways. For large care homes, mobile testing facilities are put in place; for care staff, facilities at local NHS hospitals are in place; and we invite visitors to have tests in advance of visiting their loved ones. This is all overseen by the NHS Test and Trace programme, and the CQC remains the auditor of the care sector.
Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my registered interests, in particular my membership of your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee. In his appearance before that committee in July, the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser suggested that the higher the number of cases in circulation at the beginning of winter, the greater the likelihood of a significant peak of disease. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of scientific evidence on the threshold at which the number of new cases might suggest that we can no longer be confident that the NHS will have sufficient capacity to deliver both its routine winter service and manage resurgent Covid-19 admissions?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are well within the threshold that the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, alludes to, but we are concerned about winter. That is why we are putting in place new restrictions and new arrangements to stop the spread of this disease, protect the NHS and save lives.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, the level of coronavirus has risen significantly since late July and, as my noble friend the Minister knows, the disease is having a disproportionate effect on black and ethnic minority people. Can he therefore say exactly what the Government are doing to ensure that these groups are fully accessing NHS Test and Trace, and what additional support is being given to those who work in the hospital and care sectors?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we are deeply concerned about the BAME incidence of this horrible disease. We have put in place extensive new marketing arrangements targeted at BAME audiences. We have targeted our testing arrangements through mobile testing and door-to-door availability at that communities that have been hardest hit, and there are guidelines to NHS trusts to put in place the necessary safety arrangements for those with a BAME background.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following the Government’s statement that the rise in infection rates is due largely to increased spread of the virus among young people, what strategies do the Government propose to adopt to ensure that returning students, for example, and others, comply more stringently with public health regulations?
Lord Bethell (Con)
We are deeply concerned about the spread among students. Some of that spread will take place in universities, and I pay tribute to the efforts of vice-chancellors to put in place social distancing arrangements in universities; we hope that they will have an impact. However, some of the effect is in their social life—in pubs, clubs and bedrooms up and down the country. That is the responsibility of the students themselves, and we are looking at measures to enhance and enforce the social distancing measures that will stop the spread of this disease.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, on a day when the Prime Minister will order us not to meet in large groups of more than six, why have the Government agreed to support 3,600 people congregating at Doncaster Racecourse today? Have the Government not learned the lessons of the superspreader event in Cheltenham?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, any new regulations will be in place from Monday and will capture events such as the one the noble Lord describes.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, announce the Government’s investment of £0.5 billion for testing innovation. Is the Minister aware of Abbott Laboratories’ new $5 antigen test, released just two weeks ago in the United States? On a card, within 15 minutes it can give results anywhere—at a school, a university, in the workplace or at the airport. Ten million are being produced this month in America, and 50 million next month. How soon will we have access to those sorts of tests, which will be a true game-changer in being able to have mass testing around the country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am aware of the Abbott test. I spoke to Chris Scoggins from Abbott yesterday, and I pay tribute to innovators in this country, in America, and around the world for the dramatic increase in the speed, accuracy and scale of these tests. We hope that they will make a big difference.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, given that the virus is spreading and we are fast approaching autumn and winter pressures, can my noble friend ensure that the NHS and local authorities are communicating in different languages to communities to encourage them to go and get their flu injections as quickly as possible?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The use of different languages for promoting all aspects of our Covid response is critical. We have massively increased the number, accuracy and stylistic resonance of our marketing materials in order to reach all audiences. I very much welcome the noble Baroness’s remarks.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, many law-abiding people are offended by the organisation of raves in blatant contravention of the rules on numbers and social distancing. What assessment have the Government made of the use of intelligence by the police to stop people travelling long distances to attend such illegal gatherings?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I used to organise raves, and I used to love them—but I implore all those who organise raves to stop, because they are creating a massive public health disaster. Fines have been put in place, and we will come after them. But I ask them, “Please, look into your conscience. Stop the raves. Protect lives.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Lord Desai? Lord Harries of Pentregarth.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
Moving on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, about care homes, and the Minister’s response, are the Government publishing the number of cases and deaths due to Covid in care homes? If not, why not?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I advise the noble and right reverend Lord that those figures are published on the PHE website. I would be glad to send him an email with the link.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, what I am about to ask implies no criticism, because this is such a difficult question. The increase in restrictions on social gatherings that have just been announced will be so difficult to enforce. Is there at least a case for us to consider focusing more on mortality rates rather than simply on infection rates, and finding better ways of identifying and protecting the truly vulnerable, while allowing the rest of society to get on sensibly with their lives as best they can in the circumstances, before the costs of trying to protect everyone become both economically and politically unsustainable?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right to say that the measures that the Prime Minister will describe will impose a huge burden on the whole country. However, he alludes to a hope that I am afraid cannot be borne out in practice, because we have seen, in country after country, that after prevalence follows hospitalisation and mortality, as night follows day. There is an immediate and strong connection between the rise of mortality and the rate of prevalence in the country as a whole. Children see their parents, and parents see the grandparents, so if we really want to protect all those in society, we have to lean into the disease at every level. In addition, it is emerging that the long-term effects of Covid on young people can be profound. Even those with relatively low or asymptomatic reactions to the disease can be affected by fatigue, loss of memory, breathing difficulties and other long-term effects. It is for those reasons that I ask all young people to ensure that they take every step to avoid catching this disease.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Agriculture Bill
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Penn
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 28; Schedule 1; Clause 29; Schedule 2; Clauses 30 to 34; Schedule 3; Clause 35; Schedule 4; Clauses 36 to 43; Schedule 5; Clauses 44 and 45; Schedule 6; Clauses 46 to 49; Schedule 7; Clauses 50 to 54; Title.
Functions of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner (Oversight of the Data Access Agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America and of functions exercisable under the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 July be approved.
Relevant documents: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name en bloc, but I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, might like to come in.
Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 April be approved.
Relevant documents: special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 13th Report. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, these regulations add more public authorities to the list of those who can access sensitive personal information in the form of communications data, such as itemised telephone bills. So sensitive is the issue that Parliament decided that additions to the list of public authorities had to be approved by the super-affirmative procedure. When these regulations were debated last week in Grand Committee, we were told that the Home Office had agreed to the addition of those public authorities on the basis of detailed business cases submitted to it by the public authorities concerned, which Members of this House have been unable, until 12.30 pm today, to see. The Minister agreed that it was not possible for this House to properly scrutinise the decisions of the Home Office without seeing the business cases, and that the business cases had not been published as they contained sensitive information, but said that she would arrange for Members to scrutinise the business cases in a private meeting.
This morning, when I saw that these regulations were due to be approved by the House, I inquired of the Minister’s office why we had not been offered a private meeting to examine the business cases. As a result of my inquiry I was emailed, at 12.06 pm this afternoon, and invited to view the business cases at 12.30. There are five business cases, and from memory, I think the Minister said that they were “lengthy”. I do not think it reasonable to expect Members of this House to scrutinise five business cases, which apparently justify giving the five additional public authorities access to sensitive personal data, in the 45 minutes between the offer being made to view them and the regulations being approved on the Floor of the House. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that this House should be given the opportunity to scrutinise regulations properly before it approves them, rather than afterwards.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. A private meeting before this SI is approved would certainly have enabled him and others to form a view on whether they agreed with the SI in the light of the business cases they had seen for adding these further public authorities to the list. I listened with interest to the Minister and, as I understand it, that opportunity has not been made available until the last few minutes, almost literally. I wait with interest to hear what she has to say on the points that he made.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I acknowledge the points of both the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick. I did indeed say that I would set aside some time for a private meeting so that noble Lords could look at the business cases. I have those business cases with me and will arrange that meeting. It probably would have been preferable to have had it before proposing the statutory instrument. I continue to give my word that that meeting will be arranged. Obviously, it would now be preferable to have it sooner rather than later, and I will make that time available.
Immigration (Persons Designated under Sanctions Regulations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 June be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September.
Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (Remedial) Order 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the draft Order laid before the House on 5 September 2019 be approved.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 September.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing; others are participating virtually, but all Members are treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
International Travel
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the announcement that the Government can now implement quarantine policies for passengers from specific islands, rather than whole countries, begs one question above all others: why only now? The Government’s quarantine policy has been beset by the same question from the outset. We are still yet to hear why they introduced quarantine only in June, after 22 million people had come into the country. For months, even when the virus was at its peak, millions entered the UK without any restrictions or any contact tracing system in place. Even today, we remain in the dark as to whether it is operating as it should be. Can the Minister detail how many calls contact tracing services have made in relation to positive cases linked to flights over the last month? How many fines have been handed out for non-compliance with quarantine rules? And how many people have had a positive Covid-19 test result after returning from overseas travel?
The general policy of air bridges has the support of these Benches, but it can only be as one part of the strategy to prevent infections in the UK. There is not an individual intervention that will suffice, and only a combination of smart, targeted measures will do. The shadow Secretary of State for Transport has repeatedly called for a review of the broader quarantine policy to report as soon as possible. This must consider options for a robust testing regime in airports and related follow-up tests that could safely minimise the need for 14-day quarantine. Until this takes place, it is clear that the Government are not doing all in their ability to beat the virus and safely reopen society, while protecting jobs and the economy. At the very least, it would be helpful to understand whether these policies are even under active consideration. In this regard, can the Minister confirm when SAGE last discussed airport testing, and what is the latest update on the SAGE paper on airport testing?
With the announcement of the islands policy, the Government have also placed a series of Greek locations on the quarantine list. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will publish the evidence and criteria by which locations are included on the quarantine list? With regard to the wider list, can the Minister explain how the UK Government have arrived at a different conclusion from those of the Welsh and Scottish Governments in relation to Portugal?
At a time when the aviation sector is struggling, perhaps more than any other, it would be remiss of me to not mention the impact of government policy on the industry. Can the Minister detail what assessment she has made of the financial implications of the travel quarantine measures on the aviation sector? In recent months, we have seen airlines time and time again announce plans to make significant percentages of their workforces redundant. The pain felt as a result will not be limited to those directly impacted. The consequences for the wider supply chain will no doubt cost further jobs. Poorly handled quarantine policy has only made matters worse for the 1.5 million workers across the supply chain, while the unwillingness of the Government to announce a sector deal suggests indifference.
There must be a sector deal to save airlines and support airports, and this must be based on Labour’s six conditions: it must save jobs, tackle climate change, not condone tax avoidance, not condone dividends at the expense of business viability, support UK suppliers and support consumer rights. The industry is waiting. It is now almost six months since the Chancellor first promised an aviation sector-specific deal in mid-March. Just as the quarantine policy has taken many months to emerge, the response to the aviation industry is taking even longer. Can the Minister finally confirm when the Government are going to give a financial support package to the aviation sector as the Chancellor promised in March?
Regrettably, the Statement fails to answer many more questions than it addresses. It is vital that the Government get to grips with the situation, and this can be done only with a comprehensive review of the quarantine policy as soon as possible. At this crucial point in the pandemic, it is beyond belief that there has still been no real consideration for a proper testing regime at airports and related follow-up tests. Passengers and the aviation industry need confidence that Ministers are not simply making it up as they go along. They will not have received that from today’s Statement.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to see this small step forward towards a more logical approach to quarantine. I am particularly pleased that the Government are looking at testing combined with shorter quarantine, although news of problems with the Test and Trace system does not convince me that it will be introduced effectively and soon. However, I hope we are seeing the signals of a less chaotic approach from the Government and fewer U-turns, because we are still suffering, as a nation, from the Government’s inexplicable decision to abandon testing and quarantine for returning travellers back in March, which meant that tens of thousands of people entered the UK unchecked from areas which had higher infection rates. Clearly, many of them brought their infections with them.
My first question to the Minister relates to the reference in the Statement to FCO advice. Can the Minister explain why there would ever be different quarantine advice from the FCO and DfT? I realise there was at one point, but that was put right within 24 hours or so. I am asking this question because there are clearly insurance implications for travellers if there are two conflicting sets of advice from the Government.
There is nothing in the Statement about the timescales between the regular quarantine announcements, which usually are made on Thursday—although one was made on Monday this week—and the imposition of quarantine, which is normally at 4 am on a Saturday. Would it not be possible to extend this period to give travellers abroad longer to pack their bags, buy a new ticket and make their way back to the UK? Most travel, certainly holiday travel, tends to be from weekend to weekend. If the Government were to act slightly sooner, it would give people longer. If you think back to the situation in France, which is a country many people drive to on holidays, many people who were in the south of France found it physically impossible to get back to the UK, even if they could get a ticket for a ferry or the tunnel. They could not drive back through France safely to get to the UK before the quarantine was imposed. The tight timescale has done a lot to add to the overall nervousness about foreign travel.
Finally, I want to talk about the situation in aviation as a whole, which, as a sector, is struggling. Airports, in particular, are struggling and time is running out for some of our smaller airports. They do not have major foreign backers, like some airlines. Some are local authority-owned. Many are owned, in effect, by pension funds. You can mothball planes but you cannot mothball airports. For safety reasons, they have to maintain many staff and many of their operations, even when they have few paying customers. For instance, they must have all the experts on site to be able to host emergency flights and landings—for air ambulances, for example.
Unlike restaurants, airports have had no package of measures targeted specifically at them. Unlike restaurants, they have huge capital investment. I urge the Government to devise some tailored help for this beleaguered industry and to do it soon. One example would be relief from business rates for airports in England, so that they come into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is irrelevant in Wales because the Government own the airport. They need this tailored help soon. The opportunity is there for the Government to ensure that the aviation industry becomes more environmentally friendly, because they can put conditions on their help. They can make sure that the development of airports in the future is much more environmentally friendly than it is at this moment. They can do that as a condition of their help. I urge the Minister to consult her colleagues and to announce something soon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their contributions to a small but very important change to our international air travel corridors. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked “Why now?”, with the implication that this could have been done sooner. It could not. The Government have had to put infrastructure in place to deal with challenges that previously were simply not under consideration. As well as putting the infrastructure in place, we had to get the data.
When we first announced the imposition of the 14-day quarantine period—the self-isolation period—at the same time we set up the joint biosecurity centre. This important group brings together intelligence from across the UK and from abroad. It has been able to build up its resources, particularly its skills and expertise in assessing the risk of inbound travel, which historically had not been a massive feature for government, nor was it required to be so. The building up of these resources in the joint biosecurity centre means that we have a much better ability to analyse the vast quantities of data we are getting, both domestically and from overseas.
The joint biosecurity centre carries out an assessment on countries and now it will look at individual islands as well. Various things go into the assessment. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked what the criteria were for inclusion on the list. If I could set out the criteria and percentages, or the various hurdles, for each one included on the list, that would be very simple. However, it is slightly more complicated than that because it is a combined assessment of all sorts of different factors—the estimate of the currently infectious percentage of the population of the country or island, virus incidence rates, trends in the incidence rates, hospitalisations and, sadly, deaths. Other factors include transmission status, testing capacity in a country or island and the quality of the data. All those things are built up and put together to form a picture of whether a country or island should be included on the list. We have got to the stage where we can do this now and we are able to include islands.
The noble Lord went on to ask how many people coming from overseas travel have had a positive test. I do not have that data to hand. Of course, it is the case that people have had positive tests when they have come from overseas travel. That is why it is clear that the self-isolation policy needs to be in place. People need to fill in the passenger locator form when they arrive in the country. I can tell the noble Lord that, to date, 4,154 cases of failure to fill in the PLF have been referred to the police. Fines have also been issued to people who failed to self-isolate. Slightly more seriously, and it should be recognised by all those who have attempted not to self-isolate, one could get a criminal record if one does not self-isolate. I suspect that that simply is not worth it.
I turn now to airport testing, which is incredibly important. If we can reduce the 14-day self-isolation period, using any means possible, it would be in everybody’s interests that we do so. I assure the House that this is under active consideration by the Government. PHE is looking at the evidence and emerging data, and this is developing over time. The first pass through airport testing showed that the capture rate for asymptomatic testing at airports on arrival was just 7%. That is barely worth doing. There are other things that we could do but we must reassure ourselves first that they will be robust and will enable us to both reduce the time in self-isolation and protect our loved ones from people who may be at a higher risk of having coronavirus.
The noble Lord also mentioned the differences between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. I have said before at the Dispatch Box that health policy is devolved. It is disappointing when there are differences, but we must reflect and respect the agreements reached for the devolved nations. They are perfectly capable of reaching their own conclusions, albeit sometimes on the same set of data. This also demonstrates how subjective some of the data, and its interpretation, is. Therefore, it is not the case that there can be hard targets for countries to be in or out of an international travel corridor.
I turn now to the impact on aviation. As a former Aviation Minister, I am well aware of the impact on aviation. To date, the sector has used a large amount of the support that the Government have already put in place. For example, the sector has used £1.8 billion from the Bank of England’s CCFF scheme, £283 million from the job retention scheme, and 56,400 staff were furloughed over time. The department is actively discussing what aviation recovery looks like and what additional regulatory or financial help can be put in place. It is a picture that is moving over time. There is a spending review coming up, which will be an opportunity to look at all sorts of different interventions, if they are deemed appropriate.
Over the summer, having had to cancel two holidays and rebook them, I found that the airlines are adapting. It gives people much more confidence to travel if they have the flexibility to cancel a flight and rebook it. Certainly, with the two airlines I dealt with, both things happened relatively easily. I am really pleased to see that the travel market is beginning to respond to the new world. The number of flights is currently down by about 60%, and loads are at around 65%. There is a long way to go to full recovery, but we are not still in those dark days where there were almost no planes in our sky.
I turn to additional questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the travel advice. The FCDO advice will align from now on with the international travel corridors. I recognise that there was time when there was a misalignment. That was not helpful, particularly as they were announced at slightly different times. I think the Government learned from that and we will make sure that we align from now on, if we possibly can.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the timing of the announcements. To a certain extent we have previously been lulled into a false sense of security of “Oh, it’s Thursday. Let’s look out for the tweet from the Secretary of State and then we’ll know what’s going to happen the following weekend”, yet this week we saw something different. The timing of announcements will vary, and we must not think that they are on a weekly basis in all cases. My message to all travellers is they must accept that nowadays travelling is not without risk. If one cannot take the risk of being forced to quarantine on return, it is perhaps better to stay in the UK for holidays for the time being. There is also the argument that the travel industry is doing whatever it can to help. There is a balance to be reached. Passengers must have their eyes open and fully understand the risk that travel advice may change at any time.
I go back to the intention of the Statement. It is good that we have been able to isolate islands and we will focus very much by prioritising work on the islands to which UK citizens most frequently travel, because clearly there are a number of islands that people are very keen to get back to soon.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers are brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, was not present for the start of this item of business so I call the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, while I have some sympathy with the Government in trying to combat a unique and deadly threat to life, jobs and the economy, the constant changes of direction in dealing with the virus, like the constantly changing numbers for who can meet and in which circumstances, are causing bewilderment and confusion. Consistency inspires confidence. Covid-19 is a global pandemic and, while we should try to keep our little bit of the world as safe as possible, the virus does not respect national boundaries and much greater co-operation with the devolved regions is necessary in policies. It is the same with our relationship with our neighbours in Europe to increase the efficacy of air bridges and corridors. Holidays abroad are nice, but they should not be at the expense of elderly and vulnerable groups on return home. There is a strong case for banning air travel for holiday purposes until the virus has been much better contained. In the immediate future those trapped by newly imposed quarantine restrictions on their return home should not be penalised in salary and wages. Stricter controls on air travel would undoubtedly increase hardship for those in the travel industry, and the Government should be generous and compensate—
Baroness Penn (Con)
Will the noble Lord put a question to the Minister, please?
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
Will the Minister consider much better compensation for those in the travel industry and the operators of airports?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I explained previously on the subject of support for the aviation sector, the Government are very cognisant of the impact on the sector. Historically, it has been a key contributor to our economic health and is good for our social well-being and for connectivity within our nation. The Government are doing a huge amount to look at connectivity within the four nations and between the different regions of the UK and beyond. We will work with the aviation sector as it develops new ways of working to make sure that we can capitalise on the economic recovery when it comes.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Short questions will enable more noble Lords to be called in this session. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, international travel is a great thing. We should encourage it, at least in normal times and with proper respect for the environment. However, at this time, we must think not only of those who are able to and those who do not travel abroad but of all those within these islands. They must be protected from infections coming from abroad. There must be testing at airports. If 77% are reliable, that is far from being enough. There must be second testing. Testing is vital. It needs to be at airports worldwide, and we should lead this initiative. I ask the Minister to take this forward.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
As I previously mentioned, the Government are taking this forward as quickly as we can. We need to be assured of the evidence and to make sure that, if there is testing not only at the airport but at any border into the country, it is efficacious and does the job. At the moment we are not there, but I reassure the noble Baroness that we are looking at it. Obviously we would like to put it into place as soon as possible, but we will not do so unless it will make sure that our citizens remain safe.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
Does the Minister acknowledge that while international travel is something of a roulette, the Government should do everything possible to encourage a renaissance in domestic travel in the UK? The Government’s tourism industry body VisitBritain is forecasting that inbound tourism revenue will be down by £24 billion this year, which equates to about 340,000 jobs, half of which will be in London. What specific measures will the Government put in place to support London’s tourism sector, which is so reliant on inbound tourism?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that London is very reliant on inbound tourism, as are many other major cities across the country. The Government are well aware of this and there are a number of conversations going on at the moment which are looking at potential solutions, not only for London but on a nationwide basis for the larger population hubs to ensure that people can travel safely. Within all this we have a very difficult balance between keeping the virus under control, making sure that people can travel safely and protecting jobs and the economy.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My noble friend the Minister has already alluded to the disparity that has emerged between Her Majesty’s Government and the devolved nations in respect of countries identified as being on a warning list for potential travellers and those returning to the UK. Does she agree that this has caused immense confusion and anger among those affected? There are now reports of complications for the public in that, in the devolved nations, travel insurance for cancelled holidays may not be honoured. What can the Government do to assist?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Travel insurance is a private matter between the company and the individual, but it cannot be stressed enough that people should check the terms and conditions of their travel insurance before they travel so that they have the right level of coverage. As I mentioned earlier, many travel companies are being more flexible, so travel insurance is not needed as much for some as it was previously. On the point made by my noble friend about the confusion about the devolved Administrations, I beg to differ slightly because everybody across the country has to be more alert now. Things are going to be different in different places in the country. We have seen that in Bolton, Wales, Scotland and Manchester. People in general have to be more alert. While we sit as a national House and look beyond that and think it must all be terribly confusing, I am not sure. If you are an individual in Bolton, for example, you know what you have to do because you should read about the restrictions that have been applied there and respond according. It is every citizen’s responsibility to know what they can or cannot do. Things will change; we cannot stop them changing, because the evidence changes so our advice will change.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I associate myself with other noble Lords calling for proper provisions for the aviation and aerospace sector. These latest constraints will sadly affect it. Does the Minister not agree that effective testing at airports, plus a follow-up a week later, would catch most cases coming into the country, and that this would be far more enforceable than 14-days’ quarantine for everybody who comes into our country?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree that if we could assure ourselves that that sort of regime would work, we would put it in place. But as I have said in response to previous questions, this work is ongoing, and we will not put anything in place unless we are sure that what we are putting in place will work.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, calling on my experience of being denied boarding my flight from Istanbul for my journey to Portugal this weekend, due to my not having an in-date Covid test result, I am now a firm advocate of such a system being used at UK airports. Quick results are now possible, as illustrated in a well-run operation at Istanbul Airport, with 92% accuracy and five hours from test to a digital result being available. Would the Minister take note that it is not the testing procedure where the operation challenges lie but the bureaucratic handling of all the non-compliant passengers needing to reschedule flights, and who may not have a visa in place for the UK or enough funds to sustain themselves until such a connecting flight is available?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, raises another important point about airport testing and the pre-testing that could be put in place. I am well aware that that is in place in certain countries across the world. The noble Viscount will also be aware that, in the summer, travellers to Greece were denied boarding because they had not filled in their Covid form, as required by the Greek Government 24 hours before arriving in the country. This serves to reiterate to all travellers two things: travel with your eyes open and travel with enough money. It is not as simple as it was before.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am glad the Minister mentioned travel to Greece. When I went to a Greek island in July, I had to prove I had completed the Greek version of the passenger locator form at check-in, at the boarding gate and on arrival in Greece. When I returned from Greece to the UK, and twice when I returned from Norway in recent weeks, I was not asked if I had even completed the UK passenger locator form at any stage of those journeys, let alone asked to produce it. Why are the Government not as serious about importing Covid-19 from abroad as the Greek Government? Before imposing further restrictions on the British public, should the Government not ensure that existing measures are operating effectively?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Our existing measures are operating effectively. I had the same experience as the noble Lord: I went through the Greek system twice over the summer, on two islands, and found it to be very different in both cases. I do not think there is any country we should hold up as a great way of doing things. However, we are very open to hearing about new approaches and evidence from other countries. As I said in answer to a previous question, Border Force does spot checks on people filling out the PLF and, as I said previously, 4,154 cases have been referred to the police.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the two changes: introducing airline testing and extending the airline corridors to islands. Can my noble friend help me understand how the excellent work being done by the joint biosecurity centre can lead to three different results in three different nations of the UK? Also, is my noble friend as concerned as I am that the distance incoming passengers have to travel for subsequent tests, having had a test at the airport, could put passengers off? Will the Government address that, perhaps through a more mobile testing system? Is my noble friend aware that with imminent changes to airline schedules—the autumn and winter schedules come into effect at the end of this month—it is of the utmost importance to give longer than two or three days’ notice of any change to airline corridors?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The international travel corridors are not just airline corridors; they are corridors for all modes. As my noble friend will know, to cope with current demand, airlines have been changing their schedules far more frequently than previously, which was twice a year. I am aware that there are small issues occasionally with Test and Trace, and of course we are working on those and looking to improve them where problems arise. We must remember that the vast majority of people are able to get tested very quickly and get their result very quickly. My noble friend also mentioned the devolved Administrations. I believe I have gone as far as I can on that one—it is up to the devolved nations to decide. Any interpretation of data is always going to be subjective and they have reached a different decision from the UK Government as it applies to England. UK citizens in the devolved nations, and indeed in England, need to be aware and understand that these things can change.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have two points. I commend the Government’s idea of testing people in quarantine to shorten the period, but following on from the previous speaker, how is that to be done if we are not to send people in quarantine out to testing centre, sometimes 50 miles away? Have the Government thought about how they will overcome that? Secondly, we have heard a lot about damage to the aviation industry and to tourism. As the Minister knows, there is also huge damage to the creative industries, which cannot manage tours. I realise that it is one step forward, but being forewarned is always a good thing. I encourage the Government to think ahead and talk to people representing the creative industries about how they might overcome this problem when things ease up a bit.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I know that my colleagues in the DCMS are well engaged with the creative industries and understand the challenges that they face. Certainly, as a roads Minister, I understand the knock-on impacts on, for example, the road haulage industry, which assists in putting on some of the big events. It has had a really devastating effect on those industries, and we are well aware of that. The noble Lord mentioned leaving home to get a test. Unless you get a home test, whether you have been travelling or not, and whether you are symptomatic or asymptomatic, you will probably have to leave your home to get a test. That is why the people doing the tests at testing centres have all the appropriate protection and therefore minimise the risk of transmission.
Baroness Meyer (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s Statement, which is sensible and pragmatic, but I need to point out the following. When my husband and I returned from France on 27 August, despite all the care we had taken with social distancing and mask wearing while abroad, we were confronted with a chaotic situation at Heathrow T5. The many staff present made no effort to keep passengers apart, and indeed forced them into queues, where we were crushed together. If there were any need for us to quarantine, it would more likely be due to our experience of queuing at Heathrow than our time in France. Can the Minister therefore clarify who is responsible for maintaining social distancing at Heathrow and other airports? Why was this not done before, and will it be done now?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Responsibility for maintaining social distancing rests in the hands of the individual. We ask individuals to socially distance from each other, and I am sorry that my noble friend had that experience at Terminal 5. I did not have that experience at that terminal; I had a very smooth and clear journey through it. We are working with the airports to increase signage and to make sure that there is adequate communication telling people exactly what they should do. However, social distancing is now not a new thing for any of us, whether we are in an airport, on a bus or in a shop.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have given the Minister notice of my question. If a person has knowingly contracted coronavirus while travelling overseas and, on return to the United Kingdom, breaches penalty-enforceable quarantine requirements—which we learn today could lead to a criminal record—and then transmits the disease to another person by leaving the place of confinement, could the person infected sue the communicator of the disease for damages? I have in mind the debate now going on in Florida, in the United States of America.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Could that person sue the third person? I suppose that they could have a go. I am no legal expert, but one can imagine various challenges in proving that a person really did give the disease to another person and achieving any sort of compensation. However, I go back to what I said previously: breaking quarantine or self-isolation is a very serious matter and it should be treated as such. Individuals must understand that they risk getting a criminal record.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the time has come to very rapidly implement testing at airports? The ability to get quick results from mass testing at airports is available now. You could have a test, followed by another test five days later, and that would shorten the quarantine period. Furthermore, the Abbott Laboratories’ BinaxNOW test costs $5 and gives a result within 15 minutes. It is available in the United States now. Millions of these tests are being produced and I hope we will have them soon over here. What about countries with islands? In Greece, for example, people can travel to and from certain islands, but in the Maldives, a country that depends on tourism, the airport is on a separate island and infections are currently reported only in Malé, yet tourists are not allowed to go to the other islands without being quarantined.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I believe that I have mentioned airport testing a few times, so I will probably not rehearse that. However, the noble Lord raises an interesting point about the Maldives. There are four principles behind inclusion or otherwise of an island on the list. There have to be clear boundaries—that is, it has to be an island. The data available has to be robust, reliable and internationally comparable. The important point for the noble Lord is that there have to be direct flights or flights via a quarantine-exempt place. Therefore, if one is travelling from another island to Malé—on a boat perhaps—that might not be quarantine-exempt, and therefore the other outlying islands would not be exempt. For completeness, the fourth principle is that the FCDO travel advice should align.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
With apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, the time is up.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 9th September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 121-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (9 Sep 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
This is day two in Committee on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Clause 4: Consequential etc. provision
Amendment 14
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe the need for supplementary in addition to incidental provision.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 15, 16 and 17. These amendments take us back to the very wide provisions in Clause 4, on which we spent a good deal of time on Monday, when we debated the problems of a skeleton Bill and the reports of your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and Constitution Committee. From those respective committees, the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Pannick, applied their different but devastating critiques. My noble friend Lord Beith asked the pertinent question about what instructions had been given to the drafters of these provisions. After all, responsibility to give instructions lies with Ministers.
Had the Minister accepted the earlier amendments to Clause 4, particularly those changing “appropriate” to “necessary” and deleting the phrase “in connection with”, some of the ground would have been taken from under my feet. However, she did not and it was not; nor was the insertion of the term “only” in subsection (3)—that is, “may only make provision”—accepted.
Subsection (3) purports to explain subsection (1). The power to make regulations includes powers as listed in paragraphs (a) and (b). It does not limit those powers but just gives examples, and all my amendments seek to omit words from this clause. The first concerns the term “supplementary”. Why is it necessary to make “supplementary” provision as well as provision that is “incidental” and “in consequence of”?
The second amendment would omit the term “transitory”. I would be interested to know what is meant by the term in this context. It must mean something different from “transitional” because it sits alongside that term. It is a narrative word that I would have expected to read in a piece of fiction rather than in legislation.
Amendment 16 would take out paragraph (b), which gives the power
“to make different provision for different purposes.”
I am very familiar with this phrase; it may mean bringing provisions in at different times or for different jurisdictions and so on. However, my antennae were well up by the time I got to Clause 4(3)(b), and I would be grateful if the Minister would share with the House the different purposes that may be required, particularly in a Bill so urgent that it needs to come into effect very quickly. I can see that it may be important to bring some provisions in as soon as the Bill becomes an Act and others—particularly with regard to the settled status scheme—at a later date. However, it would be helpful to have her comments on this.
Amendment 17 would leave out subsection (4) as a whole. The amendments to this subsection had already been dismissed and one begins to wonder whether it is necessary at all, but opposing this provision will be a good summary of our concern about what are, to our eyes, its many flaws. I beg to move.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak to Amendment 15. Clause 4 gives the Government substantial powers to make decisions about the future regulation of immigration without clarity about what these might be and what justifies such a wide power. Of course, we recognise that there needs to be an ability to do some tidying up of associated legislation when a Bill is passed, but the consequential amendments are normally set out in a schedule with a tidying-up clause that picks up anything that has fallen through the gaps. This does not seem to be the case in this Bill.
In August, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that this clause would
“confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous”.
The committee was very clear that transitional arrangements to protect the legal rights of EEA citizens should appear in the Bill.
Last week, the Select Committee on the Constitution also made strongly worded recommendations on the Bill. It agreed with the Delegated Powers Committee’s concerns about Clause 4. Other noble Lords have already raised questions about phrases in this regulatory power. Amendment 15 is an attempt to understand why the Government need a power that makes transitory provisions, provisions that are not permanent. I hope the Minister will set out examples of what transitory provisions the Government consider might be needed.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendments 14, 15 and 16 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, seek to bring more clarity to the powers that the Government are taking to make regulations, and that, for me, is a very good thing. As we have heard, words such as “supplementary” and “transition” and the phrase
“to make different provisions for different purposes”
are very unclear, wide-ranging and open to interpretation. These probing amendments today will give the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, the opportunity to add some clarity to the situation and set out for the record the intention and the scope of the powers that the Government are seeking from Parliament. As for Amendment 17, which would remove Clause 4(4), again an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government need the new power would be very welcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made some very good points and made them very clearly. As she asked when referring to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, what instructions were given to the parliamentary draftspersons? We need to understand that because clarity is important when you are deciding on legislation. Without it you get yourself into all sorts of problems: courts can get involved and there can be all sorts of other difficulties. What we have been hearing from the other end of the Corridor—certainly the comments from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—about where we are going to be on certain things gives us particular worry. That is why clarity is so important. I look forward to the Minister putting the matter right for us.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for speaking to the amendments in this short debate. I agree that clarity is absolutely necessary when scrutinising the scope and extent of any Bill, as your Lordships do. Amendments 14, 15 and 16 would restrict the scope of the power by removing what are standard provisions in regulating powers concerning transitory and supplementary provisions. Because both the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked what they mean, I shall go through them.
The current illustrative draft instrument does not contain a transitory provision, but it is standard legal drafting to include scope for such a provision should it be identified as necessary. Examples of supplementary provisions can be found where we are retaining some of the references to regulations transposing EU law in benefits legislation. Supplementary provisions update the references to reflect amendments to those regulations, so references to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 become references to the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, et cetera. I hope that clarifies the provision on “transitory” and “supplementary”.
I come to Amendment 17. As I explained in response to Amendment 18 and 19, Clause 4(4) allows the regulation-making power to make provision for those who are not exercising free movement rights at the end of the transition period but who are eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme and are therefore still affected by the repeal of free movement. The regulation-making power in Clause 4 is restricted to matters that are as a consequence of or in connection with the ending of free movement. Subsection (4) needs to be read in conjunction with subsection (1). It does not allow changes to the statute book for migrants from the rest of the world, who are not affected by the repeal of free movement. Amendment 17 would hinder our ability to make appropriate provision for all those affected by that appeal.
I hope that with those incredibly clear clarifications, noble Lords will feel happy not to press their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I have not received any requests to speak after the Minister, so I call—oh, it looks as though the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, thinks he has given notice.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I did email; I do not know where it has gone. Oh sorry, I did not email Question Diary.
I thank the Minister for explaining how certain words have been used in previous legislation, but it would be helpful if she could write to me and place a copy in the Library of the House with some examples, just so that we are absolutely clear. I know she was able to give an example now, but that would be very helpful.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I gave an example of “supplementary”; I did not give any examples of “transitory”. I will write a list and send it to noble Lords.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I should be particularly interested to see examples of what “transitory” is. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, was also concerned about this. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, used the phrase “open to interpretation” and that is exactly the problem, because it allows activist lawyers to come and question. We are really on the side of the Government here, because the clearer the legislation, the easier it will be for them to enforce it, but there we go: that is not my business really, is it?
The Minister said that these are standard provisions. I had a very quick look at the internal market Bill shortly before this session started, because I had picked up that there are some issues in this territory—sorry, no pun intended. I could not find them, but it seems to me that the standard provisions get longer and longer. People get worried about whether a word is absolutely precisely on the point, and more words—adjectives, mostly—get added.
If the House agrees—we may come back to this at the next stage—that “appropriate” and “in connection with” are not appropriate for legislation because they are not clear enough and are too wide, as the rest of the clause comes under those overarching words, we will have got rid of the rest of the problem. But that is not for now and, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 20. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. I think there is a technical problem with that which I hope we can resolve in the next few minutes.
Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 21.
Amendment 20
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Member’s explanatory statement
This removes the power for regulations under this clause to make changes to fees and charges currently provided for in other primary legislation.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 20 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would remove Clause 4(5) from the Bill, as suggested by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, unless a full justification for its inclusion can be provided with an explanation of how the Government intend to use it.
I shall not go over the arguments again, but this is another part of Clause 4 where serious concerns have been raised about the powers the Government are seeking to take for themselves, and an explanation would be appreciated as to why it is needed. This is the sort of issue that we may want to bring back on Report and to divide the House if we do not get a satisfactory answer from the Government.
Amendment 21 probes why the power is necessary. Maybe it is to reduce fees and charges and, if so, the amendment in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, provides the necessary clarity. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has explained, Amendment 21 is complementary to Amendment 20 in that it seeks to persuade the Government to explain how they would use this power. In the absence of that, it is hard to justify it. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has expressed great concern about this clause and the breadth of the discretion it would confer on Ministers to levy fees or charges. In this Bill, we are talking about people who, before Brexit, would have had free movement rights under EU law and would not have had to pay these kinds of charges. It is, therefore, beholden on the Government to provide some proper and explicit justification, as the committee suggested, for this inclusion and to explain how it would be used.
In preparing for this debate, I recalled that Section 9 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives the power to implement the withdrawal agreement by regulations, expressly excludes the power to impose fees. I seem to remember—although sometimes the last few years are a bit of a blur—that we had quite a dust-up about that provision. Of course, if other amendments to limit the Clause 4 delegation of powers— specifically Amendment 11—were to pass, then Clause 4(5) would drop because Clause 4 powers would exclude fees in that case.
There is, obviously, a great deal of concern about this subject, because the current fees impose costs on people far in excess of reimbursement to the Treasury. In some cases, they force people to become outside any permission to remain because they cannot afford the fees for themselves and their families. When the Minister replied to questions at Second Reading, she said that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, “asked whether the visa costs would be brought in line with other countries. These immigration and citizenship fees are set at a level that helps provide the resources necessary to operate our border, immigration and citizenship system. In fairness to UK taxpayers, it is only right that those who directly benefit from our immigration system contribute to its funding.”
Of course, that is right if it means reimbursing the administrative costs that cause the fees, but anything much over that starts to get into the realm of making a profit. Some might see that as a good idea, but, of course, it is problematic when we are going to be—and this is the Government’s vision—competing internationally for skilled people. The British Heart Foundation makes the point that the up-front cost of obtaining a five-year UK global talent visa is £2,608, considerably more than 11 other leading scientific nations. The total average up-front cost for a tier 2 skilled worker visa, taking the cost for the researcher and employer together, is £8,419, 540% higher than the average cost in other leading scientific nations, which is £1,316. I confess that I have not made these calculations myself, but I have no reason to think that they are not accurate.
In the current context of families struggling for work and their incomes in the Covid-19 pandemic, this is even more of a problem. We would like to hear from the Minister the justification that the Delegated Powers Committee has suggested. If it really is only to have the power to reduce fees, that would perhaps be a reasonable point for the Government to make, but in the absence of that reassurance, it is concerning that the Government would have a free hand to raise fees which are already, by international comparisons, pretty high.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) (V)
My Lords, I was pleased to attach my name to Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which was also signed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I also agree with virtually everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just said. Essentially, as it appears in the Bill, this looks like a power-grab by the Government in a situation that is already iniquitous and utterly unreasonable. The cost of that to the UK —the denial of the skills, knowledge and ability of people who might go somewhere else because our fees are just too high—was set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, very clearly. I somewhat disagreed with her, however, when she suggested that it might be reasonable for the Government to cover the actual real cost through fees, and I will particularly focus on children.
In December 2019, the High Court ruled that the Home Office had acted unlawfully in charging £1,012 for children to register their right to British citizenship. This was a judicial claim brought by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens on behalf of two children known as O, age 3 and A, age 12. They were British but could not access their citizenship because they had been priced out. The court found that the Home Office had taken no account of the best interests of the children in setting the fee. It highlighted a mass of evidence showing that the fee prevented many children from registering for British citizenship, thus leaving them,
“alienated, excluded, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.”
We are already in an iniquitous situation. The Government have chosen to appeal that ruling, so it is still before the courts. However, we certainly do not want a situation where the Government are not subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that such scrutiny will be applied, otherwise an utterly unreasonable situation that is bound to affect many more people will become even worse.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Lord Randall, we can see you, but we cannot hear you.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I apologise—I was waiting for someone to unmute me.
I wanted to speak in this short debate, and I shall not speak for very long, because I want the clarification that noble Lords have already asked for. Presumably, this applies just to the European Union, or EEA and Swiss citizens. I have just discovered that the withdrawal agreement says that no charges will be made. Is it likely that if other countries impose charges on us, we might do it reciprocally? That is all I want to ask, and I await the response with interest.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, some very compelling speeches have already been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about a power grab: maybe it is just a cash grab. The Home Office seems to have managed to modify fees and charges in the past very successfully—subject, of course, to the outstanding appeal which she mentioned. Is it the case that the Home Office could not charge any fees at all to those who fall within the scope of the Bill without this power? In other words, is this limited to the ending of free movement, and the other EU-derived rights, and the position of Irish citizens?
As I recall, and I may be wrong, originally, a fee was proposed for applications to the EU settled status scheme. That was dropped. I thought that that was because of the outcry, but I wonder whether in fact the Home Office thought it might be challenged on the basis that a charge was ultra vires.
What is envisaged? Is it that these three groups of citizens will be in exactly the same position as non-EEA citizens as regards these charges? Yesterday’s events and the UK’s attitude to the Belfast agreement adds to my worry about how we will treat our friends from Ireland after the Bill comes into effect.
My limitation to a reduction in fees, in Amendment 21, is of course to probe the need for a power.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we have a technical problem with emailing the Table. I propose that the Committee adjourns for 15 minutes, in the hope that we can sort out the problem. If it is necessary to adjourn again, we will do that. The Committee will resume just after 3.15 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the email problem has not been resolved entirely, but we do have a short- term solution. Members, whether in the Chamber or participating remotely, who wish to speak after the Minister on this amendment or indeed subsequent ones, can use the alternative email address, relating to the Grand Committee, that is in the guidance notes that govern today’s session. If they send their request to the Grand Committee email address, that will find its way to the Table here and they should be included in the requests to speak after the Minister. Let us hope that works. We were about to hear from the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments. If the new email system does not work—although I am not presuming that it will not work— I am very happy, retrospectively, to write to noble Lords who were going to speak, did not manage to, and therefore did not have their supplementary questions or requests for clarification answered.
These amendments obviously concern the use of Clause 4 powers to make changes in relation to fees and charges. Regulations made under this power may modify legislation relating to the imposition of immigration fees and charges only where they relate to a person’s immigration status and where that is as a consequence of, or connected with, the provision in Part 1 of the Bill. That confirms the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It enables the application of fees and charges to EEA citizens, who are currently exempt from them by virtue of free movement law, such as the immigration skills charge paid by employers.
The effect of Amendments 20 and 21 would be to prevent the Government aligning the treatment of EEA citizens with non-EEA citizens from January of next year. It is not our intention to use the power to increase fees. Fee levels will continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the existing fees orders and regulations.
To briefly touch on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, we do not make an overall profit on fees. While they may be different in different countries, they go towards the operation of the border.
It is the will of the British people that we bring free movement to an end. This means ending the bias in our immigration system that favours EEA citizens over the citizens of any other country, which is the primary purpose of this Bill. Limiting the Government’s ability to apply a skills charge to EEA citizens as they apply to non-EEA citizens will mean that certain elements of free movement will not have been fully repealed by this Bill and that EEA citizens will still have an advantage in our immigration system. This is not an outcome that the Government can accept. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, we have not received any requests to speak after the Minister. Therefore, I call the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, to reply.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment. I am sure it has not escaped the Minister’s attention that there is some concern in the House about Clause 4, not only from the Delegated Powers Committee but from every speech we have heard so far, I think, apart from the Minister’s. It will carry on in further criticism that Members will have later. I am sure the Minister understands that and will take it back. I hope that there will be some progress when we get back to these issues contained in Clause 4 on Report. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 22. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the Grand Committee address on the guidance notes during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 22
Baroness Hamwee
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that any EEA or Swiss national, and any adult dependant of any EEA or Swiss national, who has applied for asylum in the United Kingdom may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment (without limitation as to the type of employment) if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the application within 3 months of the date on which it was recorded.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling asylum seekers to work once they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for 3 months or more.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 22 is the first in a group that also includes Amendments 24, 29 and 31, all relating to asylum seekers’ right to work. On the first day of Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on a very different amendment, talked about the purposes of work. I noted them down as being to earn money, for self-actualisation and as a matter of reputation. These all apply not just to you and me but to asylum seekers.
All the amendments in this group are variations on a theme. Our Amendment 22 would give an asylum seeker the right to work after three months if there has been no decision on his or her case. It will not escape noble Lords that the “if there has been no decision” is an important part of this.
The amendments are expressed to relate to EEA and Swiss nationals, to bring them within the scope of the Bill, but it is not beyond the scope of one’s imagination to think that there may be people seeking asylum in the UK from EU countries—Poland and Hungary might spring to mind—so it is not irrelevant. This is not just straining to debate a matter that I know has concerned many noble Lords for a long time.
The Minister may tell us that we will soon see a Bill about asylum, which the Home Office is currently reviewing. That is, it is reviewing the issue of asylum rather than a particular Bill. The Committee will be glad of any news not just about the Bill but about the consultation that the Home Office is undertaking with stakeholders about these issues. There are many stakeholders.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, has moved to the position from which he will respond—at least it looks that way; I am looking at him on a rather small screen—and I hope he will be able to give some assurances about consultation with stakeholders with regard to the changes in our asylum provisions.
The great majority of asylum seekers are keen to work. Persistence is probably part of the make-up of many of them by definition, their having managed to get to this country. They want to pay tax and to contribute to their new society. They are often very skilled; that will be the subject of the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 31.
It is very harsh not only to provide such a low daily allowance—I know the noble Lord would be required to disagree with that—but to take a long time in determining claims. In a way, that is the real issue. We picked three months because that gives time for an individual to settle. An asylum seeker may need longer to become comfortable with the English language if he is not already an English speaker, though I am constantly impressed by people’s facility with English. It puts me to shame.
There is also the issue of preventing working. I referred to self-actualisation and reputation, the terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. We all know the value of work to each of us as individuals: the sense of self-worth and of achievement with a job well done, or at least attempted. We know what it does for our well-being and for good mental health, and how important it is to be able to support one’s family.
I know the Committee will be interested in the right reverend Prelate’s proposal for the displaced talent visa, which recognises the skills that refugees bring with them, but Amendment 31 is not an alternative to the other amendments in this group. It is about a visa and about refugees, not asylum seekers whose status is not yet recognised. It is imaginative, and the Government may consider it something to be pursued. I am sure the right reverend Prelate would be the first to agree that his amendment should not be a sop to distract us from the other issues to which I have referred. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that asylum seekers from the EEA and Switzerland will be granted permission to take a job from six months of their application for asylum if a decision at first instance has not yet been taken at that point. It is fairly obvious that I support the three-month amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which is a little more radical than this one, and hope the Government may accept it.
The Minister will be aware that people often wait months, if not years, for a decision. These individuals, having escaped fear of torture or death, are left to live on a pittance of £5.66 per day. As I considered what to say today, I found myself thinking that, of course, six months in this situation is far too long. What are we as a nation doing impoverishing people in our community? Frankly, £5.66 is a disgrace.
The plea for the right to work after six months is endorsed by no fewer than 200 non-profit organisations. This is a very modest and widely supported proposal. Even Sajid Javid recognised in 2019 that it is time for reform. The coalition of these 200 organisations wants the six-month reform combined with the ending of the restriction on asylum seekers from applying for jobs not on the incredibly narrow and restrictive list of highly skilled professions on the Government’s shortage occupations list. I strongly support the abolition of this restriction, which was introduced only in 2010. That is telling; we seemed to manage pretty well before that.
Now, in effect, asylum seekers are rarely enabled to work. Does the Minister really believe that this is morally right and economically sensible? As Sajid Javid recognised, reform should no longer be delayed. Reform would enable asylum seekers to begin to integrate, to support themselves and live with dignity, to support their children to lead healthy, productive lives and, very importantly, to avoid the very real risk of exploitation and modern slavery.
We would all benefit too. The coalition of 200 organisations calculates that taxpayers would save £97.8 million if asylum seekers were enabled to work from six months. In 2019 it polled over 1,000 businesses for their view on whether asylum seekers should have the right to work. Some 67% of those employers agreed that they should, and a similar number believed it would ease the UK’s skills shortages. There is also huge public support for the right to work after six months. The Government would really have a great political benefit if they would only accept this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register, in receiving support from the RAMP project on immigration policy, and as a trustee of Reset.
I shall speak to Amendment 29 and Amendment 31. They are different in substance: Amendment 29 and others in this group relate to asylum seekers, while Amendment 31 relates to refugees currently living elsewhere. However, they both address the question of work.
In the Hebrew Bible, there is a story about a widow named Ruth, who travels with her mother-in-law to a foreign land, the family having been displaced by famine. On arrival, she gets to work, picking grain with the landowners’ permission, and she enjoys his protection and generosity. She receives not a handout but the freedom to work in the fields—her dignity is upheld.
The freedom to work, for those able to do so, is an important part of our humanity. It is how we support ourselves and our families, how we contribute to the common good and how we share, through taxation, the financial burdens of our common life. Yet for those who have come to this country fleeing persecution or conflict and are stuck too long in the administrative purgatory of the Home Office’s processes, the Government deny this freedom.
Many people seeking asylum want to work. They have skills that the UK needs, and are highly motivated to provide for themselves and their families. Instead of allowing them to do so, currently the Government force their reliance on minimal taxpayer-funded benefits.
Employment helps with smooth integration into the UK, allowing people to improve their English, acquire new skills and build relationships in the community. Work restores dignity while reducing reliance on public funds. I endorse all that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has just said in speaking to Amendment 29.
Amendment 29 does not argue for an immediate right to work, as Canada, for example, allows. Lifting the ban on working after six months—the point at which the Home Office should have determined their case, but too often has not—is a reasonable compromise. I might prefer three months, as proposed in Amendment 22, but I see six months as a reasonable compromise. I am not alone in thinking this: British Future found that 71% of the public support the right to work after six months.
I note that both Amendment 29 and Amendment 31 focus on the rights of EEA and Swiss nationals, because those rights are before us in the Bill. While the Spanish protocol might appear to obviate the need for Amendment 29, we have learned this year that the future is hardly secure and predictable. Moreover, in both cases, the underlying principle demands that we take these steps for the benefit of some now, and to move towards restoring the dignity of all those seeking the UK’s protection by allowing them to contribute through work.
I thank my noble friends Lady Lister and Lord Alton for supporting me on Amendment 31. The UN estimates that there are 79.5 million forcibly displaced people globally, who are desperate to rebuild their lives. Refugee resettlement schemes are vital, and ours must restart urgently. However, we must think creatively about ways to help the many forcibly displaced people, in need of international protection, to rebuild their lives somewhere safe.
In places like Lebanon, people fleeing the Syrian conflict are not permitted to work legally. They are dependent on handouts; their lives are on hold. Many of these people have God-given talents which are going to waste. Meanwhile, employers in the UK face critical skills shortages. Ending free movement for EEA and Swiss nationals will only make it more challenging for them to recruit people with the skills they require. Is it beyond our imagination to connect the two, for the benefit of all?
The Home Secretary introduced this Bill to the other place, saying that she wanted a system
“allowing us to attract the very best talent from right around the globe.”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/5/20; col. 398.]
Displaced people, including refugees, have skills, talents and motivations, and dream of building a new life in a new land. What if we saw such people as a gift as well as a responsibility? To do that, I urge the Government to look at what this amendment seeks to achieve for skilled forcibly displaced people. I acknowledge and thank the Minister for her help so far, pursuing conversations with her colleagues to that end.
Amendment 31, conforming to the Bill’s scope, addresses the potential situation of displaced people who are EEA or Swiss nationals. Yet, even in doing so, it addresses the need for a displaced talent visa in the new Immigration Rules, to level up access globally to labour market mobility for all those who should be able to apply for skilled jobs at UK companies. It would remove barriers, such as the need for specific documentation or proof of their English language ability which cannot be accessed because of their situation in being displaced from home.
To be clear, this is not a new humanitarian route; instead, it is about enabling fair access to work visas for skilled forcibly displaced people. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, this is not an alternative to the asylum amendments. This is a completely different point. This approach has been successfully piloted in Australia and Canada, and would complement, not compete with, the vital routes of humanitarian resettlement and community sponsorship.
In his letter to them, St Paul reminded the church in Thessaloniki of a common saying: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” Far from undercutting support for providing for the vulnerable and unemployed —as has occasionally been suggested—St Paul was urging that those in the community free and able to work should do so, for the good of all.
I find myself reflecting on this saying as I think about how we might help those fleeing persecution and conflict to access employment, that they might use their God-given talents and skills to support their families and rebuild their lives with dignity for the benefit of all, and that they might be seen as a gift to us. I would like to move Amendment 31.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
It may be helpful to the Committee if I remind noble Lords that we are debating a group of amendments in which Amendment 22 is the lead. It is of course possible to speak to the other amendments in the group, but at this stage it is not possible to move them individually.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the ban on working before a whole year has passed, and then only in professions such as classical ballet dancer and geophysicist, is bad on all counts. I am aware that we have a trained classical ballet dancer in the Chamber and she is a very valued Member, but she would probably agree that it takes rather a long time to train as such. We are not asking for a radical policy like Sweden’s, which the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, reminded us allows asylum seekers to work after one day, or like Portugal’s, where the period is seven days, but, if you like, a middle way of three months or even six months. Six months is, if I recall correctly, the threshold in EU asylum law—I think it is the reception conditions directive—but the UK Government declined to opt into that provision.
It is detrimental to the well-being, dignity and self-respect of those seeking asylum to be refused the opportunity to work and to be kept in poverty on £5.66 a day. The longer that they are out of work, the more that their skills and motivation deteriorate. When I was a Member of the European Parliament, I dealt with various individuals whose physical and mental health, sometimes after years of waiting, not just for 12 months but for three, four or five years for determination of their asylum claim—maybe the Government will tell me that the situation is much better now, but I am not sure that it is—had of course deteriorated; they had shrivelled as people and were unable to provide for their families. Their status, whether in their family or in their community, was completely undermined as their skills and motivation deteriorated.
Working boosts the chances of social and economic integration. Being banned from working also feeds into the prejudice that asylum seekers are “scroungers”, which not only is not true but is galling and aggravating when in fact they are prevented from working by government fiat, policy or law, which a lot of the public do not understand. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has quoted, they would contribute to the Exchequer. Rather than taking from the taxpayer, they would be able to contribute if they were allowed to.
So, frankly, it is win-win. No wonder two-thirds of businesses support people seeking asylum having permission to work and 71% of the public, in the study by British Future, support the right to work. One would have thought that this was a bit of a no-brainer, and I look forward to the Minister explaining to us why it is impossible for the Government to change their policy.
I believe that there was an announcement in December 2018 by the Home Office that it would be launching a review into the merits of restoring the right to work to people seeking asylum. I do not know whether there is any news on how that review is getting on and when it might come to a conclusion.
Lastly, I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about a work visa for displaced people. Refugees, displaced people and people who for humanitarian reasons are unable to stay in their home country have many skills that are going unused. Banning people seeking asylum from working is a moral question as well as an economic and social one. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher: the idea that this would operate as a pole of attraction for people is unsubstantiated, and in any case that is hugely outweighed by the benefits of allowing asylum seekers to keep going and keep up their physical and mental health. If they do not succeed in their asylum claim then they have to leave, but in the meantime they will have been able to support themselves, keep up their skills and maybe, wherever they have to go or return to, have a better view of this country than they might otherwise have.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to advise the Committee that we seem to be back to normal with the emailing of the clerk, so Members who wish to speak after the Minister should use what they thought was the correct route at the beginning.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support this group of amendments. I have added my name to Amendments 24 and 31. I see these amendments as being not just in the interests of asylum seekers and refugees, although we have already heard strong arguments for why they are so, but also in the country’s economic and social interests and in the interests of overall social integration, which is supposedly a government policy goal.
A recent paper from the Institute of Labor Economics throws some light on the issues raised by Amendment 24 and others, using cross-European data for a period of nearly 30 years. It concluded that
“imposing temporary employment bans on asylum seekers has large negative consequences for their subsequent labour market integration − an effect that may remain sizable for up to 10 years”.
The authors recommend that
“host country governments should carefully weigh the (alleged) benefits of such bans against their longer term costs for both refugees and the host country economy.”
They found the sooner the access to the labour market, the better, and that when access is allowed it is not helpful to restrict it according to job type or employment sector in the way that our ludicrous shortage occupation list, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, does.
The paper also found that the existence of a ban has no impact on the numbers seeking asylum, which is one of the arguments that Ministers have used to justify it. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will not come out with that argument, because there is no evidence for it. If he is going to do so, could he please tell us what the evidence is?
Nearly a year ago, I had an exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the economic benefits of lifting the ban. As well as the survey of business leaders mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, a group of business leaders wrote to the Financial Times to make the case, and the FT quoted the CBI chief economist, who said that
“despite being keen to earn a living and participate in the society where they live, many of those displaced are prevented from using their skills to contribute to the economy.”
In a letter to me, the Minister questioned how many asylum seekers would in fact be skilled, and suggested that the priority should be speeding up decision-making and then supporting granted refugees into employment more quickly. No one would dispute the need to speed up decision-making and support refugees into employment but, nearly a year on from that exchange, the Immigration Minister acknowledged to the House of Commons committee that the asylum decision-making timeframe remains a concern. This is not an either/or situation. Worse, at present it seems to be neither: we have neither speeded up decision-making nor do we have the right to work. I accept that the assumptions about the proportion of asylum seekers who are skilled may be optimistic, as the Minister said, but that does not invalidate the case, not least because many of those deemed to be unskilled may in fact have very real skills to contribute, including to the care sector, which we heard about on Monday.
This May, the Lift the Ban campaign carried out a skills audit of people seeking asylum. Nearly half of those audited reported previous occupations that would fall into the Government’s definition of “critical workers”, with one in seven having worked in health or social care. Have the Government carried out such a skills audit on which to base their position?
In Amendment 31, which I was very pleased to be able to support, we are talking about a group of displaced refugees who would be recognised as skilled under any definition. The right reverend Prelate has already made a strong case for what I believe is a very helpful and, as he put it, creative idea that is well worth exploring. I hope the Government will explore it. I understand that there have been pilots to see how it might work. It worked rather well in other countries but unfortunately has floundered in this country because the Immigration Rules have meant that it is not practical or scalable. If nothing else, I hope there might be a way of seeing whether we can have a proper pilot in this country.
All I will add to the case already made so well by the right reverend Prelate is to emphasise a point that has already been made in a sense: we do not see this as a substitute for fulfilling our obligation to provide a safe haven to asylum seekers and refugees or for positive reforms to the asylum system, including the more general right to work after at most six months that we have been talking about.
The Government have dragged their heels over the right to work issue, as we have already heard, for nearly two years, yet suddenly it is all speed ahead with what we are told will be the new asylum Bill, designed not to help asylum seekers, as it would seem from what the media has said about it, but to make it harder for them to come here. Suddenly it has become an urgent matter, whereas there has been no urgency at all to do something for asylum seekers here.
If the Government want to dispel the fears about this forthcoming Bill—that it is all about how we keep asylum seekers out and nothing to do with how we make life better for them when they are here—I hope at the very least they will commit today to finish their review of the right to work and include it in this forthcoming Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it was my pleasure to attach my name to Amendment 24 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I express my support for all the amendments in this group, including, as has been said, the very creative Amendment 31 in the name of the right reverend Prelate.
I am following five eloquent and powerful speeches, so I do not feel the need to add a great deal. Those speeches, collectively and individually, have utterly put paid to any suggestion that the UK is generous to people who come to our shores fleeing war or repression and desperately in need of sanctuary. As other speakers have made clear, we are an international outlier in our restrictions on work, to which these amendments refer. I am sure the Minister will recall that she very kindly took the time to hear from me about the circumstances of the asylum seekers in Urban House in Wakefield and the conditions in which people are living.
We all know that the hostile environment of the Home Office is very often chaotic. People are trapped, often for years, living in inadequate privatised housing with the desperately limited sum of £37.75 a week to try to get by on and denied the opportunity—which so many of them are desperate to take—to work. I cite a young woman I spoke to some years ago who made a huge impact on me, so eloquent was she about the situation she found herself in. She was, you might say, an extreme case, but sadly a not at all uncommon one. She had come to Britain as a young woman of 18 or 19, having been a political activist in Zimbabwe— I have no doubt that she was a victim of torture. Some 10 years later, we have still not given her status. She was studying for a degree through funding and support from a voluntary organisation, but she told me what her situation was like:
“I feel like I’m in a cage. I can see the door, and people keep walking back and forth in front of that door with a key in their hand, but they never stick the key in the lock and let me out.”
Leaving people in that situation is torture. We are talking about people who are often already victims of torture. Any of these amendments would be a significant improvement. The three-month amendment is obviously the best one. The current situation cannot continue; it is damaging to all British society as well as to individuals. I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support all these amendments very happily. I appreciate that the Bill is concerned with EEA and Swiss people, but there is a point of principle which goes wider than the limited scope of the Bill. Some of the arguments we are using apply to that wider point of principle. The first three, Amendments 22, 24 and 29, are all similar, except that they vary on the length of period necessary before permission to work is granted and/or whether one needs to apply separately and additionally to the Secretary of State or whether the right to work is automatic.
We hear the arguments about pull factors. I think every time I have been involved in debates on immigration, asylum seekers or refugees, I have heard the phrase “pull factor” used to rebut any argument used. It is a stock response from the Government and I am not convinced that it is all that powerful an argument. Sometimes it does not apply at all. I have on occasions met people desperate to work. I was in south Wales not quite a year ago and met some asylum seekers. They had two requests: first, could they be helped to learn English because, secondly, they wanted to apply for work. Work was the key thing for them.
There is another group of people who are victims of lacking the right to work: children who come here and reach the age of 18 without having had their status confirmed. There is a later amendment which will give me the chance to develop this argument further. Such people are then in a very vulnerable position. Not only do they not have a full right to stay in this country but, as I discovered from some social workers who begged me to say that they have got these young people, they are not allowed to work and are stuck in complete limbo. I am sure we can all produce other examples of people we have met who are desperate to have the right to work. I think that, statistically, 61% of all asylum seekers have waited over six months to get their status determined. That is a higher proportion than any since records began. Reference has already been made to the Home Office review, allegedly started in 2018; I hope we can learn more about what has happened to it.
I will mention briefly some of the benefits of people being allowed to work, many of which have been referred to already. Above all, there is self-respect. We want people in this country to have a sense of their own worth and self-respect. To deny that to our fellow human beings is pretty appalling. It is a matter of integrity that people should be allowed to work. It is a way out of poverty. Public opinion is overwhelmingly in support of having people here who work rather than eking their existence out of virtually no benefits—even if they were on larger benefits, public opinion would still support the right to work. We are dragging well behind comparable countries. If there is a pull factor, it is those countries that will attract people rather than this one. Above all, people want to contribute to society. Talk to any asylum seeker and they will say that they want to contribute to this country and our society.
These amendments are really important. They add to the dignity of our fellow human beings. I hope that the Government will see their way to being supportive of them.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I speak against the backdrop of a story I read over the weekend in the Universe newspaper. It concerned a Ugandan refugee, Mercy Baguma, who in August was left to die in a Glasgow flat. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said that the account left her “consumed with sadness and anger”. A representative of the Positive Action in Housing charity said that Ms Baguma’s one year-old son was found crying beside his mother’s body, weakened from several days of starvation. I know that my support for Amendments 29 and 31 would not have saved her life, and I know, too, that if these amendments are passed, they will not help everyone who is a refugee or seeking asylum. However, we must do what we can to help whoever we can whenever we can; that is surely our job and I do not think anyone in the Chamber would disagree with that.
I will speak in favour of Amendment 29 on work rights, tabled by my noble friend Lady Meacher, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I support also Amendment 31 on the displaced talent visa, tabled by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and to which I am a signatory. It addresses the widely held view that, whatever our differences about the nature of migration and the humanitarian duty, as some of us see it—and I do—to respond to people forcibly displaced from their homes and countries, this country will always have a need of skilled labour, and that where sponsorship is available from an employer, this win-win situation should at least be provided for by the creation of a new visa. The Government have said that they intend that this legislation and the new immigration system to be set out in subsequent Immigration Rules will attract the “brightest and the best” from overseas to work here.
The United Nations estimates that there are over 70 million forcibly displaced people in the world. While we clearly cannot help them all, an amendment such as this would enable us to help some of them. Many people displaced by conflict or persecution have valuable professional skills in areas such as medicine and engineering, but they are stuck in refugee camps like the one I visited a few months ago in northern Iraq, and I know that my noble friend Lord Hylton, who is in his place, has visited camps in Syria. These people have been displaced and are unable to use their skills to support their families and rebuild their lives. At the same time, for this country to fulfil the Prime Minister’s ambition to be “Global Britain”, we require an immigration system that is open, fair and allows those with much-needed skills to come here with their families to work and to build a future with us. It is easy to make slogans about attracting the brightest and the best, but how can we ensure that those with skills whose lives have been blown off course by conflict or persecution can still access labour market mobility?
Through its work in Jordan and Lebanon especially, Talent Beyond Boundaries has found that there are particular barriers under the current UK tier 2 regime that make it difficult for a displaced Syrian in Jordan, for example, to have the same opportunity to come to the UK to work as someone with the same skills from Australia, India or the United States. They are required to provide the identity documents specified by the Home Office when these can be provided only by a hostile regime. We all know that that would be an impossibility. Amendment 31 therefore urges the Government to create a displaced talent visa specifically to address such barriers and pave the way to eventually put in place a global scheme.
Events in this pandemic year have once again underlined the necessity to deal with the fragile and unsustainable nature of the world in which we live. In considering what a new immigration system for the UK should look like, we have a duty to construct models that take account of the complexities caused by conflict and persecution and to devise an immigration system that genuinely enables those who want to offer us their skills to do so, and to do much more to tackle the root causes that lead to 37,000 people being forced to flee their homes every day due to conflict or persecution, joining 70 million others. None of this should close our eyes to the importance of constructing, along with other nations, a humane and fair system for resettling refugees and others who need a place of sanctuary.
Turning to Amendment 29, I begin by saying that it is substantively different from the displaced talent visa being proposed in Amendment 31, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, pointed out. It and others in the group address the right of asylum seekers already in the UK to work after a certain period while they are waiting for their cases to be decided. In contrast, the displaced talent visa facilitates the arrival of forcibly displaced persons through labour market mobility; that is, they will have a sponsoring employer and a job offer already in place, and they are not seeking humanitarian protection as UNHCR-defined refugees. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who said that the Government should not offer the same argument in response to these very different amendments. When he comes to reply, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, will differentiate between them.
The displaced talent visa is concerned with widening access to labour market mobility, not substituting for humanitarian resettlement or as an alternative to enabling access to asylum for those who require it. Where there are similarities between the amendments, they involve the freedom to work to support yourself and your family, and the dignity, alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, of being allowed to do so, as well as providing benefits to the UK through meeting labour shortages, tax revenue, avoiding reliance on public funds and the better integration of people into the community. Research has shown that bans on working result in poorer integration outcomes because work helps people to learn English and meet other people.
Amendment 29 returns to an issue I have repeatedly raised with Ministers and in your Lordships’ House: the right to work. Indeed, it was the subject of a meeting some years ago that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I attended with the then Minister, Brandon Lewis. I hope that the Minister will see this as a precedent for reforming the current work-banning arrangements. It would be good to know what stage the review we were told about at Second Reading, which was begun in 2018, has reached, and when we might see the outcome.
As the Minister has been told, the Lift the Ban coalition, which supports the amendment, is made up of over 240 organisations and individuals across the country calling for the restoration of the right to work for people seeking asylum and their adult dependants, if they have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for six months. That broad coalition includes the CBI, the Adam Smith Institute, the TUC, UNISON and the Church of England, and is supported by grass-roots organisations, national charities, think tanks, faith groups and businesses, demonstrating wide- spread support for this common-sense proposal.
I am a patron of Asylum Link Merseyside. Through its wonderful work, and that of groups in Lancashire with whom my wife volunteers as an English language teacher, as well as organisations such as Refugee Action, I have heard first-hand accounts of asylum seekers who, having been effectively prohibited from working, must subsist, as my noble friend Lady Meacher told us earlier on the derisory sum of £5.56 per day in asylum support. I repeat: £5.56 per day. Imagine for a moment trying to make ends meet on that and the effect on your human dignity and self-respect, especially when you are then denied the fundamental right to work. This is a right enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 23 insists:
“We all have the right to employment, to be free to choose our work, and to be paid a fair salary that allows us to live and support our family.”
We have heard about the benefits to the economy of allowing people to work. We were told about the survey showing that businesses overwhelmingly support this call. In denying the right to work, we damage people personally, we impede social integration, we deny the value of the work ethic, we entrench poverty and we emasculate self-sufficiency. The contribution that work makes to social integration is spelled out in terms in the Government’s own immigration White Paper, and I applaud that.
I end by saying this. The coalition has drawn my attention to the story of one young Afghan woman denied the right to work. She says, “I want to work because it gives me the feeling of being someone. I want to work because I don’t want to look back after five or 10 years and realise that I did little except sit in a room and wait for a decision on my asylum claim. I could have been doing something positive for people’s health by putting my knowledge and expertise into practice.” Those words and the story of Mercy Baguma, which I referred to at the outset of my remarks, should stir us into taking action in this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will agree to meet representatives of the Lift the Ban coalition and consider these amendments carefully between now and Report so that it will not be necessary to call a Division.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
We have heard some excellent speeches so far, and I find that I cannot disagree with anything that has been said. Although many identified victims of modern slavery are also asylum seekers—and those numbers may be swelled by EU citizens after freedom of movement has ended—these amendments, which I support, relate to potential asylum seekers from EEA countries or Switzerland. Of course, they will be in scope of the Bill, but it does not cover those from other countries. I guess that they will be the overriding majority, and while I would welcome the relaxation of the regulations regarding paid work for asylum seekers, I am afraid that it would be invidious to discriminate between non-EEA and EEA countries.
I am aware that, just over 100 years ago, a large number of Belgian citizens arrived in this country as a result of the conflict in their own country during the First World War. I have seen historical documents that show how well they were received. For a relatively brief time, they made their home here, and many worked here. Indeed, the presence of so many Belgians became the norm, so much so that no one batted an eyelid when Agatha Christie created Monsieur Poirot, a Belgian detective, as one of her heroes.
As I understand it, the rules regarding paid work for asylum seekers were strengthened back in 2010. I can only guess why it was decided to implement them, but I suspect that the huge backlog of cases awaiting decision made the Home Office nervous that if an asylum seeker worked, they would inevitably become an integrated part of the local community, making ties and making friends with fellow workers. As cases took so long—regrettably they still do, to which I can attest from my previous experience as a constituency MP—there would inevitably be more complications if a negative decision was received and removal was initiated.
I understand that some will say that to allow those applying for asylum to work will act as a pull. However, I am not sure whether there are any figures or statistics to back that up. In fact, regularising work for these people would be beneficial, as we have heard. I also know that Her Majesty’s Government are currently renewing the regulations. I sincerely hope that this country will have the courage to fully utilise the undoubted skills of these people, which I suggest would be a huge economic benefit in many ways. In the meantime, I believe that we should be encouraging more asylum seekers to be able to undertake voluntary work, and if noble Lords will indulge me a short while, I will give an example of what can be achieved.
Through my work with the Human Trafficking Foundation—and with its indefatigable chairman, Anthony Steen, a long-serving and dedicated Member of the House of Commons—I have become involved with a scheme that is just getting started after Covid-19 somewhat delayed it getting off the ground. Action Asylum by the Task Force Trust is offering opportunities to asylum seekers to make life better by volunteering alongside local people, so that the community is made better with their help, particularly in environmental matters. Pioneering projects are advanced in Merseyside, where there are currently over 3,000 asylum seekers. One example is of Iranians, Sudanese and Syrians growing vegetables alongside local people on an allotments project. Another project has brought together a dozen or so local cyclists and invited asylum seekers to join them on a community cycle ride. Working in conjunction with the Marine Conservation Society, asylum seekers will undertake a beach clean shortly on two beaches, at Southport and Hoylake, all of course properly socially distanced and within Covid-19 rules. It is not just to clear the detritus on the beach after high tides but to collate the data on what they find. This follows a pilot earlier in the year. There is a huge opportunity, with many NGOs looking to take part.
I have seen at first hand the benefits of such schemes, not only for asylum seekers and their families but for the local people, who understand that these people are individuals. As we have heard, they are not scroungers; they want to work. In view of the fact that there are currently 40,000 asylum seekers in the UK, it is a drop in the ocean, but it could be an example of a nationwide operation involving the Home Office, where asylum seekers waiting for permissions and papers to come through could do something useful in the country in which they wish to settle, to relieve boredom and loneliness and to help with mental health issues, which is a great problem. When you see how keen they are to do work, you cannot but be convinced that we should change our rules for all asylum seekers.
I thank noble Lords for their patience. I am unashamedly passionate about this cause and I support the amendments that have been spoken to. However, the first matter we should address is that of processing these claims within the shortest practicable time, while allowing all asylum seekers to take up meaningful work after a shorter period—perhaps three or six months. It would be a mutually beneficial measure for those people and for this country.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Refugee Council, which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, ran for so long to such great effect. Sadly, it is still needed more than ever. A number of Members of your Lordships’ House are generous in their support for the Refugee Council, and I hope that I would not be out of order if I said that I would be happy to hear from anyone who wanted to join them.
I will speak in support of Amendment 29 in particular, and also of the other amendments in this group. The case for Amendment 29 was so powerfully made by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that there is very little for me to add. It seems that the rule which we are trying to soften here, which stops asylum seekers from working, is—to put it politely—short-sighted. It does not match the national economic interest.
The citing by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of the list of supporters of a reform of this kind, including the Adam Smith Institute, was striking. However, the evidence is that public opinion is on the side of those proposing these amendments—quite strongly so. Probably public opinion is not really concerned about the economic case, which is overwhelming; it is probably more concerned with the humanitarian effect. Not to allow people to work condemns them and their dependants to a precarious existence on the fringes of our society, which is a bit shaming. As the time taken to process their cases lengthens, so anomaly turns to inhumanity.
I am therefore strongly in favour of these three amendments, particularly Amendment 29, and I do not think we have heard any arguments in this debate against them. The degree of mitigation of the plight of these people which is offered by these amendments is very modest. Of course three months’ time limit would be better than six months, but six months is a lot better than eternity. I hope that the Government will recognise the feeling in the House today, and produce an amendment reflecting it on Report.
I crave the indulgence of the Committee to add one more point, which I admit hangs only rather tenuously on the four amendments we are debating. At lunchtime, the BBC reported on an appalling fire today in a refugee camp on Lesbos. Thousands of people there now have no roof over their head, including over 400 unaccompanied children, the BBC reported. The FCO, with its acquisition of DfID, has just acquired a remarkable capability and expertise in handling emergency help in the event of natural disasters and disasters like that one. I hope that it will spring into action. But I hope that the Home Office will spring into action too. We are talking about 400 unaccompanied children with no roof over their head, and we know that some of them will be seeking to join relatives in this country. In these exceptional circumstances it would surely be appropriate for the Home Office, as an exception to its normal practice, to seek to identify those children and to permit their admission.
Our international reputation has taken a bit of a knock this week, as a result of the introduction of a Bill in the other place. A speedy humanitarian response by the United Kingdom to the humanitarian disaster on Lesbos would do something to assist the recuperation of our reputation.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall focus on Amendment 31, spoken to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. This is an important amendment that brings a sensible and balanced approach to immigration in the commercial sector, to build up our economy—not just hospitals and care homes, but businesses, which also need to employ skilled and semi-skilled people. The amendment will help those fleeing conflict and persecution in their own country to build their lives in the UK.
Employers and businesses are interested and keen to take part in schemes to support such workers. I declare an interest: after running a fashion company in the UK for over 40 years and employing over 300 staff, before the pandemic, I know that the majority of businesses require all sorts of people, such as accountants, HR people, salespeople and cleaners, as well as warehouse staff.
I support the amendment because it has the foresight to do something positive for displaced people at a time in their life when they often have no one to turn to, and no means of supporting themselves and their family. This country has a long history of helping displaced people, and the humanitarian kindness it has shown countless refugees over the years is well known. Through this amendment we will do something truly remarkable—helping people in need while enhancing this country through the skilled workers who wish to make it their home. We will maintain our world-class image by helping refugees and displaced persons in their time of greatest need, while also filling skills gaps in this country.
However, the existing and future tier 2 general framework creates structural barriers, preventing applications from skilled refugees and other forcibly displaced people, due to issues such as stringent restrictions and the demand for documentary evidence. Fragomen, a leading immigration law firm in the City which conducted a survey of 500 corporates with operations in the United Kingdom of various sizes and in various sectors, found that 73% of respondents said that they would consider skilled displaced people with the required skills and experience, or would actively pursue the opportunity to employ displaced people. This level of demand is likely to grow, as businesses become more aware of the opportunity to hire displaced talent.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 31. Three tests must be met when a democracy considers the development of a robust immigration system that serves both its own citizens and those seeking to make the UK their new home. First, does the system serve the demands of business and the economy? Next, does it provide equity for those applying to work here, so that it is their skill set, not their passport, that determine eligibility? Finally, does it provide genuine asylum for vulnerable and displaced people, not only expressing Britain’s humanitarian commitments but reflecting the values of the British people?
The amendment, through the introduction of the tier 2 displaced talent visa stream, responds to all three of those questions affirmatively. In connection with the first test—the business test—the end of free movement will, as this House knows, impact on the availability of EEA and Swiss nationals, leading to a contraction in the number of skilled workers available to UK employers. This means that, after focusing on the development of UK workers, employers may still need to look overseas for suitable talent, where shortages exist.
This is particularly true of, say, the health and education sectors. It is estimated that the care sector requires 520,000 additional workers before 2035, just to support the UK’s ageing population. For the past decade, approximately one in six of the 1.5 million care workers in England have been non-UK nationals. Furthermore, previous recruitment drives have done little to alleviate the sector’s chronic labour shortages. Despite a 20% increase in advertised care roles in the first quarter of 2020, applications decreased by nearly 20%. This is just one example of the many sectors that would greatly benefit from the creation of a new displaced talent visa.
The second test is the equity test. The Government have been right to champion a points-based immigration agenda, with a focus on equity for applicants, by seeking out people’s skills set not their passport. But there must also be a recognition that there are significant structural barriers facing displaced people, which prevent them participating in that level playing field. These include, as we have heard, the payment of substantial government fees, charges, difficulties in securing official travel documents, and an inability to evidence English language competence.
According to Talent Beyond Boundaries, it can take over six months for a displaced person to access an English language test when applying for asylum from Lebanon. It has a ready-to-use programme with an extensive talent catalogue, and a model that has already been successful in Canada and Australia. It manages this talent catalogue of nearly 21,000 skilled forcibly displaced people living in Lebanon and Jordan, many of whom have fled the conflict in Syria. The registrants represent more than 150 occupations, most of which are included in the UK’s skills shortage list. A large proportion of registered candidates already fit the UK’s targeted profile of being the “best and brightest”.
That brings us to our third test—the humanitarian test. The amendment is not intended to replace our UN commitments to refugee settlement, but rather to answer the call of employers who are willing to support vulnerable people, while closing their own labour and skills gaps. As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, in a survey of 500 corporates of varying size and sector conducted by Fragomen, 73% said that they would either seriously consider, or actively pursue, the opportunity to employ displaced people. The British people are instinctively responsive to those who are vulnerable but want to work hard to give their families a better future, and to contribute to the building of the nation that offers them safety. They want to be responsive.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
It seems that the amendments in this group are similar in that they all relate to the right or ability to work. Amendment 24, to which my name is attached, requires that asylum seekers and their adult dependants be allowed to apply to the Secretary of State for the right to work if their application has not had a decision since six months of it being made. The reason the amendment only refers to EEA and Swiss nationals, not to those from other parts of the world as well, is to keep the amendment within the scope of the Bill.
Those seeking asylum in the UK can only apply for the right to work, whether as an employee or self-employed, once they have been waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for over a year, provided that the delay is not considered to have been caused by the applicants themselves. Adult dependants of people seeking asylum are not allowed to apply for permission to work at all, something which impacts women, in particular. Even then, there is a further significant hurdle for those seeking asylum, because employment is restricted to a limited list of skilled occupations on a government shortage occupation list—limited despite a change in skill levels that will mean the small numbers granted the right to work are more than likely to be unable to do so. It is not clear what the usefulness is of the shortage occupation list.
The reality is that those awaiting a decision on their asylum claim, as has been said, have to live on £5.66 per day to support themselves and, where applicable, their families and, as a result, are at serious risk of exploitation, including exploitative labour. No other European country has such a restrictive waiting period. The EU reception conditions directive of 2013, to which we did not opt in, set the maximum period for the right to work at, I think, nine months after an individual has lodged an asylum claim. Some three quarters of European countries, though, have a waiting period of six months or less, and many other countries do not place any restrictions on the type of employment that someone can take up.
When a person applies for asylum in the UK, the Home Office aims to make a decision on the case within six months, provided it is not classified as “non-straightforward”. In recent years, the number of people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim for more than six months—both main applicants and dependants—has grown considerably, to cover some 60% of all those waiting. This is the highest level, I believe, since public records began, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said.
It has been argued that opening up the labour market to people in the asylum system to a greater extent would only encourage more people to try to get to the UK and seek asylum simply as a means of getting to work in this country. But there is little or no evidence of such a link. Other factors, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, such as the ability to speak the language of the host country or the presence of relatives or friends in the host country, are the significant ones. Surveys have also suggested nearly three quarters of those arriving in the UK were not aware, prior to arriving, that they would not be allowed to work.
On Monday, we discussed the high numbers of vacancies in the care sector, but that is not the only sector where there are vacancies and skills shortages. Many of those seeking asylum in this country are well qualified with skills we need. A survey earlier this year showed that one in seven of those seeking asylum had worked in health or social care and that 45% of respondents’ previous occupations would have defined them as “critical workers” during the Covid-19 pandemic. As has already been said, easing the restrictions on the ability of those claiming asylum to work would not only reduce the cost to public funds of the minimal support payments but bring in extra money from the resultant income tax and national insurance contributions.
As I understand it, the Home Office began a review of the right to work policy in 2018, following the then Immigration Minister noting that there was “much merit in the arguments for reform”. What is the position with that review one year and nine months later? Has it been finalised? If so, what were the conclusions? It should not take one year and nine months to complete a review if that is the position.
Taking into account support rates of just under £40 a week and National Audit Office estimates that accommodation costs £560 per month, the approximate cost of supporting one person waiting for a decision on their asylum claim is just under £9,000 per annum. Even if such a person, once allowed to work, needed some accommodation support, the Government would still save a minimum of over £2,000 per annum for each person in employment and no longer requiring subsistence cash support.
The Government have normally argued that work is a route out of poverty. Apparently, though, that principle does not apply to those awaiting the outcome of their asylum claim, nearly all of whom, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, want to work and support themselves and their families and offer their often much-needed skills to this country. Why do we leave them, then, in a potential or actual state of poverty, feeling a sense of hopelessness and despair for often lengthy periods of time?
There are long delays in processing asylum applications and appeals. The ban on asylum workers working provides little incentive for the Home Office to speed up the progress of these cases, and with 45% of appeals succeeding, we are delaying giving the chance to work to people who will ultimately obtain it. It is time for a change of approach, and that is what I trust we will hear from the Government in their response—a change of approach that hopefully would also indicate that we were moving away from the hostile environment through our actions, not just our words.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, was withdrawn from the speakers’ list in error and is ready to speak now, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
Thank you very much. I am sorry there was some misunderstanding earlier.
I shall be brief, but I take a slightly different approach to many other noble Lords. Much of the discussion so far seems to have assumed that all or most asylum seekers are genuine, when in fact a significant proportion are not. If public support is to be maintained, the system must clearly and effectively make that distinction. The focus should be on getting quicker decisions rather than quicker access to work.
The problem with the first three of these amendments is that they could encourage asylum seekers, and, perhaps, their representatives, to draw out the process of consideration even further, so they can start to settle in Britain without their cases having been decided. We could be faced with many thousands of asylum seekers whose cases have ground to a halt but who would be perfectly ready to work in the lower-paid parts of the economy, often in competition with British workers and at a time of rising unemployment. Over time—and this is the longer-term problem—this could undermine public support for genuine asylum seekers, who deserve our protection.
More generally, we can see from the current events in the channel that Britain is becoming the country of choice, including for those who are already in a safe European country with a well-functioning asylum system. Surely they cannot be described as “fleeing persecution”. Nor would it seem that they regard conditions for asylum seekers in Britain to be unduly difficult. Unless we can reduce the incentives to get into Britain illegally, these pressures on our borders will continue and probably increase.
Finally, I understand and sympathise with the motives of the authors of Amendment 31, but we already face intense pressure from many parts of the world where, sadly, there are large numbers of forcibly displaced people, many with skills. We should surely focus our efforts on those who are in the most difficulty by taking refugees recommended by the UNHCR, which examines each case. I remind the Committee that since 2015 almost 20,000 refugees have been directly resettled from outside Europe. That surely is the right way to help those in real need, and of course I support it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this has been a powerful and moving debate. I begin by mentioning the tragic case of Mercy Baguma, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. Like him, I was greatly distressed when I heard about her case. Indeed, the news came through when I was visiting my family for the first time since this pandemic began, and that really underlined for me how lucky we are if we can take for granted the prosperity and stability of a family home. Naturally, an investigation was launched immediately to understand what had happened in Ms Baguma’s case.
That investigation is ongoing, so I hope that the noble Lord will understand if I cannot comment on the specifics at this stage. However, I hope that I can reassure him and other noble Lords that the Government take the well-being of all those in our care extremely seriously. People who are worried about becoming destitute can apply for support, including financial support and accommodation. We are working with others, including, in the case of Ms Baguma, Police Scotland and the procurator fiscal to understand what went wrong, but also to ensure that people are aware of and can access the support they need to avoid that sort of tragedy.
I will respond, first, to Amendments 22, 24 and 29 on asylum seekers’ right to work. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, respectively for their contributions on this issue. All their amendments concern the right to work of EEA or Swiss asylum seekers and their adult dependants in the UK. The noble Lords differ slightly in what they propose, so it might be helpful if I briefly recapitulate the differences between each amendment. If I paraphrase them inaccurately, I am sure that they will correct me, either through the—I hope—now resuscitated email address or through other means. Like my noble friend the Minister, I am very happy to write to any noble Lords who, by being unable to get through, are unable to indicate that they wish to ask further questions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is proposing that asylum seekers who are EEA or Swiss citizens, and their adult dependants, should be allowed to apply for permission to take up employment if a decision on their asylum claim has not been made within three months of it being lodged. She is also proposing that, if granted, these citizens should be allowed unrestricted access to the labour market—that is, that they should be able to apply for any job, not just those on the shortage occupation list.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is proposing that the same group should be allowed to apply for permission to take up employment within six months of their claim being lodged, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, proposes that the same group should automatically be granted permission to take up employment if a decision on their asylum claim has not been made within six months of it being lodged.
As noble Lords will be aware, and as many have mentioned, our current policy allows people seeking asylum to seek permission to work in the United Kingdom if, through no fault of their own, their claim has been outstanding for 12 months. At present, those permitted to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee and is fully compliant with the rules laid out in the reception conditions directive 2003. This policy is primarily designed to protect the resident labour market by prioritising access to employment for British citizens and others who are lawfully resident here, including of course people who have already been granted refugee status, who are given full access to the labour market once granted. We believe that this is a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Minister talks about the existing 12-month wait before someone can apply to work—and then only in shortage occupations—as being to protect the resident workforce. Yet a House of Commons Library document published in January this year shows 100,000 vacancies in the social care sector, and rising. Can the Minister justify his statement that it is necessary in order to protect the resident workforce?
The Minister also said it was very unlikely that there would be refugees from an EU country. Is he not aware of the situation in Poland, where they are declaring LGBT-free zones in cities and provinces, with the Government ramping-up hate speech against LGBT people and the Law and Justice party leader saying that LGBT people are a
“threat to Polish identity, to our nation, to its existence and thus to the Polish state”?
Finally, the Minister talked about the pull factor of allowing refugees to work. A number of noble Lords said that there was no evidence of a pull factor. Indeed, the Minister was asked to provide evidence if he was going to deploy that argument. Perhaps he can comply with that request and provide the evidence to support his assertion.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will deal with the third question first. I am afraid the evidence will flow from the review that I mentioned in my response, which will of course come to your Lordships’ House once it is done, taking into account the additional work of the Migration Advisory Committee and the review of the report by the Lift the Ban coalition.
On restricting the right to work to the shortage occupation list, as I said in my reply, it is right to restrict access to work to British citizens and others lawfully resident, including those already granted asylum. We do that under the reception conditions directive of 2003. The shortage occupation list is based on expert advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. I thought we had a useful debate yesterday on social care. If there are shortages in that sector, that is something that the Migration Advisory Committee is well placed to advise on and to dispassionately provide advice to government. The list can be updated accordingly.
Finally, on the point about Poland and LGBT rights, I do not want to reopen debates from the referendum, but I remember being told quite powerfully when I was campaigning to leave that it was the EU that somehow had created or guaranteed rights for LGBT people across Europe. I thought that was wrong then and I am surprised to hear the noble Lord raising it today. Poland is a prosperous, developed country. It is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights. If the EU is good at doing the job that campaigners said it was during the referendum, it will enforce those rights. Unless that changes, we do not see a reason to change our assessment of EU member states such as Poland.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I want to come back to the question of evidence—I was the one who asked for it. I thought the Minister was about to give it because he referred to my question; however, he then started talking about those coming in boats across the channel—what is the connection? We do not have the right to work, so why is that evidence in favour of the Government’s justification? Would he accept the widespread consensus that the best way to reduce the pull factor of the channel would be to increase the legal routes enabling asylum seekers to come to this country? Could I also respond to the point the Minister just made, that we will have to wait for evidence until this review is completed? The review has been going nearly two years. The Minister knew we would raise this question during the debate; I would have expected the Government to have some evidence in support of the case they are making now, rather than having to wait any longer.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry if I clumsily inserted the response to the question from the noble Baroness in my speech. We are understandably waiting for the review to finish its work; I do not want to pre-judge it. The one year and nine months it has taken has included a change of Administration, a general election and this pandemic. More pertinently, we are waiting for the Migration Advisory Committee, which is independent of government, to do its work and its assessment, so it can be taken into account as well. Campaign groups, such as the coalition that has been mentioned, have updated their arguments. We want to take those into account, so I do not want to anticipate our responses there. The point about the channel is that whatever the numbers and whatever the proportion, no one—whether genuinely fleeing persecution or seeking to migrate illegally into the UK for economic reasons—should be making that perilous journey. We do not want to create any incentives in the system in any place that encourage people to take that hazardous risk.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank the Minister for the warmth of his response, particularly at the end. Given the support from all sides of the House we have heard in the debate, and from business—business is saying there are still questions and is not convinced it does not need a new visa—I wonder if the Minister would meet me, perhaps some other Lords who supported the amendment and Talent Beyond Boundaries, to explore this—preferably before Report stage—to check whether I want to bring it back on Report.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We have had some useful discussions with the right reverend Prelate already and we would be very happy to continue those, particularly with my noble friend the Minister and our noble friend the immigration Minister in the other place, who would be well placed to engage in detail on the topics he raised.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I begin with the so-called displaced talent visa—asylum seekers embody displaced talent in many cases but, as the right reverend Prelate says, refugees often demonstrate great talent. He referred to employment contributing to social cohesion; that is evidenced in the personal experience of people—friendships grow, which reduces the fear of others, the fear of strangers. When people see the benefits of immigration the contribution to social cohesion is very considerable. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the importance of this to women. I should have made that point, and I am glad he reminded the Committee of it; he is absolutely right. The suggestion was hinted at that we might want to discriminate between members of the EEA and others; of course, that is not the case. We are constrained by the scope of the Bill in these amendments.
I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Paddick used the opportunity to remind the Committee of the problems in Poland. The fact that it is a member of the EU does not excuse them from what has been happening, which he explained to the Committee. It is important not to hold back from criticising one’s friends and one’s partners. This is a very real issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned voluntary work. Again I am glad that he reminded the Committee of that because it is too often regarded as work rather than volunteering and reduces the possibilities of asylum seekers whose claims have not been determined to undertake activity which so often they are keen to do. It also means that a number of charities have to be extremely careful about the opportunities that they can offer because they are aware that what they must offer is volunteering and not voluntary work.
We have rightly been reminded of the importance of not seeing people reduced to getting into the black economy or becoming vulnerable to slavery, given the cash that is available to them, which I acknowledge is in addition to other support; many of us are not comfortable with that support, although it has recently been increased by the princely sum of 26p a day.
I am with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in the call for a response to the fire on Lesbos. We are in a position to respond to it. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green, but only to the extent that the process needs to be speeded up. He will not be surprised that otherwise I take a very different view. That goes to some of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. One incentive to getting into Britain by very dangerous means is to join one’s family. The narrative that we hear too often is that most refugees in France try to cross the channel to the UK. That is not the case. Safe and legal routes would sort this problem out.
The Minister referred several times to the Migration Advisory Committee having been instructed to assist with the review being undertaken by the Home Office. Can he tell the Committee when it was instructed and what the likely timing of this review will be? Whatever the reasons for its delay, can we look forward to when we might receive it?
Along with my comments about crossing the channel, I should have said that to talk about unfounded claims is rather close to talking about illegal asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are not illegal until their claim has been determined. The strength of feeling on this is very evident, but I have no option at this moment but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 23. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division, should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 23
Lord Flight
“(5A) Regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision to enable UK citizens falling within the personal scope of—(a) the Withdrawal Agreement,(b) the EEA EFTA separation agreement, or(c) the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement,to return to the United Kingdom accompanied by, or to be joined in the United Kingdom by, close family members.(5B) Regulations under subsection (1) may not impose any conditions on the entry or residence of close family members of UK citizens which could not have been imposed under EU law relating to free movement, as on the day on which this Act comes into force.(5C) For the purposes of subsection (5A)—“close family members” means—(a) children (including adopted children), and(b) other close family members where that relation subsisted on or before 31 January 2020 and has continued to subsist;“Withdrawal Agreement”, “EEA EFTA separation agreement” and “Swiss citizens’ rights agreement” have the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I must first apologise: I was supposed to introduce Amendment 12 on Monday evening, but I got stuck and impossibly delayed and did not get here in time.
The purpose of Amendment 23 is to preserve the rights of UK nationals living in the EEA, Switzerland and the EU who intend to return to live in the UK in future and bring with them, or to be joined by, non-British family members on the same terms they have at present. Unless the Bill is thus amended, British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA while the UK was a member will lose their right to return to their country of birth with a non-British partner or children unless they can meet financial conditions beyond the reach of many. If they need to return to look after elderly parents, thousands will now have to choose between returning alone, leaving their family behind or abandoning their parents to stay with their non-British family in the EEA. Nobody should have to face such a choice, and it is not necessary that they do so.
The problem is that the Government are using the end of free movement to make these British citizens meet, for the first time, the minimum income requirement for family reunion. The MIR has been roundly criticised both because the level is so high—40% of UK workers would not be able to meet it—and because of the Catch-22 rule that the non-British partner’s income can be taken into account only if they have been working in the UK for six months. How do they get into the UK if they cannot satisfy the MIR?
The MIR itself is harsh, but what makes it doubly unfair, when applying it to this group of British citizens, is that the change is, in effect, retrospective. When they left their homes in the UK to move to work in the EU or the EEA, they were safe in the knowledge that if they established a family while abroad, they would be able to bring them back to the UK. The British parents they left behind in the UK had the same expectation. There have been noticeable reports of widespread anxiety, among both the young and old, regarding what will happen if the parents need their children to care for them.
The British Government’s approach also leads to the perverse result of discrimination against their own citizens. While British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA before the end of 2020 face these restrictions, EU citizens who moved, or move, to the UK before the end of 2020 will not. They will have the right, under the withdrawal agreement, to bring existing family members here for life as well as keeping their existing right to return to their country of birth with families they have made in the UK.
I noticed, in other comments, a degree of concern about Clauses 4 and 5. I ask the Government to look into the points I have raised, which, if I am correct, could be resolved without too much difficulty.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is my pleasure to support Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Flight—who just presented an excellent introduction to it—and signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
I also refer noble Lords to my Amendment 79, which addresses some of the same issues, although it is particularly addressed to children and was inspired by an issue that I have worked on many times over the years, known in shorthand as “Skype families”, whereby people are able to maintain family relationships only by Skype—perhaps we should call them “Zoom families” these days—over long periods for all of the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, just outlined.
We have seen many people trapped in this situation. In particular, I recall a gentleman who contacted me and was frantically trying to find anyone who could help him in a situation similar to the one described by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. His family origins were in south Wales, but he had been teaching English in Thailand for a number of years and was seeking to come back to care for his aged parents—care that would, of course, potentially save the British state considerable amounts of money as well as ensure family reunion—but he would not be able to bring his Thai wife and children with him.
We are now in a situation where many more people are likely to be caught in this trap. We know that there has been a huge exchange of people across the continent, and families have been created. One thing that I have found when working on this issue over the years is that, when many of the people who have found themselves caught in this situation talk to me, they say that they have talked to other British people—friends, neighbours and work colleagues—who say that this surely cannot be right and that surely a British person can live in their own country with their foreign spouse or partner and/or their children. They are British; that must be a right—this is what people believe. Indeed, I have encountered members of the public who, when they went to their MP for assistance, found that this was initially the impression that elected Members of Parliament had.
I believe that we should have a rule for everybody: a British person should be able to live in their own country with a foreign spouse or partner and their children, independent of any income situation at all. As referred to previously in this debate, the Public Bill Office tells us that, within the scope of the Bill, we are allowed to refer only to EU and EEA people, so that is what this amendment, like Amendment 79, does.
However, I will not talk at great length because this is an issue about which I am sure many Members of your Lordships’ House attending this debate—and I hope the Minister as well—are well aware. However, I will finally reflect that I am sure that the Conservative Party would claim to be a party of, and in support of, the family. Why would it want, through immigration law, forcibly to separate families, spouses and children, forcing people into impossible choices over caring for elderly loved ones, being with their children, living as a family and having a family life?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and thank Brexpats—Hear Our Voice for the excellent “British in Europe” briefing. I will be brief because there is a straightforward argument here.
This is a simple matter of humanity. We are talking about British citizens living in Europe, who, like the rest of us, had no inkling up to four years ago of the significantly changed circumstances in which they would find themselves. Many have raised families in EEA countries with the reasonable expectation that their and their families’ mobility around Europe—including the UK—would not be affected in the future. Of course, Brexit has changed that.
We need to help our fellow British citizens and ensure that those who wish or need to do so can return to the UK with their families without deadlines being put on that return or any other conditions, such as the MIR, needing to be met. Indeed, as it stands, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, we are discriminating against our own citizens if EU citizens who moved to the UK before the end of 2020 can, according to the withdrawal agreement, bring family members here for life and return to their own countries with their families. This is a clear discrepancy.
I cannot see any good reason why this amendment should not be accepted. I hope this is a matter that has just been overlooked. I will listen with interest to the Government's response.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, some years ago I chaired some work on the minimum income requirement affecting British people who, as has been said, never thought that they would be affected by their own country’s immigration laws.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned someone from south Wales. I encountered someone from south Wales, David, whose second wife was a teacher from Canada—I do not think that you can get more respectable than being a teacher from Canada. By his first marriage he had a disabled daughter. Had he been able to bring his wife to the UK to share the care of his daughter, that, among other things, would have saved the state a lot of money. Instead, he had to limit the amount of work and the kind of work that he did and so did not meet the minimum income requirement. She was appallingly treated. I do not believe people in British society would support this, were they to know about it. Many do not until they are brought up against it personally. I have long thought that the answer to all this will be found only when a son or daughter of a Cabinet Minister finds himself or herself in this situation.
The focus at that time was largely on spouse visas and what can be taken into account in calculating incomes. That has been changed somewhat, but the issue remains. The rules about leave to enter for an individual’s parents are so harsh that they really amount to saying, “You need to be so much in need of care and support that you probably would not be fit to travel.”
The reality of this is striking home, as noble Lords have said. One of my noble friends received a letter, which she passed on to me at the weekend, from a UK citizen who has found herself in this situation. I shall read some short extracts: “As someone who married a non-UK EU national in the UK but then moved to his country to live as his parents were already elderly, never was it in my worst nightmares that I would not be able to do the same and I might be forced to choose between caring for him and caring for my mother. When I left, returning was always an option, as I work remotely, to be able to return to care for my parents. My parents are now on the brink of their eighth decade. My mother has lung issues. My father has prostate cancer. It is inevitable that I will want and need to return at some point. What child does not want to care for their parents themselves?”
She goes on: “I and many of the more than 1 million UK citizens living in the EU will not have that right. If we do not return before the end of 2022, our fate will become income-dependent. How is it conceivable that the British Government’s approach involves discrimination against its own citizens? Surely, the family is as sacrosanct in the UK as in the rest of Europe.” I am pleased, from our Benches, to support this amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I declare a family interest in the issue raised by the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Flight, said, the wording in the Bill means that British citizens who moved to the EU or EEA while we were a member will lose their right to return to this country—their country of birth—with a non-British partner or children unless they can satisfy financial conditions that many may well find difficult or impossible to meet. Amendment 23, to which I am a signatory, seeks to address this situation.
I do not wish to repeat the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight, in moving this amendment. I agree with everything that he said. I hope that as well as responding to the arguments that he made, the Minister will also comment on his point that the change is, in effect, retrospective, since it is our country and our Government who are changing the rules that apply to our citizens on this issue. When they made their personal decisions to move to the EU or EEA, the rules, as they currently apply, may well have been a factor in making that decision; it is our Government who are now apparently seeking to change those rules.
No doubt the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will also comment on a further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Flight. He said that it appears that the new UK rules that will apply to British citizens in the situation that we are talking about will be much tougher in their terms than those that apply to EU citizens with settled status in respect of their ability to bring their dependants to join them in the UK. No doubt the Minister will confirm, in the Government’s reply, whether that is the case.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, Lord Flight, for his Amendment 23, which refers to a specific cohort of people relating to what is known as the Surinder Singh route for family immigration. It would require the Government to make provision in regulations made under Clause 4 for lifetime rights for UK nationals resident in the EEA or Switzerland by the end of the transition period to return to the UK accompanied, or to be joined, by their close family members. These family members would thereby continue indefinitely to bypass the Immigration Rules that would otherwise apply to family members of UK nationals.
The Surinder Singh route, so-called after the relevant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, refers to arrangements whereby family members of UK nationals who have resided in the EEA or Switzerland with those UK nationals while they exercised their treaty rights are able to return with them to the UK under EU free-movement law. Surinder Singh family members are not protected by the withdrawal agreement but, as a matter of domestic policy, the Government have decided that UK nationals resident in the EEA or Switzerland under EU free-movement law by the end of the transition period will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members—a spouse, civil partner, durable partner, child or dependent parent—to the UK on EU law terms. That is three years after the date when the UK was originally supposed to have left the EU. That says to me that it is not retrospective, but if my noble friend wishes to intervene after I sit down, I would be grateful if he would let me know whether I have satisfied that point.
The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020, unless the child was born or adopted after this date, and must continue to exist when the family member seeks to come to the UK. Other family members, such as a spouse, where the relationship was formed after the UK left the EU, or other dependent relatives, have until the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 to return to the UK with a qualifying UK national on EU free-movement terms. If they return to the UK with the qualifying UK national by the relevant date, all these family members will then be eligible to apply for status to remain here under the EU settlement scheme. If they do not return to the UK with the qualifying UK national by the relevant date, they will need to meet the requirements of the Immigration Rules then applicable to family members of UK nationals if they wish to come to the UK.
We hope this is a fair and balanced policy. It was developed after we listened to the concerns of UK nationals living in the EEA and Switzerland. The policy was announced on 4 April 2019, as I said, giving UK nationals almost three years to decide whether they wished to return to the UK by 29 March 2022 with their existing close family members and, if so, to make plans to do so.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. She covered such a large amount of territory that I am not certain I have taken it all in, but it struck me that there was the possibility that EU citizens living here might be in a slightly better position than British citizens who have been living in the EU.
I well remember that when we were joining the EU, a number of British civil servants went across to work for the EU in the same way as they might otherwise have worked for the Civil Service here. I think it important, particularly for good relations going forward, that British citizens who have lived in the EU with spouses who are not British have a fair deal, one that is better than the deal of those who are not British citizens.
While withdrawing this amendment, I hope the Government will look at this in greater detail and see whether a slightly more generous package cannot be made available for British citizens.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise, but I have just received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, I simply ask the Minister what she would advise a couple, one British and one an EU national, who both have elderly parents. She is suggesting that they should pick between them for future care by the end of 2022. Is this really a humane approach?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for the slight discontinuity of speakers to the disbenefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Three years after we were supposed to leave the EU, and indeed some six years after this country voted to do so, we are giving people time. There are immigration rules in every country of the world, and we are trying to be as fair as possible. We have listened to the concerns of UK nationals living in both the EEA and Switzerland.
Lord Flight (Con)
I simply repeat my request that the Government might look at this territory in a little more detail and should arrange things such that British citizens have a slightly better deal to come and live here than non-British citizens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to Amendment 25. I remind noble Lords again that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 25
Lord Rosser
“( ) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) after the end of the period of one year beginning with IP completion day.( ) In this section “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 (interpretation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide that the regulation making powers under this section expire within one year of the end of the transition period.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 25, to which my name is attached, would introduce a sunset clause limiting the use of delegated powers under Clause 4 to one year, beginning with the implementation period completion day at the end of the transition period.
Immigration involves fundamental rights on a regular basis: rights to liberty, respect for private family life, property rights, the right to non-discrimination, data protection rights and a prohibition on inhumane or inhuman and degrading treatment. Changes that could or would affect fundamental rights should be made by Parliament through primary legislation, not by Ministers through secondary legislation where there is no ability to amend or alter what is proposed.
As we have discussed already, the Lords Constitution Committee and the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have both said that the provisions in the Bill
“include broad delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, for which there is little policy detail as to their intended use; insufficient safeguards and scrutiny processes in relation to”
how those powers are used. Other comments from one or both of these Lords committees are that
“The Bill effectively changes significant areas of immigration law from primary into secondary legislation, weakening the parliamentary scrutiny that will be required for any future amendment or repeal”,
and that “A Henry VIII clause”, such as Clause 4,
“that is subject to such a permissive test as ‘appropriateness’, and which may be used to do anything ‘in connection with’ in relation to so broad and important an issue as free movement, is constitutionally unacceptable”
and undermines “fundamental elements”.
The Government maintain that the Henry VIII powers in Clause 4 are only to address necessary technical legislative changes to primary legislation arising from the ending of free movement. The same powers in Clause 5, say the Government—those are the subject of a separate amendment later on—are there, first, to enable consequential amendments to be made to primary legislation and other retained EU law if areas of the retained EU social security co-ordination regulations, co-ordinating access to social security for individuals moving between EEA states, have to be repealed because they are not covered in a reciprocal agreement with the EU following the end of the transition period; and, secondly, if consequential technical amendments to legislation are needed arising from any new reciprocal agreement with the EU.
However, the trouble is that the actual terms of the Bill give the Government much greater powers than they say they need and are asking us to accept would be the situation. The Delegated Powers Committee said that Clause 4 presents
“a very significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive”,
and on Clause 5, it said:
“Parliament is being asked to scrutinise a clause so lacking in any substance whatsoever that it cannot even be described as a skeleton.”
If it the Government only want these very significant delegated powers, including Henry VIII powers, for the reasons they have previously given, they will surely recognise the potential constitutional dangers of leaving powers which represent such a significant delegation of power from Parliament to the Executive permanently on the statute book. Accordingly, if the Government want to use these powers only for the reasons they have mentioned, they should have no difficulty agreeing to the sunset clause provided for in this amendment, which I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
We on these Benches are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for tabling this amendment, which I can describe as an insurance policy. I agree with everything he said about Clause 4 powers, which we have had a chance to discuss, but we have a hierarchy of aims, the top one being to persuade the Government that Clause 4 is really not fit for purpose, as our committees have helpfully advised us, and that they need to go away and think again about it. The second choice would be that they accept that the broad scope, the width, of the powers they intend to give themselves is far too vague and imprecise—“in connection with”, “affecting”, et cetera—and that they need serious discipline, rigour and tightening up. The advantage of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that if we fail in those ambitions, we would at least, I hope, have the fallback position of looking after a year at what improvements we could make.
This is not like the Covid regulations, where the Government are reacting to an emergency situation. That is the more normal scenario for a sunset clause, but, none the less, the clause has a huge impact and demonstrates that “taking back control” did not mean taking back control for Parliament, let alone the people, it meant taking back control for the Government. It was a clever slogan, but unfortunately it has been heavily misused, and Clause 4 sums up all the problems with the approach that has been followed in the past few years.
If we do not succeed in our other ambitions in relation to Clause 4, it is sensible to have this fallback position of a sunset clause so that at least we would have a specified review date when we could reconsider what use is being made of Clause 4.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for moving Amendment 25, with its purpose to sunset the regulation-making power in Clause 4. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said, this part of the Bill has already received quite a lot of attention, and I am sure will continue to do so in this and subsequent stages. As we know, Clause 4 enables regulations to be made
“in consequence of, or in connection with,”
Part 1, which relates to the ending of free movement and clarifying the rights of Irish citizens. The amendment would set the end date for using the regulation-making power as one year after the end of the transition period—that is, 31 December 2021.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I will be withdrawing the amendment. I listened with considerable interest to the Minister, and I am aware of what has been said previously. It almost seemed to me an invitation to come back with a sunset clause that would apply one month after the end of the transition period, because the Government are basically saying that they will get everything done within the next few months, after this Bill becomes an Act.
However, the Government’s view is that there might be things they miss which will need to be done. Therefore, they feel that they need to have this power on a much longer-term basis so that, if they do find things they have missed, they can still put them right without coming back for full parliamentary scrutiny.
The argument could be made the other way: a sunset clause which came into operation even earlier than the period of time I propose might give the Government the incentive to make sure that they jolly well did get things right first time, and did not have to use the argument that they missed something they should have put right under the terms of Clause 4.
I thank the Minister for his reply. I do not sense—from the nature of their stance on this issue—that the Government have too much confidence that they will use these powers within the few months that the Minister has indicated, and for the very technical purposes that they need them. If the Government did have that full confidence, they would not have any doubt, or any hesitation, about discussing whether there should be a sunset clause which was even earlier than I propose.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 26. I again remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 26
Lord Green of Deddington
“(5A) Any regulations made under subsection (1) which make provision to permit EEA and Swiss nationals to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up employment must include a specified limit on the total number of such persons to be granted permission for that purpose each calendar year.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would oblige the Secretary of State to place an annual limit on the number of EEA and Swiss nationals that may be granted permission to enter the UK to take up employment when making regulations under Clause 4 (1).
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 26 is tabled in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who regrets that he cannot be present to speak to it.
This amendment is absolutely central to our future immigration regime. It calls for an annual limit on work permits that would be granted to EU, EEA and Swiss nationals. Like other amendments, it is confined to these nationals for technical reasons; that is, what the Bill purports to deal with. However, in practice, any such limits applied to EU workers would have to be extended in some form to the rest of the world. The amendment is central because, in the absence of a cap on work permits, the numbers granted could run very rapidly out of control
This is for three reasons. First, a very large number of UK jobs will be open to new or increased international competition. We estimate that the number is of the order of 7 million. Secondly, the number of potential applicants is huge. We made a careful estimate but one confined just to the 15 main countries outside the EU which have been producing work permit applications in the past. That produced—wait for it—nearly 600 million people who would qualify for a work permit, provided that they have the required level of English, although that level has not yet been specified. From the EU, a further 50 million or 60 million people would also technically meet the requirements. Of course, they are obviously not all going to come, but the point is that a large number of people are in the age group with the qualifications that are required. Thirdly, there would be a great incentive for employers to go for cheap, competent, non-unionised workers, as indeed we saw when east European workers were allowed to come to Britain with no transition period.
It is astonishing that the Government should continue on a path devised long before Covid-19 came over the horizon and to do so just as millions of our fellow citizens are facing the prospect of unemployment. I remind your Lordships that net migration was back at record levels when we went into lockdown. The Government say that the present cap on numbers will be “suspended”, but it could well take time to restore the cap, especially as they would face heavy pressure from business. Surely it would be much better to start with a cap and adjust it in the light of circumstances.
Finally, I note a most interesting and courageous speech by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, at Second Reading. He said that he does not believe that the proposed system will provide any control. He described it as a
“staging post in a very unstable situation with regard to immigration in the future.”—[Official Report, 22/7/20; col. 2258.]
He is absolutely right and, as I say, he is also courageous. To put it in a nutshell, the Government are heading for a car crash on immigration, and they would be wise to act soon to avoid it. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 26 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, as well as in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. It is an honour to be associated with—and indeed, sandwiched in the Marshalled List between—two such experts in the field of immigration and demography. Their untiring, perceptive and long-term thinking was reflected in their startling contributions at Second Reading and which, as has been said, were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
This amendment calls for a limit on the total number of EU, EEA and Swiss migrants coming into the UK for employment in each calendar year. I believe that we should go further and apply a cap to all such immigration from all countries, perhaps with specific separate guest worker schemes for agriculture and health workers. There is clearly a serious risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, has just explained, of the numbers getting very large indeed if we do not control immigration more directly, and of course if we do not enforce the laws properly.
Effectively leaving the numbers of migrants to the whim and interests of employers, as now proposed, is unnecessarily risky. It would also make it impossible to plan properly for the additional houses, schools and health and transport facilities we would need. The new lower salary thresholds designed to help employers, combined with the apparent attraction of the UK as a place to live and work—as evidenced, sadly, in the channel every day—would result in ever greater numbers of arrivals, especially from third countries outside the EEA.
We need as many jobs as possible for those already in the UK, particularly with the chill winter we must expect following Covid-19, and a greater incentive for employers to train in the skills we need. We are a small island; we need to be careful about the numbers and nature of the people we welcome here. Otherwise we will feel the consequences, including at the ballot box. We have to get this right.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
This is rather awkward for me, because I have great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Green, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, both of whom I regard as friends. The noble Lord was a close colleague and a brilliant ambassador, and the noble Baroness was a highly successful public servant before she became a highly successful businesswoman. However, I find myself in total disagreement with what they are recommending.
I find the amendment unattractive for a number of reasons. I will stick to the economic and business reasons, except to say that in political terms this is definitely a little England amendment. If you go north of the border and look at Scotland, where the population is declining and only immigration makes it possible to hope to maintain present levels, the political arguments are completely different. I did not hear from either the noble Lord, Lord Green, or the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, any recognition that the points being made were specific to the economy of England.
I see three obvious effects of the imposition of an annual quota. First, it would be the Government, not the market, who would pick the number. I would have thought that the free-market instincts of the noble Baroness would bridle at the idea that the gentleman in Whitehall—or perhaps his algorithm—knows best. Moreover, it would not be the Business Department, alert to the concerns of business, that would set the number, but the Home Office, which is not famous for having its finger on the pulse of the economy.
The second effect would be to produce a short-term surge at the start of every year. I am looking at this from the point of view of international businesses with operations based here; they would need to bring in their essential workers quickly before the door clanged shut for the year. The surge would then be followed by a freeze, preventing them bringing in new staff to match new requirements. I spent some time on the board of a great Anglo-Dutch company, dual-based here and in the Netherlands. Amendment 26 would have been hugely damaging to the flexibility essential for our efficiency.
Hence the third effect: the long-term discouragement to our friends in Milan, Munich or Madrid to put or keep parts of their business in our country. It would be a further deterrent to their putting or keeping their operations here, on top of the complications of our being outside the single market—just what we do not need. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will, on reflection, decide not to press an amendment that is politically damaging in the context of the union and economically hugely damaging in the context of international business.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the proposal of an annual cap on the number of people allowed to settle in this country, initially from the EEA but eventually applying to all countries, I hope. It is strange that such a cap has not been included in previous plans to limit immigration.
Successive political leaders from Tony Blair onwards have promised what they describe as an Australian-style points-based system for controlling immigration, but what they have planned has not been an Australian-style system. For most of this century, and indeed earlier, Australia has had a system with an overall cap on the number of visas issued, while allocating those visas on the basis of the points awarded to would-be immigrants. Australia is a vast, underpopulated country that, after the threat of Japanese invasion, decided it needed to increase its population to ensure its security, but even it does not allow everyone who happens to qualify for a certain number of points to settle there with no cap on the numbers.
We are a small, crowded island. It beggars belief that we should introduce a system that would potentially allow almost unlimited numbers of people to come and work and settle here. The number of people coming here from outside the European Union is clearly out of control already. In the last financial year, nearly 90,000 new national insurance numbers were issued to people from India alone—just one country. That is nearly double the number in the previous year and three times the number in the years before that. Of course, it was matched by similar numbers from the rest of Asia combined, not to mention those coming from other continents.
So far as I know, no one knows why this sudden surge has occurred, what jobs these people are working in or where they live, but if we had an annual cap, at the very least such surges would be smoothed out over a number of years, during which we could establish what the driving force was, and, if we decided it was reasonable to continue to allow that number of people to come, to prepare—as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville- Rolfe, said—for the numbers of houses and schools, et cetera, that we would have to build.
Whatever our personal views about the desirability of allowing large numbers of people to settle here, there can be no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the British people would like to see strict limits put on those numbers. This is not a democratic House and your Lordships have made it clear in this debate that they have remarkably little sympathy for the democratic sentiments that the people constantly express. But this country is a democracy, and our laws should reflect the broad wishes of the British people. This amendment would go some way to achieving that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this is not a workable notion. I am not the world’s expert on the non-EU migration system. It is a world I am having to learn about, having known far more about EU free movement in the past. As I understand it, most aspects of non-EU migration to date—which is going to be changed by the points-based system—have, I think, been affected by caps within individual tiers. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. That has not, from some people’s point of view, been a great success. After all, for at least the last few years, annual non-EEA migration has been considerably higher than EU or EEA migration. I understand the aims of the authors of this amendment, but I am not sure how or why it would be expected to reduce numbers.
The amendment also offers us a very bureaucratic system rather than, as the Government intend, one that would respond in a flexible, streamlined fashion to the need for skills in our economy. After all, if you are an employer with a crucial post that cannot be filled—perhaps the geophysicist I mentioned earlier—it seems somewhat ridiculous that you would fail to recruit an expert that you could not find at home because you were the first one after the cap had been imposed.
It is not as if it is a free-for-all. As I understand it, the sponsor employer has to sponsor the call welcoming bids from would-be immigrants and has to pay the immigration surcharge and so on. It is not as if the numbers are not overseen by the system and by a number of individual needs and choices that are driven by the needs of the economy and the employer.
An overall cap would be unworkable and unhelpful to the economy and to employers. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, there are areas of the United Kingdom—he mentioned Scotland—that have a need for a greater population. There is one thing worse than having an expanding population, and that is having a declining one, as Germany is finding out and Japan has found out. There will come a time, with declining birth rates in this country, when we will be wishing that we had more immigrants. Indeed, that partly motivated Chancellor Merkel in 2015.
All things considered, I cannot offer from these Benches support for this amendment. I acknowledge the sincerity with which it is proposed, but I honestly do not think it is wise or workable.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I hope the Government’s response to this amendment, and indeed to the next two, might reveal something about their intentions and objectives as far as the new points-based immigration system is concerned.
I feel there is a lack of consistency on behalf of the Government about how crowded or otherwise they believe this country actually is. When it comes to the planning White Paper, and the opposition there appears to be to it from within the ranks of the Government party, one of the responses you get is that it is only a very small percentage of this country that is being built on. Yet when it comes to an immigration system, one senses that the Government base it on the fact that this country is too crowded. There appears to be a contrast, depending on whether they are talking about the planning White Paper or the immigration system, in what their view is on how crowded or otherwise this country actually is at present.
I hope that when the Government reply we shall find out a bit more about their statement that their points-based immigration system will reduce migration. An answer on that might address some of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. The Government have never told us the basis on which they reached that conclusion—in spite of the comments of my noble friend Lord Adonis, and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, at Second Reading, which suggested that the contrary would be the case.
Over the past decade we have heard policy statements about reducing migration to below 100,000, but those statements—I will not go into whether they were sensible or otherwise—were followed by a rise in net migration, including, and not least, from outside the EU, where freedom of movement does not apply.
I hope that when the Minister responds to this amendment we will get a very clear statement from the Government as to exactly why and how they happen to believe that their new points-based immigration system will lead to a reduction in migration—if that, rightly or wrongly, is their policy objective. Such a clear statement is badly needed, and could be given right now.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and pay my respect to the deep expertise that he brings to this subject. The House benefits from it every time he speaks. As he said, his amendment would reintroduce an annual limit on the number of people that might be granted permission to enter the UK to take up skilled employment. The existing cap, which the Government are committed to suspending, is set at 20,700 and is administered monthly to those seeking entry clearance as skilled workers.
Currently, applications are held till the end of each allocation month. If applications exceed available places in any month, priority is given to occupations on the shortage occupation list and PhD level occupations. Thereafter, priority is broadly determined by salary, with higher-paying jobs getting first preference. On the face of it, this sounds like a sensible measure to control and limit migration to the UK, and is consistent with the aim of prioritising the brightest and best to come to the UK. However, it adds to the burden on business, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, slows the process of recruiting a skilled migrant and creates uncertainty among employers. It also creates a situation in which a migrant might be perceived as of value one day and not the next, which is what inevitably happens when a cap binds.
We want the UK to be a great place to do business, and we want to reduce uncertainty for UK employers and businesses—which imposes costs and prevents forward planning—while ensuring that we do not put unnecessary obstacles in the path of those who want to operate and contribute, so that the UK’s economy continues to prosper. As noble Lords know, we also want to create a simple global immigration system that focuses on skills and talent and the contribution migrants can make to the UK, rather than on where they come from.
We should be imposing a cap only if we think it would genuinely offer extra protection to resident workers and can be implemented in a way that mitigates uncertainty for businesses and employers across the whole of the UK. The Government do not think that that is so. That view is based on the clear economic advice of the independent MAC, supported by evidence from a wide range of stakeholders.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the lucid and powerful support of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, dealt most effectively with the need for a cap. I am sorry to find myself in some disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. He is hugely respected in this House—rightly so—and including, if I may say so, by myself. That is not to say we agree on immigration.
The Minister explained very clearly how a cap would be administered. There is also something called the intra-company transfer, which would deal with large companies wanting to post senior staff.
On the issue of public opinion, 55% of the UK population want to see a reduction in immigration—that is about 30 million people—while 4% want to see an increase. The figures are similar for Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 27. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 27
Lord Green of Deddington
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must make provision for the Resident Labour Market Test (as set out in the Immigration Rules Appendix A: attributes) to apply to job offers where a job offer forms part of the application of EEA and Swiss nationals seeking to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require that job offers made to EEA and Swiss nationals which form part of an application for that person to enter the United Kingdom should first be advertised in the domestic labour market in accordance with the Resident Labour Market Test.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 27, which is also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who unfortunately cannot be present.
The purpose of this amendment is to restore the clumsily termed “resident labour market test” or, in plain English, to oblige employers to advertise a job first in the UK before recruiting on the international market. This labour market test has been in place for decades and for good reason—namely, to give British workers a fair opportunity to apply for jobs as they arise. Employers did not like this test, because they claimed it involved expense and delay. The Government appear to have caved in, despite the fact that the Migration Advisory Committee has long been critical of some employers for failing to invest in training UK recruits.
It is truly astonishing that, with unemployment heading for several million, there could be any suggestion this requirement be abolished. The public share this view. Opinion polling in May this year found that 77% of the public believe that the Government should ensure employers prioritise the hiring of UK workers rather than turning to more overseas recruitment. Only 8% want to make it easier to hire more people from abroad. I hope the Opposition Benches will take the same view and that the reasonable, indeed fully justified expectations, of British workers will be respected. I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I want to see more housing, both to help existing UK citizens and to help legal migrants. As noble Lords will recall, I made this point in my Oral Question yesterday. I want arrangements prioritising migration of skilled and scarce workers, but which allow the nation to plan for their housing, GP surgeries, hospitals and schools, the pressure on which is making people angry. This includes Scotland, if you listen to the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
It is particularly extraordinary that we should be thinking of dropping the long-standing requirement that jobs should be advertised in the UK before overseas recruitment occurs. This will encourage employers—especially big employers—to recruit overseas, sometimes without even trying the home market. We already have the benefit of 3.7 million or so EU citizens who have applied for the EU settled status scheme. Due to corona- virus and digital change, employment on the high street and elsewhere is, sadly, falling.
While I do not rule out special arrangements for agriculture and for health workers, we need our jobs to go to the home team wherever possible, whether in engineering, restaurants or universities. That is particularly the case in the wake of Covid-19. Advertising at home first seems a small price for employers to pay. Frankly, I am puzzled that the trade unions are not strongly supporting this.
Lord Lilley (Con) [V]
I support this amendment, which seeks to restore the resident labour test. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, the MAC thought that the pressure from employers to get rid of this test was symptomatic of a reluctance even to train people in this country. To my mind, that anyone should want to get rid of it when we face mass unemployment beggars belief. I understand that it was removed because of pressure from employers, and that, as MAC said, is symptomatic of deeply ingrained attitudes among many British employers that they have no duty to train their workforce, let alone to recruit locally.
As I mentioned in the debates on Amendments 82 and 93, that failure to train is as prevalent in the public sector and the NHS as it is in the private sector. The prevailing attitude in too many British companies is that you should train your own employees only if you cannot recruit people with those skills from abroad. We need to reverse that order of priorities: train your own employees first, and only recruit abroad if for some reason it is impossible to find them locally.
When I served on the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union in the House of Commons, our first visit after the referendum was to Sunderland. We met the great and the good of the business community there: the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the chamber of commerce, the local councils and most of the large employers, though with the notable exception of Nissan. I asked them what their principal concern was about the impact of Brexit. They said, “It may restrict our ability to recruit skilled labour from abroad.”
I was reminded then of a previous visit to that part of the world when, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I had gone to see the Nissan plant, which had then been recently established. I had asked the management a rather stupid question: “Do you have any difficulty recruiting skilled workers for your plant?” They were too polite to point out how stupid the question was, but they replied that there were no skilled automobile workers in the north-east of England. They added, “So we train people ourselves. They are very eager to learn and they make excellent workers.”
Recounting that conversation to the employers hosting the Select Committee, I asked them what would have happened if the Japanese had taken the same approach as them. There would be 9,000 Poles working in Nissan’s plant and 9,000 Brits would be tossing hamburgers or on the dole. They looked somewhat shamefaced, as well they might because those British workers recruited locally are now the most productive workers in the whole worldwide Nissan network. We must—and this amendment takes a very small step in that direction— encourage most British firms to show the same faith in British workers as Nissan did a quarter of a century ago.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am all in favour of training for skills, whether through the education and further education system or by employers. However, to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, has answered the question himself; there are good companies that train their workforce.
I have been very impressed by the publicity for apprenticeships recently. Historically, this country has not had as good a record as some other countries, such as Germany, in valuing craft, engineering and practical skills. The touchstone of aspiration has been a degree in PPE at Oxford; we know quite a few people in the Palace of Westminster who have the qualification of Eton and Oxford PPE. Speaking as a lowly LSE graduate, I have not had the same attitude. Unfortunately, that attitude has persisted for far too long.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I think reference was made earlier to the position of trade unions vis-à-vis this amendment. I certainly cannot speak on behalf of trade unions, but I say as an individual that I get the impression that trade unions will probably push more than anyone else to have a better trained workforce and for spending more money on training by employers. They have not always received the response they should have to those representations and that pressure.
As for the specific terms of this amendment, it has been said there has been a demise as far as the resident labour market test is concerned. I await with interest to hear whether Government agree with that, because that is what is being said, and if the Government accept that that is true, to ask why they think that has been the case and what they think the impact of that, if it is true, has been on the employment of British citizens. I will also be interested to hear from the Government’s reply whether the use or non-use of the resident labour market test will be used to reduce or increase migrations, since I think I understood from the noble Baroness’s reply to the previous amendment that it would be the Government’s intention to use the salary threshold and the immigration skills charge—presumably by increasing or raising the threshold or by increasing or lowering the immigration skills charge—to have an impact on the level of net migrations. I will be interested to find out, when we hear the Government’s response to this amendment, whether the use or otherwise of the resident labour market test will also be used by the Government to seek to control levels of migration.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, again, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, for tabling this amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken to it. As noble Lords have said, this amendment would have the effect of reintroducing a resident labour market test for EEA citizens, otherwise known as the RLMT. The RLMT requires a job to be advertised in the UK for 28 days to establish whether there is anyone suitable in the domestic labour market before the job can be offered to an overseas migrant. Again, on the face of it this is a very sensible measure, but it would add to the burden on businesses and would considerably slow the process of recruiting a skilled migrant.
We want the UK to be a great place to do business and to ensure we do not impose unnecessary obstacles in the path of those who want to operate and contribute, ensuring that the UK’s economy continues to prosper. We also want to create a single, global immigration system, focusing on skills and talents and the contribution that migrants can make to the UK, rather than where they have come from. We should be imposing an RLMT only if we think it would genuinely offer protection to resident workers, and the Government do not think at this stage that that would be so. That is not just the Government’s opinion but is based on the clear economic advice of the MAC: of course, the MAC consults very widely with stakeholders before producing its recommendation.
I shall quote from a report published in September 2018 on the impact of EEA migration. The MAC said it was,
“sceptical about how effective the RLMT is”
in giving settled workers the first opportunity to fill jobs. It went on to say:
“We think it likely the bureaucratic costs of the RLMT outweigh any economic benefit”.
Finally, the MAC said:
“We therefore recommend the abolition of the RLMT”.
Equally pertinent is the MAC’s next paragraph:
“We do think it important to have protection against employers using migrants to under-cut UK-born workers. The best protection is a robust approach to salary thresholds and the Immigration Skills Charge and not the RLMT.”
The Government agree, which is why we are maintaining a firm requirement in the new points-based immigration system for migrants who are coming under the skilled worker route to be paid a salary that does not undercut domestic workers.
As outlined in the Government’s February policy statement, we have accepted the MAC’s recommendations on salary thresholds set out in its 28 January report on salary threshold and points-based systems. Building on this, the Government have set out additional detail on likely salary thresholds in the July Further Details document, so noble Lords can see exactly the approach we are taking and how we are ensuring that migrants cannot come in on the cheap. I remind noble Lords that, again on the MAC’s advice, we are retaining the immigration skills charge, which has to be paid by all employers of skilled migrant workers. The requirement to pay that charge, the proceeds of which contribute directly to the UK skills budget, helps ensure that employers are unlikely to employ a migrant when there is someone suitable to undertake the role within the domestic labour workforce. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, again spoke powerfully on the basis of her considerable experience at very senior levels in the private sector. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, had some most encouraging words on the basis of his ministerial experience. It did not seem to me that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, nor the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, exactly answered the question as to whether they are opposed to the abolition of this test.
The Minister gave a very good, technical answer based largely on the MAC, but the MAC are, of course, economists. They are not politicians and do not really care about how a British worker would feel if a job had gone to a foreigner and he had not even had a chance to apply. It is basically about fairness, as I said, and I hope the Government will be open to keeping a very close eye on this, in their own interests and those of public opinion, which is very strong, as I mentioned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 28. Once again, I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and that anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 28
Lord Green of Deddington
“(5A) Where regulations made under subsection (1) make provision for the minimum salary requirement for new entrants to be lower than the equivalent salary requirement for other migrants, the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5B) For the purposes of subsection (5A), “new entrant” means an EEA or Swiss migrant who meets one of the following criteria—(a) the migrant is switching from the Student or Graduate to the Skilled Worker route;(b) the migrant is under the age of 26 on the date of their application; or(c) the migrant is working towards a recognised professional qualification or moving directly into a postdoctoral position.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require parliamentary approval of regulations which would make provision for the recruitment of new entrants to the labour market at pay rates below the general salary requirement under the new Points Based System.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 28 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who cannot be here. This is the third in a trio of amendments designed to draw the Committee’s attention to some rather key aspects of the points-based system, which is on its way but not yet in full detail.
The purpose of the amendment is to tackle what I submit is a totally absurd situation. Your Lordships will be aware that the new points-based system will reduce the required level of education from degree level to A-level. It will also reduce the general salary requirement from £30,000 to £25,000 a year. As I have already described in the context of Amendment 26, these changes will produce literally millions of potential candidates.
However, it gets worse. There is also to be a special scheme for what are described as “new entrants”—that is, those aged over 18 but under 26 when they first arrive in the UK. For such workers, the salary requirement will be only £20,480 a year—little more than the national living wage but still attractive to many in poorer countries, including even in some EU member states. What is more, this route will lead to settlement and eventual access to our full welfare state. There is surely bound to be a substantial take-up.
Ironically, this comes at the very time that the Government are launching their Kickstart programme—a £2 billion scheme announced last week that they claim will create thousands of new jobs for young people. The programme is being launched in September. In January, we will open our labour market to these new entrants. As a result, our young people, who have had enough difficulties to face already, will face unlimited competition from foreign workers with A-levels who might have years of work experience and who are prepared to work for not much more than the national living wage. Roughly 1.5 million British workers will be directly affected—those aged between 18 and 25 who do not have a qualification higher than A-level. So, first, there is the Kickstart in September and then, I regret to say, the kick in the teeth in January.
I also regret to say that this has all the makings of a policy shambles. The Government would be well advised to back off, and back off soon, for it is our own young workers who will pay the price. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Lilley, have withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment with which I have much sympathy, especially now that I have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. A salary of £20,480 seems quite low. It is surprising that we are offering a new entrant route, because I believe that allows employers to pay one-third less than the headline rate. I am far from clear whether this plan will apply to both EEA and third-country migrants, thus the importance of the response to my Amendment 32, which was debated earlier. I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be able to clarify matters when she responds.
I am sure it is completely right to require parliamentary approval of such a scheme as Amendment 28 proposes, but I worry that Parliament is in fact going too far in permitting such a scheme under the powers in the Bill. If the new immigration arrangements post Brexit lead to a serious shortage of labour, then of course the Government can return to Parliament for more powers. I fear that we are bringing in too many changes at once and risk losing control of our borders and disadvantaging young people and the unemployed in this country. This new entrant route is one change that I think should be deferred for now.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am not really clear how this is meant to work. Is there any intention on the part of the Government to allow the so-called new entrants to enjoy a lower minimum salary requirement than other migrants? It is clear that there is something that I have not fully understood on this. I assume that the authors of the amendment fear, anticipate or foresee such a development, but it may be that, as I admitted earlier, my knowledge of the points-based migration system is insufficient to allow me to fully grasp to what mischief this amendment is addressed. I am surprised it is assumed that this situation could arise.
That is rather a lame comment, so I look forward even more than usual to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why this amendment is—as I assume she is about to say—unnecessary or does not pass muster. It seems to me that it too possibly falls foul of the problem of being bureaucratic and inflexible. I think I should stop there and listen to the Minister’s expert explanation.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I think I am in a very similar position to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in wanting to hear the Government’s reply.
I notice that the Government have been told that we are heading for a policy shambles, and I notice that the Minister has been told by those behind her that we are making too many changes. Obviously this is something that inevitably happens when we have a Bill with no proper scrutiny of what the Government can do.
Having made that comment, I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say and to whether she agrees that we are heading for a policy shambles and with the other concerns that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Green, and all noble Lords who spoke on these amendments. For the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others, I will circulate the current rules for new entrants—rather than send everyone to sleep with the old rules and the new rules—so that they can compare and contrast.
The amendment seeks to put in place separate parliamentary approval for regulations allowing EEA and Swiss citizen new entrants to the labour market to be paid less than other skilled workers. Minimum salary requirements are a key part of our new skilled worker route. They serve three main purposes: first, as an indicator that a job for which a UK employer wishes to recruit a migrant worker is indeed a skilled job; secondly, to ensure that a migrant worker is paid a fair wage; and thirdly, to prevent employers using migrant workers as a source of cheap labour, undercutting wages for resident workers. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we must have confidence in setting the salary requirements for skilled workers at the right level, balancing the need to control immigration effectively and ensure that the UK’s economy continues to prosper, and not setting them so low that they do not achieve these objectives.
As I said ahead of outlining proposals for the UK’s points-based immigration system, the Government sought independent economic advice from the MAC. In its January 2020 report, A Points-Based System and Salary Thresholds for Immigration—which I am sure everyone has read—the MAC addressed the need for a range of salary thresholds and made recommendations for new entrants. The Government have accepted the recommendations in that report. Our salary requirements for skilled workers are based on national earnings data for UK workers. The MAC identified that new entrants—defined essentially as those at the start of their careers—typically earn around 30% less than experienced workers. Setting lower salary requirements for new entrants reflects this reality and means we avoid setting the requirements at an artificially high level. Reduced rates for new entrants have been part of the immigration system since 2013. While we intend to continue the new entrant salary rate, in future the new rules will set a more consistent 30% reduction across all occupations. As the MAC identified, the differences in the current system are very large for some occupations. New entrant quantity surveyors, for example, may be paid 69% less than more experienced migrant workers in the same profession.
The noble Lord is also right there should be parliamentary scrutiny of these requirements, but there is already a long-established procedure for this. The Government are required to set out their immigration policy in the Immigration Rules. This includes salary requirements, which can determine whether an immigration application succeeds or fails. Changes to the rules must be laid before Parliament under the procedure set out in Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Either House may disapprove the changes by negative resolution within 40 days of them being laid and the Secretary of State may make any changes that appear to her required in the circumstances. Any such changes will be laid before Parliament within a further 40 days.
I do not think that it is necessary or proportionate to introduce a separate procedure for salary requirements for new entrants. As I have said, lower salary requirements for new entrants are not new. Skilled workers in the existing immigration system are subject to minimum salary requirements and the current Immigration Rules already provide for lower salaries for new entrants. Furthermore, there seems no particular reason for the procedure for new entrant salaries to be different from the procedure for the general salary requirements, or indeed any other requirements for skilled workers, such as the need for a sponsoring employer, a job at the appropriate skill level and the ability to speak English to an accepted standard. The nature of our points-based system is that all these requirements are closely interlinked.
Additionally, our salary requirements, including those for new entrants, are based on UK earnings data. We intend to update them regularly in line with the latest available data, ensuring that migrant workers’ pay keeps pace with that of resident workers. The procedure set out in Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 enables us to do so quickly and responsively, while maintaining an essential element of parliamentary scrutiny. Bringing forward draft regulations under an affirmative procedure would lessen this responsiveness.
We may also wish to amend the criteria used to identify new entrants in future. By way of example, we will be removing the option relating to university milk round recruitment to reflect the removal of the resident labour market test. We have also agreed the MAC’s recommendation to include options relating to those working towards professional qualifications or moving into post-doctoral positions. Similar changes may be needed from time to time, which this amendment would make more difficult by placing the new entrant criteria in the Bill.
As outlined in the February policy statement, the Government are committed to continuing to refine the system in the light of experience and will consider adding further flexibility. Specific parliamentary arrangements that risk splitting up interconnecting policies should not prevent this.
For the reasons I have set out, including that we will continue to lay before Parliament the full details of requirements—including those for new entrants—I hope that the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, that was a short but interesting debate—interesting because very few people in the Committee had much idea of what is proposed. The Minister loyally read out what she had been advised to say, but there are just one or two little points. One is that this was based firmly on MAC advice. As I have mentioned, the MAC is a very competent bunch of people, but they are all economists. There seems to be no political common sense engaged in examining its recommendations. What is more, they were made in January, before the Covid crisis struck us, and so was the February policy statement to which the Minister referred. All these things were cooked up before we faced the very serious crisis that we now face. I therefore hope that the Government will be light on their feet and not wait for this to run out of control before they take some action to lower what is bound to be a highly attractive route, which will be, without question, to the detriment of our own young people, who will not have the work experience of a 24 year-old from overseas. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or the other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 30
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) must ensure that no fee is charged that may deter or prevent registration of an EEA or Swiss national as a British citizen.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment is to probe the impact upon rights to British citizenship of measures relating to fees (currently £1012 for a child and £1206 for an adult to register a statutory right to British citizenship) that have been introduced or are to be introduced in connection with the ending of free movement.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 30 and to speak to Amendment 68. These probing amendments are about citizenship, and I am grateful to the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens—of which I am a patron—and Amnesty International UK for their help with them. I pay tribute to these organisations for all the work they have done to promote and protect children’s citizenship rights.
For technical reasons, the amendments relate solely to EEA and Swiss nationals, but the issues they raise echo concerns raised previously on a number of occasions in your Lordships’ House, particularly with regard to children’s citizenship rights.
Children born in this country to parents settled here, or who have grown up here from a young age, are entitled to register as British citizens. A combination of factors, including exorbitant fees, lack of awareness of the need to register their right to citizenship and the difficulties faced by local authorities in assisting looked-after children to exercise the right, have resulted in thousands of children being denied that right to British citizenship.
One consequence of our leaving the EU is that many more children could be in this position. They are the children of EU nationals who were born or who have grown up in the UK from an early age; the Home Office appears to have ignored this group. In establishing the EUSS, it has done nothing to raise awareness of their citizenship rights or to encourage children and young people with these rights to exercise them. Instead, because the EUSS is free, there is a real danger that many of them will be encouraged to secure themselves immigration status and not confirm or register themselves as British citizens, which they may not realise is open to them and involves a fee of £1,012.
In a High Court judgment in December last year—mentioned in the debate on an earlier amendment—that fee was deemed unlawful, as it was set without having regard to the best interests of the child. That decision is being appealed, but its reasoning is highly pertinent. In particular, it underlined the importance of citizenship.
In response to a similar set of amendments in the Commons Committee stage, the Immigration Minister argued that any child looked after by their local authority can apply for limited and indefinite leave to remain without having to pay a fee, and that citizenship itself
“is not essential for any individual to work, live, study or access services in the UK.”
When he was urged not to pursue that line of argument by Stuart McDonald MP, he re-emphasised that citizenship
“is not something that people need in order to access services.”—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, 16/6/20; cols. 208-09.]
Does the Conservative Party really believe in such a transactional view of the significance of citizenship? In contrast, in 1981, during the passage of the British Nationality Act, which conferred the right to register as a citizen, it was emphasised that this was in part to ensure that the children concerned should have
“as strong a sense of security as possible”.
Citizenship is about security, belonging, inclusion, integration and identity. Indeed, the High Court judgment cited the Secretary of State’s own guidance document, which states that:
“Becoming a British citizen is a significant life event. Apart from allowing a child to apply for a British citizen passport, British citizenship gives them the opportunity to participate more fully in the life of their local community as they grow up.”
As noted on the earlier amendment, the High Court judgment referred to a “mass of evidence” that the inability to exercise their right to register as citizens because of the fee causes many children born in the UK to
“feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.”
Is this really what the Government want? Do we want many more children to feel this way in future? This false equation of immigration status with citizenship was one factor in the Windrush scandal. Please do not let us repeat it.
Amendment 30 addresses the impact of the fee level on registration. In her Windrush Lessons Learned Review, Wendy Williams notes that
“there’s little evidence that the impact on people was effectively considered”
when fees were increased significantly. Amendment 68 specifies that the level should not exceed the administrative cost, which according to the Home Office is currently £372—£640 less than the fee charged. The Home Office’s argument that such a mark-up on the fee is justified because it provides a “benefit” and because the Home Office needs the money to run a sustainable immigration and citizenship system—repeated by the Minister at Second Reading—is specious because we are talking about a citizenship right bestowed by Parliament, not a discretionary immigration status.
Amendment 68 also excludes from the fee any child who has been looked after by a local authority—a particularly marginalised group of children. There is no logic to local authorities having to pay these fees on behalf of these children as it simply involves a transfer of resources from local to central government. I believe some other noble Lords might say more about this. It also requires the Secretary of State to take steps to raise awareness of the right to register as a British citizen but I will not say more about that now as it is the main focus of Amendment 67, which will be debated on a later day.
Because of the restrictions created by the Bill’s Long Title, these are simply probing amendments. However, as I am sure the Minister realises, the more general question of the barriers to registering the right to British citizenship, particularly the level of the fee, is one that we will return to in this House time and again. Given the Home Office’s welcome readiness to accept the recommendations of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, and the dangers of now repeating some of the flaws it revealed, will it now think again? As a first step, will the Minister, on behalf of the Home Office, undertake to look again at the level of the fee, which even Sajid Javid, when Home Secretary, admitted was “huge”? I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has been terrier-like in her pursuit of these issues. I, like the whole House, am grateful to her for that and I too thank the organisations she mentioned.
The fees are to exercise a right, but a right is no use if you cannot exercise it. The fees are a deterrent. They are a deterrent if you think that you are in a sufficiently secure position and do not understand the distinction between immigration status and citizenship. They are a deterrent if you are told by the Government that you are in secure position through the European Union settled status scheme. They are obviously a deterrent if you cannot afford them. I will not be the only Member of the Committee who has heard distressing stories of families who have realised that they cannot afford to pay for the citizenship registration of all family members and have selected some. If there is a mother with four children—well, we can all do the maths.
The noble Baroness used words, which I have written down, that are about more than security; they are about a sense of belonging. Otherwise, over the years why would so many people have chosen to become citizens through a sometimes pretty laborious route, having to take tests about things that would probably be mysteries to many of us and culminating in citizenship ceremonies? I have been to one. The ceremony is an important part of the whole process—the recognition of that belonging.
Everyone understands that there are administrative costs to these things, but the current fees far exceed the costs. There is a surplus—I use that term rather than “profit”, because I understand that the Minister protests at the term “profit”—in the order of £600, as I understand it, and £800 in the case of adults, where the fees are something like £1,200. The Home Office talks about this surplus being justified because of the benefit, but I do not understand the logic of citizenship being a benefit if indefinite leave to remain is an equivalent, or at least sufficient to meet all the attributes of citizenship, as seems to be argued by the Home Office.
The noble Baroness mentioned the Windrush scandal, and I am sure the Home Office must be anxious not to get into a similar situation. It has said that all Wendy Williams’s recommendations are accepted. About three of those are about meaningful engagement with stakeholders and communities and the use of research. If the Home Office were to engage on this topic and undertake research, I think it would understand how very fully these issues play with the people affected. In any event, as has been said, citizenship is about rights—the right to citizenship of the children referred to—and we should not put blocks in the way of rights.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for the excellent way in which she introduced these two amendments. I have added my name to Amendment 30, but I support Amendment 68 as well. I echo her words and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and Amnesty International UK for their helpful briefings.
I will not detain the Committee long, but I emphasise and urge my noble friend to consider that, as the two noble Baronesses said, this is about not a benefit but a statutory right to give someone the security of UK citizenship. If the cost of the administration is £372 according to the Home Office, it seems difficult to understand why three times that amount—a 200% mark- up—is applied to those trying to exercise their rights. It should not be a business transaction; that should not be any part of this equation.
During the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, it was said that Parliament intended that all children growing up in the UK with that connection
“should have as strong a sense of security as possible.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/2/81; col. 177.]
Charging more than £1,000 will clearly be prohibitive. As both noble Baronesses who have spoken said, the High Court found in 2019 that unaffordability meant that children who were born here—who feel British—feel alienated. Have we not learned from the Windrush generation that people should not be excluded from their citizenship rights? Indeed, on the question of Windrush, this could be a near exact repeat of what happened. In the 1980s, Parliament gave people the right to register as British citizens, but apparently they were discouraged from exercising that right. Just as it wrongly told the Windrush generation that immigration status was the same as having citizenship, I hope that today the Home Office will not repeat the mistaken claim that British people do not need British citizenship and are adequately provided for by applying for a different immigration status. These are lessons that were highlighted in the report of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review and I hope that we will take them seriously. I support these probing amendments and hope that my noble friend will be able to address them before Report.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I also rise to speak in support of Amendment 30, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 68. By the end of this set of contributions, I think the Minister will feel that she is ensconced in an echo chamber from which she will find it hard to escape. She knows full well that the subject of citizenship fees has returned to haunt her, her colleagues and her predecessors, and will probably do the same to her successors. Why is this? The simple reason is that by any reasonable international comparisons, which are there to be looked at, our citizenship fees are punitively high and, for many, completely unaffordable.
At Second Reading, as others have mentioned, the Minister said:
“On the face of it, they seem high, particularly when we are talking about children, but application fees for border, immigration and citizenship services play a vital role in our ability to run a sustainable system … and substantially reduce the burden on UK taxpayers.”—[Official Report, 22/7/20; col. 2296.]
Perhaps I may gently draw the Minister’s attention to page 68 of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review. A former Home Office says:
“The basic resource for the management of the immigration system is wholly inadequate and always has been. And the fundamental reason for that is if you’re the minister and you go to the Chief Secretary and you say, ‘I want more money for the immigration service’, they say ‘you must be joking—you think the British public would support that?’”
I turn now to page 51 of the same review. This is from a member of the Home Office’s own staff:
“Staff from both Immigration Enforcement (IE) and UK Visas and Immigration (UKVI) told the review they did not feel they had received adequate training; they also mentioned that the Home Office gave applicants minimal help, often referring people to the Gov.uk website, which staff themselves said they struggled to understand or navigate.”
What is described in the review is a cause of shame and embarrassment. I hope sincerely that the lessons that the Home Secretary has publicly stated would be taken on board and acted on will be demonstrated in the way in which the Government try to navigate their way through some of the complexities and inevitable consequences, many of them unforeseen, of this Bill.
Amendment 30 asks that EEA and Swiss nationals, who of course are eligible to apply for settled status, are not encouraged to go for this as the cheaper, easy option, because in many cases they are eligible for, and may wish to apply for, citizenship. The high fees make settled status a more realistic option for many but it is not necessarily a course of action that will be in their best interests.
I draw the attention of the Minister and her officials to the detailed submission made in July of this year by the PRCBC and Amnesty International to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration for an inspection called “A Further Inspection of the EU Settlement Scheme”. The submission concludes by highlighting that:
“There is, therefore, a huge risk that many British children and young people of EEA/Swiss parentage will be wrongly led to not have their British citizenship confirmed or register for that citizenship to which they are entitled.”
I ask the Home Office, at the very least, to read that submission carefully and to digest its very detailed contents and case studies so that on Report we can have a discussion in which it is clear that the issue is better understood.
As reported on page 50 of the Windrush Lessons Learned Review document, a former Minister commented on the
“total lack of proper administrative competence, basically”
that the scandal had highlighted. Can we not do better than this?
Amendment 68 is more specific about the position regarding fees for the registration of British citizenship, particularly for children in care looked after by a local authority. It also asks the Home Office to raise awareness of people’s right to register their citizenship. I ask the Home Office, when looking at the document submitted to the independent inspector, to look very specifically at the case of a young lady called Mercedes, who was brought up in care, and to see the enormous complications that resulted from her situation and, frankly, the rather inadequate way in which both local government and the Home Office dealt with her parlous situation.
Both amendments have in common a challenge to the Home Office and the Government to live up to their responsibilities and core principles and values, which were often so lamentably absent during the sorry Windrush saga. As I asked earlier, can we please not do better than this?
We shall study the Minister’s responses carefully and hope and expect that at least some of the concerns and questions raised will, at the very minimum, be acknowledged. We are very happy to work with her, if she so wishes, between now and Report if she sees any merit in some of the arguments that we are putting forward. If not, she knows that all of us will be back at Report.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 30 and 68, as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
Clearly, as prevented by Amendment 30, EEA and Swiss nationals should not be denied their British citizenship just because registration costs might have become too much for them to afford. Nor, of course, as protected against in Amendment 68, ought children looked after by a local authority to be caught up within the same anomaly.
However, although the corrective of Amendment 30, if accepted, might subsume that of Amendment 68, nevertheless the noble Baroness is quite right to spell out in its own right the threat to children looked after by local authorities, and the necessary remedy which she proposes within Amendment 68.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree and can accept these amendments.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
This draconian measure can only exacerbate that deterioration, which is why its use should be limited to 24 hours at most. I must admit that the Minister has confused me in her reply to the first group of amendments that were discussed by the Committee.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Lord is speaking to the same set of amendments as we are. We are speaking to Amendments 30 and 68. It might be convenient to move on to the next speaker and then return to the noble Lord. I apologise if he was speaking to this group, but perhaps we could hear him after the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)
We shall try to return to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I call the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I support Amendments 30 and 68. I declare my interest as recorded in the register as receiving research support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project. That project, RAMP, involves a diverse network of parliamentarians working together. There are four principals: myself and three from the other place, one each from the Liberal Democrats, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. We work together to support constructive and practical changes to ensure that the UK has a migration system fit for a successful and integrated Britain. As noble Lords can imagine, with such a diverse group of parliamentarians we do not agree on everything, but we have consistently agreed that the charging of excessive fees for citizenship is simply unacceptable.
It is a straightforward principle that those to whom Parliament has granted a right to citizenship should not be barred from registering that right by its cost. Citizenship is not a product to be sold; it is a right. As they aspire to be outward-looking and global, this Government should be seeking to make it more straightforward for people to exercise their rights to register their status as citizens.
I wish to speak specifically about the issue of children who, although they fairly regard themselves as British, may not even realise that they are not in fact properly registered as British citizens. When they realise it, prohibitive and regressive fees of more than £1,000 can prevent them from then exercising their right to registration. We have already been reminded that last November the High Court found what it called a “mass of evidence” that a significant number of children in particular cannot afford the citizenship registration fee.
Amendment 68 would specifically require that no fee for someone to register as a British citizen is set above the administrative cost to the Home Office. We have heard the figures already so I will not repeat them. It is a surplus that is indefensible for those who have a clear right to British citizenship, and to use that as a cross-subsidy of the rest of the Home Office’s work leaves many of us deeply uncomfortable.
Some may regard the price as a good deal for British citizenship. I am afraid that for many affected, such a price is simply unaffordable. It is the poorest who will be most affected. Moreover, it is iniquitous to charge a high fee simply to register a status that is a person’s right. The role of the Home Office is simply to recognise the rights granted to these people by Parliament and get them registered as citizens.
I specifically draw attention to the situation of children in local authority care, and I pay tribute to the ongoing work of the Children’s Society on this issue. These are among some of the most vulnerable children among us and are already marginalised. There should simply be no fee for such a child to register their citizenship. Where children cannot afford even the administrative cost of registration, they should not be excluded from their citizenship rights.
We have already heard powerfully from others the parallels with the Windrush scandal, the shame of which still hangs over the Home Office. We really must avoid any repeat.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these amendments. I hope she will agree with me that the Home Office has no business erecting barriers, financial or otherwise, that prevent people registering as British citizens, particularly children, when those people have been granted that right by this Parliament.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley)
We shall go back to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have nothing to add to what the other speakers have said so powerfully. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said that the Minister would find this somewhat like an echo chamber—and I confess that when I looked at these two amendments and thought about whether I would speak on them, I wondered whether I might be repeating myself. I remember speaking on many occasions since 23 June 2016, at various stages, about the rights of EU nationals and of individuals. In particular, I have contributed to debates on amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I pay tribute to her for the persistence with which she tables amendments to piece after piece of legislation, trying to hold this Government to account and remind them of the importance of doing the right thing.
These amendments are about the rights of citizens. We are not talking about people who are saying, “Maybe I would like to change my nationality; maybe I would like to become a British citizen.” We are talking about people being able to register their right as citizens. The Minister might not think that is terribly important. She might think, particularly about an EU national with settled status, “They don’t need to worry. Their rights will be so guaranteed in the United Kingdom—a country whose values of liberal democracy, human rights and the rule of law are second to none.” However, if a member of Her Majesty’s Government can say from the Dispatch Box in the other place that the Government are willing to go against international law in a “specific and limited” way associated with the withdrawal agreement, how can people possibly have certainty about the rights of EU nationals with settled status? People need guarantees; they need certainty. Perhaps the Minister will understand why we feel it is so important to raise these issues and probe them again—because the Government do not necessarily always act in the best interests of the people they are meant to serve, or of the most vulnerable.
Children in care certainly should not have to pay a fee, which will undoubtedly be unaffordable. Nor should anybody be expected to pay a fee of more than £1,000—three times the cost of processing the right to register their citizenship. If this country really wants to go global and demonstrate its values, surely one way to do that is to ensure that the rights of the most vulnerable are secured—and one way of doing that is to make sure that we are not effectively profiteering from the costs of registering citizenship.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lady Lister for the way in which, as has just been pointed out, she has consistently fought on these issues through Bill after Bill, and debate after debate. She has a firmness of resolve that is to be envied. I am also particularly glad that we heard the right reverend Prelate speak in this debate. He spoke with his usual incisive analysis, and, much more importantly, with his usual decency and humanity, which seem to underline his whole approach to public affairs.
In this debate, we are not just talking about citizens who should be enabled to establish their rights. We are talking about vulnerable, individual people. We are talking about children. We hear a great deal from this Government about our desire to be an independent nation, standing on our own and demonstrating to the world what life should be about. What kind of Britain are we trying to portray? As an older man, I find it almost inconceivable that difficulties such as the price of registration should be used as a means of deterring a number of applicants. I also find it deeply sad that the nation that we should be in—where we are compassionate, where we are almost consumed with concern for the vulnerable, where we want them to establish their rights—is replaced by an impersonal policy of this kind. I find it incredible that we even have to look at a situation like this. It is not a Britain of which we can be proud. It is a Britain that must be raising doubts, all over the world, among all those who have fought and struggled for human rights, decency and civilised values. These are not decent civilised values that we are hearing here, and we need to ensure that this is put right.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to be part of the infantry supporting the arguments and the amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, as we have done on previous occasions. It is a tragedy that we even have to revisit this issue, because it ought to have been resolved by now. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, well enough to know that she cannot be happy that this has not been resolved, not least because of the High Court judgment that we witnessed in December. It is not worthy of this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, was pointing to, there is a sort of shabbiness of generating income through fees above the administrative cost of the registration system. The sheer inappropriateness of applying this charge to children—as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, to children even in the care of local authorities—is something we surely have to rectify.
The noble Baroness will recall the exchanges we had via correspondence and Parliamentary Questions following the High Court ruling on 19 December. I listened to what my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool said about these issues coming around: I provided a witness statement to the court based on my participation in the proceedings on the British Nationality Act 1981, when I was a young Member of another place. In my witness statement, I cited the stated intention of Parliament in 1981: that children who were born here and grew up here but were without parents would be entitled to be registered as British citizens. I told the court that I had no doubt that it was Parliament’s intention that this should be done via a straightforward and accessible process. There was no discussion at the time about a revenue generator or profitability or any of the other phrases people want to use. I am sure that the Government did not set out to say, “We want to make a profit”, but this is way above the amount necessary to be spent to process these applications. Whatever we call it, it does not seem right to me that this surplus should be placed on these vulnerable people. I am not alone in thinking that this is a disproportionate amount of money. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, concluded her remarks by reminding us that it was the former Home Secretary Sajid Javid himself who said that this was a “huge amount of money”.
It my witness statement, I also referred to our duties under the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In fact, in 1981 it was of course against a backdrop of riots in Toxteth in Liverpool and Brixton. The main focus of our debate was expressed in a statement by the Minister of the day, who said that we had to encourage a greater sense of having a stake in society and promote British identity and citizenship, especially as some children were losing the automatic right to citizenship as a result of the 1981 Act. This entitlement was not to be made dependent on a child satisfying the Secretary of State that they met the relevant conditions of the Act. This is a point eloquently made, and insisted upon, in a statement to your Lordships’ House on 6 October 1981 —it can be found at col. 36 in Hansard—by the then Lord Advocate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
In December last, on the day of the High Court ruling by Mr Justice Jay, I tabled two Questions to the noble Baroness. One was on
“what assessment they have made of the ruling of the High Court on 19 December in the case brought by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens that there is a ‘mass of evidence’ that the fee charged to children registering for British citizenship prevents many such children from registering British citizenship, leaving them feeling ‘alienated, excluded, ‘second-best’, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.’”
The second Question was on
“when they intend to remove the fee charged by the Home Office to register children as British citizens; and whether they intend to refund those who paid such fees before the High Court ruling on 19 December.”
The noble Baroness replied to me, as she always courteously and efficiently does, and I was grateful for that. On 7 January, she said:
“The judgment was handed down on 19 December, and we are carefully considering its implications, and next steps.”
I know your Lordships’ House will want to hear this evening what care has gone into that process, where we are up to and what the next steps will be. Today, she has the chance to outline those steps.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Jay said that:
“British citizenship is a status aspired to and cherished by many, conferring benefits on the holder which are both tangible and intangible.”
Mr Justice Jay confirmed the details which we in our debate have laid before the Committee of the rising costs of these fees: children entitled to be registered under the British Nationality Act 1981 must pay a fee of £1,012—with a higher amount of £1,206 for adults—together with £80 for the citizenship ceremony. He confirmed the Secretary of State’s admission that
“only £372 of that fee is attributed to the administrative cost of processing the application; the remainder effectively cross-subsidises other functions in connection with immigration and nationality.”
In his judgment, Mr Justice Jay said that:
“The evidence before me is that for a substantial number of children a fee of £1,012 is simply unaffordable.”
He cited earlier judgments that
“the fact of belonging to a country fundamentally affects the manner of exercise of a child’s family and private life, during childhood and well beyond.”
He quoted with approval the Secretary of State’s own guidance documents. At paragraph 20, Mr Justice Jay stated what noble Lords have repeated in your Lordships’ House today:
“there is a mass of evidence supporting the proposition that a significant number of children, and no doubt the majority growing up in households on low or middle incomes, could only pay the fee by those acting on their behalf being required to make unreasonable sacrifices.”
Mr Justice Jay also found a mass of evidence to support our arguments that children who are unable to attain such citizenship
“feel alienated, excluded, isolated, ‘second-best’, insecure and not fully assimilated into the culture and social fabric of the UK.”
The judgment reminded the Government that they have a paramount duty to consider a child’s best interests. Evidence was laid before the High Court demonstrating that a disproportionality in this policy, inevitably hitting the poorest and most disadvantaged, needs to be addressed. Put simply, it is discriminatory and unfair. In his conclusion, he said:
“My conclusion that the Secretary of State has violated the section means that the 2018 Regulations are unlawful in that respect to the extent that they set the fee for registration applications brought by children at £1,012.”
Basic are the human rights at stake here. Being mindful of the Windrush scandal, which has been referred to, and the arguments about inclusivity, integration and the promotion of British citizenship, we must surely support amendments that rectify this arrangement and fly in the face of all these things. We must reassert the principles enshrined in legislation enacted by the Conservative Government of the day in 1981, and hope that the Home Office will not only carefully consider the implications of Mr Justice Jay’s judgment but use the opportunities of this Bill to rectify the injustices that undoubtedly exist.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow powerful speeches from across the House, not least the one I immediately follow, from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and of course that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I join the tributes to her and her record of campaigning, and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. Other noble Lords have driven in the same direction: the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, others on the screen, and of course my noble friends Lady Smith and Lady Hamwee—everybody, to be honest—made the very reasonable request that the Government reconsider their policies on the fees for citizenship. The terms “shabby”, “punitive”, “revenue generator” and “indefensible cross-subsidy”—I think that was from the right reverend Prelate—have all been used.
It seems extremely odd to be discouraging potential citizens. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, this is being put in a sort of transactional context, but it is more than that. I have only once had the honour of being asked to preside at a citizenship ceremony—when I was an MEP, I was out of the country a lot of the time, so the opportunity arose only once. It really was an honour and a privilege to see all those eager faces looking back at me. Those people wanted to become British citizens, for all the reasons that have been expressed in this debate: to have their status recognised; to have a stake in our society; not to feel an outsider; and to feel that they truly belonged in Britain.
The contrast between the current situation and the language recalled tonight from the debates on the British Nationality Act 1981—which of course was also passed under a Conservative Government—is considerable. We should be encouraging people to become citizens, even if they are dual citizens, which I am glad to say is generally permitted—it is perfectly reasonable for people to choose which cricket team they wish to cheer without feeling that they are not loyal to the country. It seems incomprehensible that we would not want people, particularly those who have been in the country a long time, to move into the full role of citizens. That is good for our existing society, as well as for them. We want more people to feel that they have a stake, that they belong and that they are fully recognised, not fewer people.
Then, of course, there is the special concern about vulnerable children, especially those in care, for whom it is even more unreasonable to charge more than £1,000 for them to become citizens. The danger of a new Windrush scandal has been raised tonight, and we will have a further debate on that at the end of our discussions in Committee. After the experience of the appalling treatment that the Windrush victims suffered, and the Williams review and the Government’s pledge to implement its recommendations, it does not seem very wise to knowingly run the risk that we could be creating more people who are not properly recognised and integrated and who risk all sorts of horrible things happening to them.
From the non-partisan nature of this discussion, it is evident that this proposal has such wide support across the Committee, so I implore the Government to think seriously about whether the cost-benefit ratio of charging what, in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, may be three times the actual administrative cost—a 200% mark-up—is truly worth it in view of the wider cost of potentially either excluding people from citizenship or, even worse, having a new Windrush generation.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I will be very brief, since I would only be repeating what has already been said, but I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett on her determination on this and, indeed, other related issues. EEA and Swiss nationals will shortly be joining the queue of those having to pay visa fees or fees when seeking a right to British citizenship. As we know, the Home Office currently makes a very substantial surplus in relation to this kind of applications following the major cuts in the department’s budget over the last decade. We believe that visa fees should not exceed the cost price.
Amendment 30 provides that regulations under Clause 4
“must ensure that no fee is charged that may deter or prevent registration of an EEA or Swiss national as a British citizen.”
Amendment 68 provides that no person who has lost their free movement rights under this Bill may be charged a fee for registering for British citizenship over the cost of processing their application.
Reference has been made to the British Nationality Act 1981, which contained provisions in respect of payment of fees relating to a child with an entitlement to register for British citizenship. For children with a parent who had free movement rights, Amendment 68 seeks to protect this position by providing that, if they are in care, they may not be charged any fee to register—if they are eligible—for British citizenship and that, otherwise, they may not be charged fees that they or their parent, guardian or carer cannot afford.
I simply conclude by expressing support for the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Lister. I share the concerns that she expressed about the seemingly very casual attitude to citizenship shown by the Government in the debate in the Commons on this issue. I hope we hear a more understanding response from the Government tonight.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken so passionately in this debate, but I pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. If nothing else, she is utterly consistent. I was going to describe her focus as laser-like but I think terrier-like is probably a good additional description.
I will address the court judgment first for the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been given leave to appeal on that, and we expect a judgment in the autumn. Therefore, the noble Lord will totally understand that I actually cannot even speak about this.
However, putting that aside, I will address the concept of citizenship fees being profit making. The overall income from citizenship fees is £2.09 billion; the cost of BICS, the borders, immigration and citizenship system, is £3.18 billion, so it does not even meet its cost overall. Far from making a profit, it still subsidises the overall cost of BICS. I might add that the principle of charging above cost has been in place for more than a decade: that clearly includes all three main political parties represented here in your Lordships’ House. A consultation was run at the end of 2013 on charging principles, which are included in the Immigration Act 2014. We have continued to apply these charging principles, agreed by Parliament, in any proposed fee changes. That said, the Government’s intention is that EEA and non-EEA citizens will be treated the same under the future immigration system. This means that under the new system, the intent is that existing fees, waivers and exceptions will be applied equally.
The issue of fees charged to EEA citizens has been discussed here and of course, as noble Lords have said, in the other place during the passage of the Bill. Throughout, the Government have been clear that decisions regarding future fees payable or funding of the system should be taken in the round and outside of the passage of the Bill, but I totally understand—I would probably have done the same had I been the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—that this is a good opportunity to discuss it. A legislative structure for application fees, with long-standing appropriate checks and balances is already in place. Any changes by way of amendments to the Bill would obviously undermine the existing legal framework, with its purpose of providing the ability to set fees and exceptions in secondary legislation. It would also reduce clarity in the fees structure by creating an alternative statutory mechanism for controlling fees.
Amendment 30 would have the effect of creating a two-tier system and would not deliver the required funding to the system, or indeed deliver the policy intent of FBIS, the future borders and immigration system.
Turning to Amendment 68, this is clearly an important matter and one which has been discussed during the passage of the Bill in the other place. The aim of subsection (1) of the proposed new clause is to limit the Secretary of State’s power to charge a fee for British citizenship applications to the cost of processing the application for anybody who has enjoyed free movement rights, alongside the wider context of charging fees to register as a British citizen. As I have already noted, imposing any amendments to fees as part of the Bill would cut across the existing statutory framework for fees and would risk undermining the funding and coherence of the current and future system, but I think the noble Baroness knows that; we are simply having a discussion about her feelings and the feelings of others on the level of the fees.
Subsection (2) seeks to prevent the Secretary of State charging a fee to register as a British citizen to the child of a person who has exercised free movement rights if the child is in receipt of local authority assistance. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords will know that local authority assistance is a broad term that could include those accessing a range of financial and practical support measures offered by local authorities, including citizenship fees. The Government offer fee exemptions that allow access to limited and indefinite leave to remain to be obtained free of charge for those who are looked after by a local authority. The ability to obtain citizenship may therefore be delayed, but not removed entirely.
Subsection (3) seeks to remove fees to register as a British citizen for children of those who have exercised free movement rights, where the child, child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford the associated fees. This raises similar points to those in subsection (1) and Amendment 30, and I refer to my responses on those points with regards to maintaining a sustainable current and future immigration system and there already being suitable legislative structures in place.
Implementing subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to make persons who have exercised free movement rights aware of their rights to obtain British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1981. The Government have made it clear, when explaining the rights afforded by settled status obtained via the EU settlement scheme, that this may include a right to apply for British citizenship, providing that eligibility requirements are met. The information about becoming a British citizen is available on GOV.UK and we are committed to ensuring that information of this nature is fully accessible for all.
I hope that, with those explanations, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
The Minister talked about the service being far from making a profit, yet we have heard from the Government on previous occasions about the surplus that is achieved from individual payments and fees. Will she write to noble Lords after today’s debate explaining in only as little detail as is required what the finances of this service are in order to square those two statements?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I could go through them tonight, but I think the Committee is probably getting quite weary, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, so I will write and explain.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who added their names to this amendment or who spoke from across the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, talked about being a member of the infantry. With infantry like this, who needs generals? We have had such powerful, passionate, well-informed speeches from across the Committee. I think they all came from the heart, and that is what made them so powerful. It is clear that everybody feels very strongly about this, particularly when talking about the implications for children.
The right reverend Prelate used the word “iniquitous”, which is unusually strong, given his measured approach. This is iniquitous and we should take note when someone such as the right reverend Prelate uses that word. It is a tragedy that we are having to come back to argue this again. The Windrush scandal is hanging over it all like a spectre. It is important that we do not repeat that shameful episode in our country’s history.
I thank the Minister. I am relieved that she did not try to argue that citizenship is not important—I think she realised that she was on hiding to nothing if she tried to do that. Apart from that, however, I am disappointed that there is no sign of any give in the Government’s position.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but somebody else wants to ask a question. I shall let them ask the question and then come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to let her finish. I am really sorry about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has made a late request to ask a question and I think we should let her ask it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I thank noble Lords and apologise for my lateness; I am having a very bad day with technology. I tried to send the email about 30 minutes ago.
I join other noble Lords in being very disappointed given the powerful and wide-ranging contributions from all sides of the Committee, both spiritual and temporal. In asking my question, I think I need to declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I wonder whether the Minister can offer us one concession tonight or whether she will go away and think about making this concession. I refer to Amendment 68 and to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause which refers to children in the care of a local authority. I do not need to tell noble Lords that local authority funding is extremely stretched and extremely fragile and that there are huge demands on children’s services. As a responsible institutional parent, a local authority would surely want to secure citizenship for a child in its care, but that would be taking money away from other services, so will the Minister consider at least thinking about ensuring that if there is no waiving of fees, local authorities are recompensed for the cost of those fees?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness has just demonstrated that it is really beneficial to be here throughout the whole of the debate, because I covered that aspect on local authorities in my speech. If she reads Hansard, it will clarify the matter for her, and if she would like to come back to me again, I would be very happy to respond.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I was saying that I found the Minister’s response disappointing. Yet again, when she talked about the cost of the immigration and citizenship service, she seemed to be conflating immigration and citizenship. Part of the point that we are making is that they are different and that it is irrelevant what the overall cost of the immigration and borders system is, because these fees should not be paying for that system. They should simply be paying for the cost of registering a right of citizenship that already exists. That was disappointing, and she might want to look again at that.
The Minister said that EEA and non-EEA people would be treated the same in future. That is not very reassuring because we have been going on for years about how badly the non-EEA people are treated in this area. She talked about a two-tier system not delivering the required fund or policy intent, and I was not sure what she meant by “policy intent”. As she is going to be writing a letter to us anyway, perhaps she could clarify that.
I was also very puzzled—this might be partly what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was referring to—that subsection (2) of the amendment does not refer to local authority assistance. That was an original amendment that was put down in the Commons. The Minister in the Commons pointed out that this was a very vague term, so we deliberately put in this amendment the words
“looked after by a local authority.”
I do not quite know whether the Minister was speaking to an amendment that was laid in the Commons rather than the amendment that is before her now. We are talking very specifically about looked-after children, not any child who gets any kind of assistance from a local authority. Perhaps she could clarify that when she writes her letter.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, who talked about the importance of doing the right thing. That is why we are all still here, in this echo chamber, and we will continue to be here until the Government do the right thing. The only dispute I have with the notion of an echo chamber is that echoes tend to fade away. This echo is not going to fade away: it is going to get stronger. The more the Government try to resist it, the more we will be coming back. It might not be part of this Bill, because clearly the amendment is not going to pass, but there will be ample opportunities and we will not let this go. We will, of course, wait to see what will happen in the appeal, but I hope the Government will remember the importance of doing the right thing, because the Government are now doing the wrong thing. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We come now to the group consisting of Amendment 33. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate—hopefully sooner rather than later. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 33
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may not limit or remove the right to vote in local government elections of persons who lose rights under section 1 unless the Secretary of State has laid before each House of Parliament a draft of the proposed regulations and an assessment of their effect on the right to vote, at least three months before a statutory instrument containing the regulations is to be made.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to allow Parliament the opportunity to consider proposals for restricting the right to vote in local elections of EU citizens.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) (V)
My Lords, currently EU citizens—not citizens of Switzerland or the wider EFTA—may stand and vote in local elections. This is a right under UK law. You would think that they would feel secure for the future in this, knowing that an Act of Parliament would be required if the right were to be withdrawn, coupled with the promise made by the Vote Leave campaign that EU citizens would be treated no less favourably than at present. However, under Clause 4, which we have debated almost into the ground, there could be secondary legislation to amend the primary legislation.
Over the summer, my noble friend Lord Tyler asked a Written Question about the local elections that were postponed from May 2020 to May 2021. When I say “local”, I include police and crime commissioners and the Greater London Authority. The noble Lord, Lord True—the Cabinet Office Minister—confirmed that the right would apply next May; this regards England because the franchise for local elections is devolved. That is logical because the elections should have been last May. In any event, they will take place during a period when applications to the EU settled status scheme are still open.
I understand that the Government are dealing with local voting rights on a country-by-country basis, regarding this as a reciprocal matter. My list may be out of date, but I believe that they have signed bilateral voting rights agreements with Spain, Portugal, Luxemburg and Poland. Scotland and Wales have already passed the necessary legislation for beyond 2021.
The right to vote and stand is important. It is a matter of social cohesion. I will not be the only Member of the House who has had a conversation about this on the doorstep during election campaigns—at all levels of elections—where I have encountered citizens of various countries. Sometimes, I have urged them to campaign and assured them they can vote in a local election; on other occasions, I have listened to their complaints that they cannot vote. Nor will I be the only Member who has stood on a doorstep and talked about the importance of voting as a member of one’s community to have views represented on how services are run, to exercise the right as a taxpayer and service user, and to show one’s priorities for policy and spending. Today, we have talked a good deal about belonging. The right to vote and the right to stand are both issues of belonging. I beg to move.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to support this amendment and to put on record my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is an indefatigable defender of democracy and its character. Elections are crucial to our system in terms of accountability and the representation of people. It is vital that if any changes are considered in this area, there is proper scrutiny by and accountability to Parliament. For no other reason, I find this amendment one that we should all take very seriously.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, not least in his admiration for my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has indeed undertaken a marathon on this Bill today. By contrast, mine will be a quick sprint. We are anxious to ensure with this amendment that we can get some urgent clarification on an extremely important issue relating to citizenship. There are obvious echoes from the previous debate.
I doubt that any Members here need reminding of the considerable contribution that EU citizens make to the life of this country: to its essential services, its economy and so many local communities, not least in the health services. If I needed any such reminder, I had it most forcibly this afternoon when I paid a visit to the dentist. Many of them, especially if they have worked and lived in the United Kingdom for some time, have made a considerable tax contribution—local as well as national—as my noble friend said. It is a well-respected principle, not least in this House, that there is no taxation without representation.
The Minister may be able to give us an updated figure of those EU citizens who are now regarded as resident here on at least a semi-permanent basis. Those figures are very relevant to this amendment, as they are to a number of other parts of this Bill. I recall that, of all the cities in the world, London has the largest number of French citizens, exceeded only by Paris. These EU friends are employed throughout the UK in some crucial roles. Some are more obvious than others; for example, although most of those who work in agriculture and horticulture are temporary residents, some are employed full time and for longer periods, for example specialist advisers for viniculture in this country. On the day that “Back British Farming” is the slogan that the NFU wishes us to sign up to to demonstrate our commitment to that industry, I should give that a deserved mention.
The significance of the contribution of all these groups caused me to table the Question to which my noble friend referred. I need to reiterate the Answer given to me by the noble Lord, Lord True, on behalf of the Government because it contains some important detail that is relevant to this debate:
“The May local elections were postponed until 2021 due to Covid-19. In that context, the UK Government can confirm that resident EU citizens will remain able to vote and stand in the rescheduled May 2021 local elections in England (including London Assembly elections) and the May 2021 Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales. Those elected to office will be able to serve their full term and this will also apply to those elected before 2021. The franchise for local elections are devolved in Scotland and Wales. The UK Government has been clear that the issue of local voting rights of EU citizens living in the UK needs to be considered alongside the rights and interests of British expats living abroad. The Government has signed bilateral voting rights agreements with Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg in 2019, and with Poland in May 2020. We continue to work on further bilateral voting rights agreements with other EU member states.”
As my noble friend said, there may be an update tonight from the Minister; that was from 10 July, and there may have been some more successful developments since.
It will be obvious to all in your Lordships’ House that there are two significant limitations to that assurance. First, it is limited to May 2021. After that, there is no guarantee that the principle will be maintained for any future local elections for the majority of these residents. Secondly, the Brexit negotiators have succeeded in achieving only four bilateral agreements—with Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Poland—so much larger numbers originally from France, Germany and Italy, for example, are, as far as we know, excluded. What is being done to get agreements with the remaining 23 member states? I also hope that the Minister will be able to spell out what exactly was agreed with these four Governments.
I turn to the other point in this reply: the mention of the very relevant rights and interests of British expats living abroad. I suspect other Members have heard of the distressing concerns, anxieties and frustrations of our fellow British citizens currently living in the EU. I have had a very full report from a survey of many hundreds of these in France—a detailed report of the current dilemmas they face, not least in relation to healthcare and its costs. Surely the time has come—in their interests, as well as the interests of those to whom this amendment directly relates—for the Government to revert to our traditional attitude in this country. For once, could they not take the lead? Can they not now commit to bringing before Parliament certainty of continuing these civil rights? A more generous and realistic approach to these civic rights here would be likely to stimulate an equally humane and civilised response there. I repeat what my noble friend Lady Smith of Newnham said in the previous debate: they surely should do the right thing. I hope the Minister will be able to expand on the very limited information given to me previously and therefore respond positively to our amendment.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 33 provides that regulations under Clause 4
“may not limit or remove the right to vote in local government elections”
for EU nationals who have lost free movement rights under this Bill
“unless the Secretary of State has laid … a draft of the … regulations and an assessment of their effect … at least three months before … the regulations”
are officially made. Parliament would thus have the opportunity to consider proposals for restricting the right of EU citizens to vote in local elections. Local voting rights are not covered by the withdrawal agreement as they are not an EU competence but a sovereign matter. There is thus an uncertainty about the future voting and candidacy rights in local government elections for many EU citizens as the Government have not gone down the road of giving a firm commitment that all settled EU citizens in this country will continue to have the right to vote in local elections.
All non-citizen residents from Ireland and the Commonwealth can vote in all elections and referendums. This is reciprocal in the case of Ireland, but most Commonwealth countries, including Cyprus and Malta, do not grant resident UK citizens the right to vote. EU citizens from the other 24 member states currently have a partial franchise that allows them to vote and stand as candidates in local government elections. This is guaranteed in UK law and the Government would need to take active steps to remove this right. There is disparity within the UK at present: Scotland and Wales grant voting rights to all migrants, while England and Northern Ireland do not.
As has been said, the Government have been seeking bilateral agreements on local election voting rights with EU member states, with agreements concluded with Spain, Portugal, Luxembourg and Poland. As I understand it, UK nationals will also be able to continue to vote, and in some cases stand, in local elections in EU member states where domestic legislation allows this. We are in favour of EU nationals living in the UK having full voting rights in future elections. They are our neighbours, friends, families, important parts of our communities and vital to our economy and healthcare service. We should value them. The Government should protect the local election voting rights that EU citizens living in this country currently have and seek to extend them so that they become full voting rights.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for moving Amendment 33 and the noble Lords, Lord Judd, Lord Tyler and Lord Rosser, for their contributions to this short but important debate. While I understand the sentiment that underpins the noble Baroness’s amendment and some of the speeches we have heard, I do not think it necessary to add this to the Bill.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already shared the draft illustrative regulations proposed under Clause 4(1). As I hope and am sure noble Lords will have seen, they do not include any provisions relating to the voting rights of EU citizens; nor has there been any immediate change to the entitlement of EU citizens resident here to vote in local elections. Indeed—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said—in an Answer to a Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and answered by my noble friend Lord True, the Government recently confirmed that EU citizens resident in England
“will remain able to vote”
in the elections in England next May. That includes not only elections to a number of local authorities at every level but elections for the Mayor of London and the Greater London Assembly and combined authority mayors in the West Midlands, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, the Tees Valley, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, the West of England and West Yorkshire, as well as for the police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales on the same day. It also applies to the right of EU citizens to stand in those elections, and anyone elected
“will be able to serve their full term”.
I hope that removes the uncertainty the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned, in the short term at least. I take the opportunity to pay tribute to EU citizens who have served their local community in public office, whatever party or affiliation they have done that under.
I am afraid I have no update for the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, beyond the Answer by my noble friend Lord True, which he read out in full. As that pointed out, we have taken positive steps in our relationship with EU member states and signed bilateral voting agreements with Spain, Portugal and Luxembourg in 2019; the one signed with Poland in May this year remains the most recent.
This is really a debate more about parliamentary scrutiny. On that issue, which the noble Baroness’s amendment considers and which the noble Lord, Lord Judd, also mentioned, the Bill as drafted makes clear that any primary legislation amended by regulations provided for by Clause 4 would be subject to the affirmative procedure and would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. I have no doubt that in the course of any such debates, noble Lords—including those who have spoken tonight—as well as Members in another place, will want to give such regulations their fullest scrutiny. As such, we do not think this amendment is needed.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
The compliments paid to me made me blush, but I probably was not on screen when I was blushing. Anyway, I thank noble Lords for those.
I live in the constituency of Richmond Park in the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames. We have Swedish and German schools here and a lot of French citizens. The point about the large number of French people in London is quite right. Those citizens are very much members of the local community. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the best way to achieve rights for British citizens abroad is for us to be open and generous with rights in the UK. That is not only the proper thing to do but a good way of negotiating.
My noble friend also mentioned limitations set out in the Written Answer from the noble Lord, Lord True, which referred to the London Assembly. I take from the response just now by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that it should have been the Greater London Authority, which consists of the mayor and the London Assembly. I think I can see the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, in the Chamber; I thank her for the wave. Like me, she will know that the terminology—the nomenclature, perhaps —of the various parts of the GLA is something that few people get their heads around.
More seriously, perhaps, I think the Minister said that this was not necessarily one for the Bill, and prayed in aid the draft illustrative statutory instrument that has been sent to noble Lords. That seems to me to be a circular argument. Where else should we raise the issue but on this Bill? We are told that we could raise the point when we scrutinise draft regulations that are laid under Clause 4—but we cannot introduce regulations. I really think he has set us an impossible task.
I am sorry that the issue has been dismissed in the way that it has; that is very sad. As I said, I would like us to be open and generous on this point. Clearly there is no more that I can do tonight other than express that. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 33.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 34. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 34
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) Prior to regulations being made under subsection (5), an impact assessment of the effects of those regulations on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the United Kingdom must be laid before Parliament.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Patel.
In parallel to this Bill, the Government are taking through the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill to ensure that we have an effective regulatory system post Brexit. As the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, explained at Second Reading, we must do all that we can to support the UK’s thriving life sciences industry. He described a world where big data, artificial intelligence and genetics have become enormously powerful engines of innovation, and where engineering and computer science have combined with medicine to generate exciting new medical developments.
It is vital that changes being made in the immigration system protect the excellent UK medical research environment, which drives vital progress for our patients. That is contingent, as Cancer Research UK has reported, on the maintenance of the UK’s leading research environment and our continuing ability to attract, recruit and retain global scientific talent at all levels. It is this mixture of domestic and international talent that supports our thriving research environment. For example, 31% of the UK’s Nobel prize winners in science were born outside the UK, while 50% of Cancer Research UK’s supported PhD students are not from the UK, rising to 76% of postdoctoral researchers at its institutes.
I welcome the Government’s ambition to make the immigration system work for science and research, but the science and research community has real worries about the cost of the system, particularly in comparison to other countries. The current UK immigration system is already one of the most expensive in the world. The total average up-front cost for a tier 2 skilled worker visa, typically used by scientific workers, is 540% higher than the average cost in other leading scientific nations. Most of Cancer Research UK’s researchers say the ease with which their dependants can access public services and take up work is a key factor in choosing a research destination, yet a researcher coming to the UK with a family of four faces nearly £10,000 of fees if they want to apply for indefinite leave to remain. Much of that cost is associated with the health surcharge.
At the moment, research organisations will often step in and pay these charges, but they themselves are struggling financially, particularly given the uncertainty about research grants post Brexit. Cancer Research UK estimates that a typical institute that it funds could face additional costs of between £300,000 and £800,000 once EEA workers move on to the new system. That is a lot of money which should be spent on research activities.
The new global talent visa will play a crucial role in attracting the scientific talent the UK needs. It is a welcome step, but it also retains fees at a damagingly high level. A five-year visa would incur up-front costs of £2,608 for a researcher looking to move here. It is more expensive than India, France, Australia, Germany and Japan. The global talent visa is designed for experienced research staff, but many who are early in their careers or in vital technical roles will not be eligible. We need the new immigration system to work for all the members of a research team. That means attracting researchers early in their careers and ensuring that vital technical staff, who are after all the backbone of many research teams but who are often not that highly paid, are made to feel welcome to live and work in the UK.
The reduction of the salary threshold to £25,600 is a positive step, but researchers who are not eligible for the global talent visa will still be required to apply via the tier 2 route, which is both costly and bureaucratic. Technical staff, particularly outside London, may still fail to pass the salary threshold and will thus be excluded from the chance to contribute to our research environment. For technicians in particular this route is daunting and, as I have said, it is far from certain that they will earn above the £25,600 salary threshold the system proposes.
Amendment 34 is a constructive approach to encourage the Government to undertake an impact assessment of the effects of these regulations on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff in the United Kingdom. These people are vital to the future prosperity of this country. We believe that the Government should delay exercising the power to modify visa charges until the evaluation has been received, so that they can be fully informed about the impact of fees on recruiting these very talented people. I hope that, as a result, the Government will then bring forward a reduction in the total visa costs for researchers and their dependants, a review of the costs faced by medical researchers through the NHS surcharge and consideration of exemption. An option to spread fees over the lifetime of a visa to reduce up-front payments should be considered, along with an improved, digitised system to streamline visa applications and prepare for an expected increase in demand. I really hope that the Minister and the Government will listen to this sympathetically. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69 in my name. Our creative industries are hugely successful, generating over £111 billion for the UK economy. Over the past decade, the sector has grown twice as fast as the UK economy as a whole and is part of a bigger creative economy employing more than 3 million people and generating value across the whole supply chain.
Music is a key component of our creative industries. UK Music’s inaugural Music by Numbers report revealed that in 2018 the UK music industry contributed £5.2 billion to the UK economy and that the total export revenue of the music industry was £2.7 billion. British artists account for one in eight albums sold around the world. Music tourism made a £4.5 billion contribution to the UK economy in 2018.
Given the unique nature of the sector, the high volume of freelancers, micro-businesses and performance and project-based work, it is vital that any new visa system is both shaped by and tailored to the creative industries. This is primarily a services and content-driven sector, so the ability to tour and easily move the people, equipment and materials they travel with is vital.
For many roles, too, there is a shortage of applicants with the required skills, experience or qualifications. The UK is a prime destination for the production of music, offering globally recognised recording studios, composers and performers. Our music producers are used by international musicians. Not only does this ensure a continued influx of talent into the UK; it also creates employment opportunities for UK-based music producers, performers, engineers, music technicians and so on.
The market for touring musicians and composers is extremely competitive, and the UK needs to be easily accessible to continue to attract international talent for continued global investment in the UK. As the Minister is aware, and as I and others argued on Second Reading, the creative sector wants to see the Government provide a simple way for European Union musicians and other artists to tour in the UK, and request reciprocity in the trade negotiations. This would mean extending the permitted paid engagement scheme, allowing for multiple visits and permit-free festival arrangements for EU citizens, and for multiple visits and the seeking of a reciprocal touring visa with the EU to enable creators and performers to travel temporarily and to take their equipment with them, tax free.
The UK already offers visa-free entry, including for work purposes, to non-visa nationals. However, the scope of that route for non-visa nationals is too restrictive, and it does not provide any certainty, because ultimately, it is down to the discretion of the UK border official to assess whether the musician is qualified to perform the paid engagement, or that the paid engagement relates to their area of expertise, qualification or occupation. The details provided by the UK Government in the context of the UK points-based immigration system require further clarification of the status of musicians.
European musicians need to be able to tour without restrictions. This includes the transportation of their equipment, and it applies not only to performing musicians but also to song writers, composers, performers and producers, who often travel for work-related purposes. The crew—the trusted people whom musicians rely on when touring—need to be expressly included within simplified touring provisions. This affects UK musicians touring Europe as well as European Union or EEA musicians touring the UK. So we need clarity in any trade agreement that performers and their equipment can tour throughout the European Union without restrictions. Offering a simple solution to musicians or composers intending to perform in the UK would provide a good negotiating position to ensure a favourable system with the EU and other countries, based on reciprocity.
At present, because of freedom of movement for people, UK performers can play a concert in Amsterdam one night, then simply travel to Paris the next night, with no associated costs or red tape. Following the end of the transition period, this freedom will end for UK musicians, unless there are appropriate measures in place to support touring musicians, composers and so on. Countries such as France have traditionally required work permits for performances by artists from non-EU countries. A new reciprocal system is needed post-transition, to ensure that musicians and their crew can operate across Europe in an economic and unbureaucratic way, preserving vital economic and cultural links.
Costly bureaucracy will make touring simply unviable for many artists, putting the development of future globally leading UK talent at risk. This has become even more urgent following the social distancing measures and other restrictions imposed on live events. Most musicians, composers and everyone else involved in the successful organisation of live music events are self-employed or operate as small and medium-sized businesses. Social distancing restrictions will render impossible any economically viable live events at least until the end of 2020, with catastrophic consequences for the live music sector. Based on the figures for live music in UK Music’s Music By Numbers report, the loss to the sector will be at least £900 million.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and will speak in the same area. I will speak to Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to which I have added my name, and to my own Amendment 75. I am particularly indebted to the Incorporated Society of Musicians for its briefing.
There is considerable overlap between these two amendments, particularly if one understands the term “business”, as used in my amendment, to be business in any form. I will return to that point in a moment.
I wish to associate myself with a passionate and inevitably elegiac speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, on the first group of amendments on Monday. While some people did vote to limit permanent immigration to this country, they did not vote for their own movement—the movement of UK citizens—around Europe to travel, work or study abroad to be curtailed, or for temporary visits in either direction to be affected. But the side of the argument that, “What we do to others will be done to us”, has been almost entirely ignored, and continues to be, even though the loss of free movement will have a direct effect on the livelihoods of British workers—including those resident in the UK—unless an agreement is reached.
I did have a little trouble getting the third limb of my amendment, regarding reciprocal arrangements, into the amendment. I could only do so—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones could with his amendment—with the preceding phrase “for the purposes of comparison”, even though we are discussing the direct effects of the Bill as things stand.
The second thing that has been to a large extent ignored and greatly underestimated is our services sector, which depends on free movement. This is extraordinary, because we are, and have been for some time, primarily a services nation. Services are responsible for 80% of our GDP and just over half the UK’s services exports are to Europe, our closest neighbour.
My amendment would cover many areas, from engineers to IT and the creative sector, all of whom have concerns about the effect of the loss of free movement and, consequentially, the essential importance of a mobility framework between the UK and the EU. I think we will discuss this when we debate the Trade Bill. Of course, the experience of all these sectors in the UK ought also to be providing a basis for the immigration arrangements of those visiting our country for similar purposes.
The UK’s creative services before Covid were, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, worth over £111 billion a year and they employ over 3 million people. I gently remind the Government that the UK’s music industry alone—just one part of the sector—is worth almost four times as much as the fishing industry and is important too, as the whole of the creative sector is, in terms of soft power. If fishing, important though that industry is, is holding up a trade deal in other areas such as services, I wonder whether the Government are losing their sense of perspective about what is important in the round—I emphasise: in the round—for this country.
There is a particular concern for the performing arts, including music, whose business in Europe is touring, although not exclusively so. Has the Minister seen the ISM’s 2020 report How Open is the UK for the Music Business? It shows that the current immigration system, which is intended to be applied to EU nationals in the new year, is not fit for purpose. Specifically, this includes the permitted paid engagement route—it is not being applied in the manner that, I admit, I helped to negotiate—the standard visitor route and the tier 5 temporary worker, creative and sporting visa route. All those routes have been criticised by artists, promoters, tour managers, music agents and festival organisers. It has become increasingly difficult for non-EEA musicians to obtain visas or to work in the UK, and indeed the same is true of other areas of the creative sector. If this is to be the basis of a reciprocal agreement, things do not bode well.
From our perspective, it is essential that an arrangement is made with the EU rather than having to go through the nightmare of doing this with 27 individual countries. The recommendation of the Incorporated Society of Musicians is that either the commitments of mode 4 should be extended to include performing or that a multi-entry touring visa, valid for two years and covering the EU, is introduced and that EU nationals are treated in a similar vein. It is becoming clear that mode 4’s conventional interpretation of business activity is too narrow.
Also, as a result of the loss of the four freedoms, the Government need urgently to negotiate a cultural exemption for the temporary transportation of instruments and equipment or cover the cost of carnets, scrap plans to introduce a charge for musical instrument certificates, maintain the health insurance, ensure that the A1 certificate system continues to be recognised in the EU, and expand the list of CITES-designated points of entry and exit. Transportation by ferry will not be possible between Belfast and the mainland. I hope that all this is being looked at.
It is also important to understand that there is an inherent sense of reciprocity in our creative sector—which I am sure is true of other areas considered in this grouping—which stands apart from reciprocity as a necessary part of a trade agreement. Much of this is about an exchange of ideas and culture, which is one reason why it is so difficult for many of us to accept the loss of freedom of movement. Nevertheless, in the long term, the better the arrangements we make for our temporary visitors, the greater will be the benefits for us. Some of the arrangements that I have mentioned will apply also to other services, but the performing arts provide an example of some of the widest range of concerns.
Amendments 75 and 69, like others in this group, ask the Government to develop an evidence base to inform later decision-making. The problem is that time is not on our side. The arts in particular, perhaps more than any other area, have been knocked for six by Covid. It is essential that there is an arrangement for our creative sector by the end of the year, otherwise that sector in particular will suffer a double whammy. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, expressed it very well on Monday when he said that while
“we are legislating in the dark for the withdrawal of many rights of EU citizens coming here, it is also true that we are legislating in the dark for the rights that we are going to be taking away from UK citizens that they can currently exercise in respect of their travel and legitimate business on the continent.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 568.]
We are in the dark at the moment. I hope very much that that will not continue to be the case and that we will see some light and hear positive assurances in the next few weeks.
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, within this grouping, I support amendments that protect reciprocal rights of United Kingdom citizens and those of EEA countries and Switzerland. Following current changes regarding immigration, these include the need for regular impact assessments on skills shortages, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in Amendment 59; the emphasis of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, in Amendment 75, on assisting arrangements for short-term EEA and Swiss nationals for business purposes; equally to do so, as advocated in Amendment 69 by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, to achieve free movement of persons involved in arts and entertainment activities; and to do the same, as urged in Amendment 97 by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, for members and representatives of faith communities. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also reminds us, in Amendment 34, of the importance of continuous
“recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the United Kingdom”.
I come now to my own Amendment 76 on
“Leave to enter for education, research, training and student exchange”.
It goes without saying that, from the Middle Ages, when it was notably in evidence, free movement in education has always been part of the United Kingdom’s and Europe’s culture and expectations.
Nevertheless, when, shortly before it was created in 1949, Winston Churchill urged a Council of Europe for the healing of wounds and the bringing together of minds, by implication he also did so in terms of education, research, training and student exchange. As a result, in 1953, the United Kingdom signed the European Convention on the Equivalence of Diplomas leading to Admission to Universities as well as the European Convention on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications.
Predating our membership of the European Union as this did, yet continuing our proactive membership of the Council of Europe, which we do, the case for following Churchill’s advice in these respects is all the stronger now that we leave the European Union.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister agrees and is able to accept Amendment 76.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 97 in the name, specifically, of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, on whose behalf I speak today. However, before I do so, I express my sympathies with the other amendments in this grouping with deep concern particularly around the creative arts and the music industry. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Hooper, who have kindly added their names to Amendment 97, for their support on this issue.
I state a simple fact when I say that faith cannot be contained by borders and that faith groups do not fit neatly within national boundaries. They are both local and global communities made up of individuals united in common belief and sharing in common structures of organised life. Our shared convictions and organisational structures reach across nations and continents. The migration of people is an inevitable result.
This issue that this amendment addresses—namely, that the Government should be aware of implications that the Bill has for faith communities—was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark at Second Reading. I am grateful to the Minister for her comments on that day, when she stated that the Government greatly valued the contribution that migrants made to faith communities in this country.
In principle, this amendment is as simple as ensuring that individuals can come to the UK for reasons connected to their faith where needed. As the Minister said at Second Reading, changes were made to the visa system in 2019 for religious workers and ministers of religion. The new requirement prohibited tier 5 religious workers from filling roles as ministers of religion and, instead, individuals had to apply directly through the tier 2 sub-category for ministers of religion.
Previously, most Roman Catholic dioceses had used the tier 5 religious worker visas for priests to come here on supply placements while parish priests were away for short periods of time because of sickness, training or annual leave. These supply placements are essential to ensuring that worship continues, while keeping parish activities running smoothly.
Furthermore, other faiths, particularly Hindus and Sikhs, have used this visa because there is a lack of religious ministers within the UK, so they needed support from abroad. Unfortunately, the requirement introduced in 2019 has more than doubled the costs incurred. For small faith groups and those without significant funding, this is compromising their opportunity to practise their faith and will disproportionately affect the poorest areas and communities.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, while I associate myself with all the amendments in the group, I rise to speak in support of Amendment 69 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for introducing it so comprehensively. In the UK’s creative sector we have something that really can claim to be world-leading. As we have heard, the sector makes a significant contribution to the UK’s GVA, to employment and to services exports. Also, unlike many parts of industry, this sector has for some years been growing in every region of the UK. Therefore, in addition to its considerable contribution to the UK’s cultural, social and economic well-being, the creative sector can play an important role in the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
Yet it is a sector at risk, because its success has been built over the last three decades or more on the four freedoms enabled by membership of the EU, with ease of mobility the freedom most highly prized by artists and cultural organisations. I worked in this sector for over 30 years as artist, producer, commissioner, manager and director, and I lived the benefits of that mobility. It enabled me to develop my artistry and skills within different environments and in front of different audiences, to build valuable creative networks, to be challenged and inspired by artists trained in different ways, and to innovate in the spaces where different voices, values and views come together. The UK’s artistic and cultural success has been underpinned by these easy interactions across borders.
That success has also been underpinned by ease of access to talent from our nearest neighbours. A quarter of the occupations on the tier 2 shortage occupation list are in the cultural and creative industries. In the most economically productive areas of the sector, domestic skills gaps mean that 30% of staff have been recruited from the EU, while EU workers fill gaps in less lucrative subsectors like my own—dance—and museums. The skills gap is so pronounced and so specialist that, even had we started on the day after the referendum, we would still not have been able to train up a homegrown workforce to fill the gap by the time the current supply route closes down.
We have heard repeatedly that this new points-based system will allow access to so-called high-skilled workers and the brightest and the best. This amendment creates an obligation on government not only to test that assertion but also to test the impact on the bright young talents of the future. According to the latest report from the Migration Advisory Committee, several creative and artistic jobs may be deemed “high-skill, low-pay occupations”—something you do not really need to tell me. Many young artists like me do not train at universities, let alone go on to the postgraduate qualifications that would earn us an additional 10 points, and our salary levels are certainly not a proxy for our skills.
Given this, emerging artists are unlikely to accrue the necessary points for entry. I have known several dancers from EU countries who took jobs at the bottom of the ladder at basic salaries, spoke little English and certainly had no PhD, but we had the privilege and the pleasure of watching them develop from promising talent to international superstar, becoming valuable agents of soft power for the UK and, in some cases, achieving the status of national treasure. However, if they were applying for entry next year, I am not sure that they would notch up the crucial 70 points that they would require.
The Government have also been clear that they do not intend to create an immigration route for the self-employed. The creative workforce is 38% freelance and we have heard, over and over again, in this Chamber about the critical role freelancers play in the cultural ecology. The Creative Industries Federation has said that:
“Given the project … based nature of our sector”
and its scale, bringing the route for temporary workers from the EU in line with rules currently applying to non-EEA nationals will be,
“hugely damaging for the creative industries … 95% of creative businesses employ fewer than 10 people”.
These businesses are reliant on specialist temporary workers to provide essential services on an occasional basis, often at very short notice. As the cost for each individual temporary worker’s visa is likely to be over £200, the financial and administrative burden this presents could be overwhelming.
An Arts Council survey of almost 1,000 stakeholders found that the top priority for arts organisations, post Brexit, was to ensure the continuity of short-term mobility between the UK and the EU. This was even more important to them than replacing EU funding, even though this has been worth approximately £40 million each year.
In leaving the EU, we are leaving behind our automatic right to work across borders. That was our decision, and the curtain has fallen on that particular debate. This amendment would shine a spotlight on the impact of this decision on one of the UK’s most productive and successful sectors and help ensure we do all we can to sustain and enhance its success into the future. As someone whose career owes so much to that easy and reciprocal mobility, it was a pleasure and indeed an obligation to put my name to this amendment.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I too have considerable sympathy with all the amendments in this grouping. However, I am happy to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, as a co-mover of Amendment 97, and will confine my remarks to that new clause. This is, as the right reverend Prelate had said, a probing amendment. We hope that the Government can use this debate to clarify the next steps and perhaps give us some idea of a timetable.
I appreciate that the definition of faith communities may give us some difficulties but, as a Roman Catholic, I wish to present some of the challenges facing the Catholic Church in relation to the changes being introduced in this Bill. The Catholic Church is, after all, a very international body. Movement between different countries within religious orders, and for educational and other purposes, is an integral part of that internationalism.
In the course of preparing my brief for this debate, I have learnt a lot about the various categories of visas, something I was previously unaware of. I can fully appreciate what a struggle it is to cope with all the requirements. As the right reverend Prelate has said, most Catholic diocese have previously used tier 5 religious worker visas, for the reasons that he stated. Supply placements are essential, as they allow us to continue attending mass, while also keeping parish activities running smoothly. The new requirement, introduced in 2019, was for anybody who was preaching to use tier 2 minister of religion visas. That has more than doubled the cost incurred by parishes arranging supply cover. For some parishes, this is unsustainable and that of course compromises people’s opportunity to practise their faith.
Furthermore, seminaries that conduct formation in English are not necessarily recognised by the Home Office as meeting the English language requirement under the tier 2 route. This means that many priests, who may have been educated to postgraduate level in English, are nevertheless required to take a language test, with extra logistical and cost implications. Unless some changes are made, the situation will of course be further aggravated as a result of the end of free movement following Brexit. Priests coming from European Union countries to provide supply cover will now also be subject to the same regime.
This new clause is intended to give the Government the opportunity to keep Parliament informed, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about government thinking on this issue.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, is not with us, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate, and I am sympathetic to the amendments which have been debated and explained so clearly and positively. I particularly support Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, to which I have attached my name. I shall be brief.
One of the greatest opportunities for young people is to pursue education, research, training and student exchanges in another country. It is not always young people, but they make up the majority. That is the purpose of this amendment. We would like these opportunities to be entirely on a reciprocal basis, and I hope if we pass this amendment and establish this principle now, other countries in the EU and elsewhere will follow suit.
Amendment 34 on the cost of visas was ably moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt. Clearly, if the visas are so costly, that would negate the purpose of this amendment, so I would like to see the amendments working together. Perhaps, we should put a clause in about the cost of visas, but the way it is now is fairly clear.
Although this opportunity for travel rose enormously in the post-war years, it is not a function of the EU, though the EU did help. Free movement has existed for the purposes of education and research for many centuries in Europe. It is well within the European tradition, not dependent on the structural changes within the EU. As a result of the EU, however, all these things was greatly enhanced. I hope that this freedom of movement and educational travel will be part of our young people’s future in the years to come, even when we are not inside the EU.
We all know and have met young people for whom the opportunity to travel for study and education is a supreme benefit. It is something many young people want to do, and some of them are dismayed that this door might close for them when we left the EU. It is important to ensure that our departure from the EU does not mean such an opportunity is closed to young people but is still open.
I repeat that it is not just young people who want this education but older ones. It is part of the vision we want for Europe. The noble Lord who moved the amendment referred to Winston Churchill and his importance in the Council of Europe, and we have a lot to learn from that and other international organisations. I am a member of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly myself, and these other international organisations can help further international education in the broader sense.
This is an amendment about vision. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 69 in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bull, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I thank them for their valuable insights in supporting this amendment.
I particularly want to speak about the arts in Scotland. The Edinburgh Festival and Fringe is the world’s largest, and probably greatest, arts festival. It normally runs for nearly a month, with around 55,000 performances of over 3,500 shows across more than 300 venues. The cancellation of this year’s festival probably cost over £1 billion in lost receipts, with a further £200 million lost by the Fringe and much more in spin-off activities. Orchestras, opera, dance, rock and pop have all suffered loss and all depend on international performers. As a result of Covid-19, we need to ensure that adequate support for Scotland’s arts enables them to survive and that when performers return, travel and visa restrictions are as frictionless as possible.
I am advised that Capital Theatres in Edinburgh has incurred huge losses as a result of the cancellation of the festival and has relied almost entirely on furlough payments for income since then. Apparently the Scottish Government are sitting on the cash allocated by the UK Government for support of the arts in Scotland, so will the Minister say what discussions there have been between the UK Government and the Scottish Government to ensure that this money is allocated in a fair and timely fashion to keep the arts afloat?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
My Lords, I appreciate that much has already been said about this group of amendments, but I wish to make a few brief remarks on them. First, on Amendment 69 I accept that the creative industries are having a challenging time. I accept that there are some extremely wealthy people in the creative industries, but the vast majority of people in those industries have in the past been living on average incomes, and that was before the serious impact of Covid-19. Many have not been able to do their job at home, never mind not being able to travel more generally to perform their skills. How do the Government intend to underpin the ability of our best musicians and most talented creative artists to work across European member states, and their fellow artists within the creative industry to work here?
I shall make some remarks on Amendment 97. I suppose I should declare an interest as a minister of the gospel. I support the overriding principle of monitoring closely the impact of government policies on the rights and activities of those with deeply held faith across our society. It is important that we ensure that they are not unfairly disadvantaged. At the same time, I accept that those coming into the UK to preach or to carry out pastoral work should be held to similar standards to those in other professions, in terms of their grasp of the English language and the wider contribution they make to society. Northern Ireland has a large and vibrant faith community. There is a strong record, ethos and desire among local people of all ages to travel abroad to do missionary work, to spread the good news of the gospel of redeeming grace and make a difference to the lives of children and young people less advantaged than themselves. It is imperative that the Government continue to facilitate flexible routes for people across the United Kingdom to carry out their religious and humanitarian work.
It is also the duty of the Government to impact-assess the effects of their measures on the freedom of religion and assembly on an ongoing basis. Over the centuries, the United Kingdom has been richly blessed by the representatives of faith communities being able freely to enter our land for purposes related to their faith. I want to ensure that there shall be no hindrance to the exercise of our religious liberties; indeed, the battle for religious freedom was fought and won at great cost and we must guard it lest it be undermined in any way.
Finally, I will make a few remarks about Amendment 34. I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be vigilant about the effects of these regulations on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the United Kingdom. We need to be sure that the United Kingdom is an attractive place for such international research and innovation staff because we are regarded as a world leader in many fields of science and research. This legislation must not hinder nor act as an impediment to our research endeavours. Only the brightest and best will ensure that we continue to lead and not simply follow other nations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McCrea. I support Amendments 69 and 75 and the idea of reports on how things work out on arts, entertainment and business visitors. I believe that we should cover UK business interests in the EEA and Switzerland substantively and not just for comparison purposes, as proposed in the amendments. Talented endeavour must flow both ways. Reciprocity, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is what we need. Business growth is vital to Britain, especially at this difficult time, and the arts and entertainment, hit especially badly by Covid-19, are some of our most important and vibrant business sectors in normal times right across the UK, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said.
Frequent business travel is also important both ways, more generally in services and in particular in financial services and retail, which I know well from my own experience. We are facing a novel situation and it is right to assess things as we go along, particularly in areas so sensitive to changes in the rules on free movement. Reports to Parliament would help us to keep an eye on the practical problems that may arise with the wide range of changes that the Government are planning. I am not convinced that the economists on MAC can do this for us.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there can be absolutely no doubt that two aspects of life that remain great about Britain are: first, the quality of our cultural and artistic life, not least music, and the richness of what has been built up by so many musicians; and, secondly, the outstanding nature of our universities. I have had the privilege to be involved in the governance of Newcastle, Lancaster and the LSE. Indeed, I remain an Emeritus governor at the LSE. What is important about that tradition in our universities is its inescapable dimension of international life. It is so much the international quality of what is going on in higher education that makes it so rich.
Let us take the LSE, for example. I went to the LSE as an undergraduate quite soon after the Second World War. There had been an outstanding contribution and influx of knowledge, culture and perspective from emigrés from Nazi-occupied Germany. We must not let anything undermine that tradition of richness, with its inherent involvement by its openness towards the world community. The quality of higher education itself simply cannot be separated from the contribution made by so many people from different traditions being part of it.
I strongly support this group of amendments and hope that the Government will be able, in spite of all their other misdemeanours, to see the opportunity here for a real investment in our future.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 59 but, in fact, having listened to the debate and read them a bit more closely, I in fact support most of the amendments in this group. Most of them refer to two things that I care very much about. The first is holding our Government to account, which seems to be something that gets increasingly difficult as days go by. Secondly, I feel very strongly that, if you do not assess things, you are not going to get things right. Clearly, all the issues in this group need assessment. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, we need an evidence base or we simply cannot know whether we are doing the right thing. Almost all these amendments seem like common sense, and I hope that the Government listen.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I add my strong support for Amendment 69 in this group with regard particularly to the impact on musicians. I shall try not to repeat too much of the detail of the points already so powerfully made by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and my noble friends Lord Clancarty and Lady Bull.
Through a combination of Brexit and Covid-19, musicians have suffered a perfect storm of career-threatening body blows. Covid-19 has made many forms of musical performance impossible and severely restricted most others. On top of that, many musicians depend for a significant part of their income on touring or performing overseas, often at short notice, which may be severely affected as a result of the ending of free movement. As we have heard, that impact could take a variety of forms relating to obtaining visas, transporting instruments, obtaining health cover or, indeed, avoiding having to pay double social security contributions.
I do not need to remind the House, particularly after this debate so far, that this is a sector that not only creates enormous economic, social and cultural value for the whole UK but has suffered perhaps more than any other from the impact of Covid-19, with little prospect of any significant improvement before November at the earliest, for those who can survive that long. We owe it to the sector to ensure that the ending of free movement for EU musicians under this Bill, and any resulting reciprocal arrangements introduced by other countries, do not impose additional constraints on the ability of musicians to resume their activity on a meaningful scale, not least because our cultural ties with Europe and the rest of the world will be even more important after political links with the EU are severed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, a lot of the speeches have understandably focused on the problems that are likely to arise in the arts and the creative sectors, including for musicians. My noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and other noble Lords including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, have also focused in particular on the arts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, rightly raised the problem of freelancers and people who are needed at short notice and for short periods who have specialist skills that lend themselves to that sort of freelance and self-employed status. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones and others rightly stressed the need for multiple-visit visas, touring visas and a reciprocal system, because this cannot work unless there is close co-operation with our EU partners.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a good point. It is not that we wish the fisheries sector anything but well but, given the weight of fishing in the economy, which is a tiny percentage, well under 1%, compared with the contribution of services in general, which is over 80% of our economy, the disproportionate attention that fishing is getting in the Brexit negotiations for the future relationship—if those negotiations, as we hope, are going somewhere—is, quite honestly, incomprehensible.
The arts—the creative sector—are extraordinarily valuable, not just to London but to other parts of the country, including Scotland, and perhaps Edinburgh in particular. Other sectors are rightly mentioned in the amendments, from business to tech, from research to faith communities, and these all demand a great deal of attention from the Government.
The organisation techUK has stressed that tech talent is in huge demand globally, so any friction makes the UK less attractive. Currently, apparently, a tier 2 visa can take 23 weeks to process, so techUK urges that the Government ensure that the new points-based system significantly reduces that time.
techUK also makes a good point about how the fee system needs to be transparent and easy to understand. We have discussed the level of fees and whether the Government should have delegated powers in setting them, which some of us are worried about. Transparency is important. techUK says the current system is fragmented and the plethora of different charges and add-ons acts as a deterrent to hiring talent because, in addition to salaries, total costs include the sponsor licence, the visa, the immigration skills charge and the immigration health surcharge. This makes recruiting overseas workers more challenging.
The ending of free movement will have a huge impact. For EU nationals, where the cost to business has been zero, it rises to £8,400 for a five-year sponsored visa. That is for the main applicant only, not for any family members. It will be £9,500 if proposed increases to the immigration health surcharge take effect. This is much greater than the cost in Australia, France, Germany and Canada. It will be a big deterrent for talent to come here in the future. techUK asks for transparency over where the money is going for other charges, such as the immigration skills charge. That would give employers confidence in the future immigration system. It is a fair request.
The City of London is obviously very worried, but financial services are not just about the City. The sector accounts for considerable employment throughout the country, in cities such as Leeds as well as Edinburgh, which I have already mentioned in relation to the arts. The City is worried about future changes to the Immigration Rules getting no real parliamentary scrutiny. It points out that the UK’s status as the leading professional service centre is the key contributor in attracting other professions and workers. There is a clustering effect, particularly evident in fintech and other tech sectors.
There is a great deal of anxiety in the arts and other sectors of the economy over how the system will work for them. There is a great deal of trepidation. Another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, was that many arts organisations are very small. They cannot bear the administrative costs, the visa costs and the staff time to deal with all this.
Finally, the Government have to think about the children. It always used to be that the wives—these days one would say the spouses—got forgotten. A lot of people will not move unless their spouse can get a job as well. That is quite understandable when there are two qualified professional people in a couple. That goes for the children as well. The treatment of children—another subject we have discussed this evening—will be a factor in the success of the future immigration system. I hope to hear some reassurance from the Minister that these issues, so important to our artistic and economic life, are being given at least the same level of consideration as the fisheries sector.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has made a compelling case for his amendment to be agreed. Almost every day in the media we hear about decisions, actions and the direction of travel of the Government in this area, and mostly it causes me and many others great concern. My noble friend set out the concerns of the science and research communities that the actions of the Government will do irreparable damage and that our competitors in the United States, Germany, France and elsewhere frankly cannot believe their luck. As my noble friend said, these people are vital to the future of our country.
We need an impact assessment on the effect that these regulations will have on the recruitment of international research and innovation staff to the UK. In my opinion, to move forward is very unwise, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, will see the strength of the argument in this respect.
What is not acceptable is for Government to hide behind saying that this is the will of the British people. No one voted to put the NHS under further strain, or to put at risk world-leading research or the ability of the United Kingdom to remain a place where talented people from the European Union can come and advance our knowledge and international reputation, ensuring that we remain at the top table. That is without talking about interference in the referendum by foreign powers, which alarms every democrat in this country.
Let us be clear: this has the potential to be an absolute disaster and, I suspect, the focus of another U-turn when the reality and enormity of the decisions being made without proper assessment of the risks involved finally hit home for the Government.
Amendment 59, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser, is one that seeks to help the Government and Parliament by requiring the Secretary of State to present a report on how the changes made to the Immigration Rules for EEA and Swiss nationals have affected skills shortages in the labour market. This power expires after five years, as by that point we will have a clear understanding of the direction of travel and, I hope, will have acted on the issues raised. I suspect that this will not find favour with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, but I also suspect that this is exactly the work that the Secretary of State will have to ask his officials to do, as the Government will need to understand the effect of their policy decisions and then take corrective action if it is to the detriment of the UK.
I am supportive of Amendment 69 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Bull. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, set out quite startling figures—the billions of pounds at stake if we get this wrong. In this debate it is hard to understand what benefits there are to the UK. As we have heard in the discussion, huge damage is being done and the Government are, frankly, struggling to find mitigations. They are just suggesting that we should not worry because it will all be alright on the night.
I want to pay tribute to the work of the Musicians’ Union, Bectu and Equity in standing up for their members, and to other organisations such as the Incorporated Society of Musicians—which the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—mentioned, UK Music and many other organisations that have raised the concerns in the arts and the creative and entertainment industries. We cannot overstate the additional problems and risks to those individuals affected, and to our future prosperity as a nation, if we mess this up.
The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, is right that we seem to have forgotten that what we do to others will be done to us. It would be hugely damaging and, frankly, unforgivable of the Government not to fully understand the enormity of the risks to our economy and individuals and not to take action.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank the noble Lords who tabled these amendments for the passion with which they introduced them and all noble Lords who have participated in, notwithstanding the hour, an interesting and impassioned debate.
Many of these amendments seek to provide a statutory requirement to report on or evaluate the impacts of new immigration measures, and I am pleased to say that I do not think there is a great deal of difference between the Government’s position and that of the noble Lords who moved and spoke to these amendments. It is absolutely right that new policies should be monitored and properly evaluated, and their effects considered in full. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, said, powerful arguments have been made on that point throughout our debate. That is particularly true when the changes are as significant as the ones we are introducing in January with our new points-based immigration system.
That is why we have published a detailed impact assessment to accompany the Bill and deliberately—and unusually—ensured that it not only covers the provisions of this Bill but the anticipated impact of the new immigration system. I make this point to illustrate that the Government are certainly committed to understanding the impacts of the changes we are proposing and bringing about. The Government are also preparing an impact assessment which will provide further analysis of the new skilled work rules. The Regulatory Policy Committee is currently considering this assessment, and it will be published alongside the rules.
Furthermore, as now, we will continue to publish detailed quarterly immigration statistics, ensuring that they make clear how many people are coming under each main visa route. The Home Office is also working with statisticians in the Office for National Statistics and other government departments to make better use of the data we hold to enhance our understanding of migration in the round.
The highly skilled and talented people mentioned in this debate, whether researchers, ministers of religion, artists or entrepreneurs, are all people whom we warmly welcome and encourage to come to the UK. We recognise the varied and very important contributions they make to our society, communities and economy, which is why we continue to offer dedicated immigration routes to cater for them.
Turning specifically to artists, entertainers and musicians, I appreciate the passion which many noble Lords have expressed for the UK’s creative sector and its unquestionable success—it is a passion I share—particularly in the current challenging climate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, we all greatly missed the Edinburgh Festival this summer. This is why we have a range of options available to people working in the creative industries to help them come to the UK.
Once free movement ends, we intend to treat EEA citizens as non-visa nationals for the purposes of short visits, meaning they can come to the UK to perform at events and take part in competitions and auditions without needing to apply for a visa. Friends of mine who work in the creative industries and frequently travel internationally for auditions have made that point to me directly. For those who wish to stay in the UK for longer, the current tier 5 route for temporary creative workers will continue to cater as it does now, permitting a broad range of creative workers to live and work in the UK for up to 12 months at a time. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and others have rightly urged us, we are determined to get this right and ensure that these talented people choose to work and base themselves in the UK.
In addition to keeping labour market data under careful scrutiny to monitor pressures, Home Office analysts will lead a comprehensive evaluation of the new immigration system. This research will involve analysis of migration system data and the first-hand experience of the people using it. It will be conducted over a number of years so that we can benefit from proper insights and make any necessary improvements.
While independent scrutiny plays a vital role, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, I part company with some of the noble Lords who have spoken this evening, as I do not believe we need to create a new mechanism for this. We are very fortunate that we have the Migration Advisory Committee, which has been mentioned many times already and which is widely recognised for its expertise and independence. It was established more than a decade ago and has been of great benefit to successive Governments, and to successive Parliaments in holding those Governments to account, by producing detailed and thoughtful reports and recommendations. Long may it continue to do so. As noble Lords will recall, we have expanded the Migration Advisory Committee’s remit so that it not only responds to specific commissions but also has the ability to comment on any aspect of immigration policy as it sees fit. In line with that, the MAC will be producing an expanded annual report. I therefore see no reason to replicate what we already have, particularly where it could risk duplicating or undermining the MAC’s independent and impartial rigour.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, spoke with great ecumenism on people of all faiths. He raised the point about the particular impact of these policies on smaller faith groups. Of course, any changes to policy have to take into account the obligations under the Equality Act, which, of course, has been done following consultation with a wide variety of groups from people of all faiths, as the right reverend Prelate has acknowledged. It is certainly right that those playing a leading role in faith groups—whether that is in our churches, synagogues, mosques, gurdwaras or temples—should be required to have a strong command of the English language. That is so that they can best enjoy their time here in the UK and so that the wider community can benefit from that time here. We recognise that faith is a calling and that the terms of appointment differ from traditional employment models, and that is why our dedicated routes do not require specific qualifications or a salary threshold and why we want to make absolutely clear that people of all faiths will certainly be welcome here to do their important work through our new system.
My noble friend Lady Hooper mentioned the discrepancy between the fees paid in tier 1 and tier 5. It is true that not all of those who are now using the tier 2 visa want or, indeed, need those additional benefits that tier 2 provides, but the Government, as I hope she will understand, must balance a number of factors, including the administrative costs of processing an application, the benefits likely to be accrued by a successful applicant and the wider costs of the immigration system. However, the options we provide for religious workers allow individual organisations to make the appropriate choice for their particular circumstances.
The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the English language test for Roman Catholic priests who have completed their seminary training in English. Exemptions currently exist where applicants have been awarded a recognised degree. If not, I hope she will understand that it is important that a priest’s ability to speak English to a sufficient standard can be verified; their standards in Latin can be left to their diocese.
I turn to Amendment 76, moved so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Dundee and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. It has given noble Lords the opportunity to discuss the important issue of immigration for the purpose of education, training, research and exchange. The Government strongly welcome those who want to come to the UK for those purposes. I share my noble friend’s aim to ensure that there are means by which talented individuals from the EU can continue to come to the UK to participate in our world-leading academic sector. The UK is proudly one of the world’s leading destinations for international education already, and hundreds of thousands of students choose to come to the UK to study. I recognise, however—and the Government more widely recognise—that we must not stand still if we are to continue to be such a destination, particularly as we have seen this year, given the impact of Covid-19.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I have received two requests to speak after the Minister. I first call the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will not mind if I intervene briefly before he speaks.
I do not think that the Minister can be in any doubt about the powerful concerns that noble Lords have expressed during this debate. First, I thank all those noble Lords who have spoken in the debate on my Amendment 69. Of course, it is part of a pattern across the board in other areas, including universities and the tech industries, which my noble friend Lady Ludford mentioned as well.
I thank the Minister for his response but he is placing an awful lot of weight on the Migration Advisory Committee making an impact assessment in this area. I will read extremely carefully what he has to say but the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, had it right when she expressed doubt over whether that was the right body to be carrying out this kind of assessment: a rather cold, hard, economic assessment that does not take into account many of the other surrounding circumstances involving our creative industries.
The Minister thinks that the amendment, by creating this kind of assessment and report, would replicate what is already there. I beg to differ: this is a separate, and rather different, arrangement, particularly with respect to its consideration of reciprocity. A number of noble Lords were in agreement that reciprocity was extremely important. I thought that the testimonies of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, were particularly important; they spoke from their personal experience. That is not something that the Migration Advisory Committee would deal with.
I will certainly read with interest and care what the Minister has had to say but we may wish to come back to this really important subject—which has gained such support across the House—on Report.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his response to the debate. He should be in no doubt of the importance that noble Lords place on these issues, whether it is innovation and research, the arts and creative industries, our universities or our faith communities. I think it very likely that we will come back to these matters on Report.
Would the Minister be prepared to ask his office to go through the debate in the next few days? He could write to us all, as there may be some more points to which we have not had full answers. This may actually assist the Minister; these things might not come back at the next stage.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their comments. They reinforce the passion of the advocacy made by noble Lords this evening, across a very wide range of sectors and subject areas. I absolutely will go through Hansard and ensure that I follow up on the range of points made in this long, but valuable and important, debate covering a number of important topics.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very good debate. It is good that so many noble Lords took part in the discussions. My Amendment 34, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Patel, is clearly concerned with maintaining our thriving life science sector, particularly by looking at the current fee structure, which is likely to be so inhibiting to many people coming to the UK.
However, the debate has clearly gone wider. We have heard about the importance of the movement of priests and faith leaders to this country, the movement of young people in education and travel, and of course the performing arts. As a patron of the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and Charles Court Opera, I entirely sympathise with noble Lords who are concerned about the perilous state of the arts at the moment and who want to see it thrive in the future.
I see a direct link between the performing arts and scientific sectors. My noble friend Lord Judd pointed out that the UK excels at both. Both enjoy huge international reputations, both sectors enjoy many talented people coming from abroad, and many of our talented people go abroad as well. We are concerned that the impact of the Bill, the Home Office actions, the cost of visas and the associated health surcharge will be a great inhibitor of this in the future. As my noble friend Lord Kennedy said, our international competitors look at what we are doing and cannot believe their luck.
Obviously, I have listened very carefully to the Minister. In a sense his response was a technical one to say, “Well, you don’t need a further impact assessment because we’ve already done one, we’ve got another on the way, and we’ve got the MAC to help us as well.” Frankly, as regards the future of our life science sector and performance sector, the MAC is the last group of people that I would go to for advice. The problem with the Minister’s answer is that in giving a technical one, he has not really responded to the underlying concern that so many noble Lords have about the future of these highly important sectors.
Clearly, we will come back on Report, and I believe that the House of Lords is prepared to make it very clear to the Government that they need to do more to protect these sectors. Having said that, I thank all noble Lords and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 39. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 39
Baroness Hamwee
“Time limit on immigration detention for EEA and Swiss nationals
(1) For the purpose of this section, a person (“P”) is defined as any person who, immediately before the commencement of Schedule 1, was—(a) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1052); (b) residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with a right conferred by or under any of the other instruments which is repealed by Schedule 1; or(c) otherwise residing in the United Kingdom in accordance with any right derived from European Union law which continues, by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (saving for rights etc. under section 2(1) of the ECA), to be recognised and available in domestic law after exit day.(2) The Secretary of State may not detain P under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.(3) If P remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—(a) the Secretary of State must release P forthwith; and(b) the Secretary of State may not re-detain P under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since P’s release and that the criteria in section (Initial detention: criteria and duration) are met.(4) In this Act, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).(5) In this Act, “relevant time” means the time at which P is first detained under a relevant detention power.(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause places a limit on the length of time EEA or Swiss nationals may be held in immigration detention of 28 days.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
This is the first of many new clauses which noble Lords have tabled to become part of the Bill after Clause 4. I am moving Amendment 39, which is part of a package with Amendments 40, 41 and 94; all four should be read together. Also in this group is Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and in my name, which raises important aspects of detention.
As with other amendments, because the Bill relates to EEA and Swiss citizens, the amendments themselves are necessarily limited. It may seem unlikely that issues around detention will arise in their case but, as I said on an earlier amendment, it is not impossible that asylum will be sought in the UK from harsh regimes in some EU states. I mentioned Hungary and Poland, which are moving politically, and my noble friend Lord Paddick dealt with the attempted dismissal of that notice.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 70, which is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I also wish to support Amendments 39, 40, 41 and 94, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I should also like to thank and commend the charity Medical Justice, which has briefed me on this amendment and has long worked in this field.
As I said at Second Reading, our use of segregation in detention is unique in Europe. It is usually achieved by placing detainees in a special unit in an immigration removal centre. Segregated detainees can be locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. This treatment is described as inhuman when used on prisoners who have broken the law. How much worse is it, when used on innocent asylum seekers or people who are seeking to immigrate into this country?
During the preparation of Amendment 70, I had much discussion about the phrase “removal from association” which comes from the Detention Centre Rules 2001, when I meant, quite specifically, segregation. The Minister will, no doubt, point out that staff must be able to take action against detainees who are at risk of harming others or themselves. I hope that that eventuality is covered by the wording of the amendment. Segregation is often inappropriately used as a way to manage people with severe mental health conditions. This highlights the lack of medical treatment facilities in too many detention centres. Far from being used sparingly, data shows that in 2019 alone, there were over 900 cases of the use of segregation.
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons has reported that 50% of adults detained are classified by the Home Office as “adults at risk”. Detention, an unnatural situation, is bound to cause deterioration in the mental health condition of a detainee. Segregation, being a most severe and, indeed, draconian measure, can only exacerbate that deterioration, which is why its use should be limited to 24 hours at most.
I must admit that the Minister confused me in her reply to the first group of amendments, discussed by the Committee on Monday. She said, first, that the whole point of this Bill is that the whole world is treated the same. She followed that almost immediately by saying that she did not think it was the right Bill to make any changes in enforcement, which would need to cover both EEA and non-EEA citizens, because it is limited to immigration changes as a result of our exit from the EU. I put it to her that the use of segregation affects the treatment of citizens of the whole world, as she put it, and is not limited to those from the EEA. I therefore ask whether it is included in the long-awaited review of the whole immigration system.
As a proud British citizen I was very sad to see, in this morning’s Times, the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, questioning how this country could be trusted to abide by the legal obligation of an agreement that it had signed, and the chairman of the Justice Committee warning that the rule of law was non-negotiable. I fear that if we do not amend the way we currently detain immigrants, we shall lose, in addition to trust and respect for preserving the rule of law, any reputation that we have built up for the decent, humane and civilised way we treat people who want to come to this country. As I say, we are unique in Europe in using segregation on detainees.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we need to bring our proceedings to an end for this evening, so I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.
Extradition (Provisional Arrest) Bill
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text