House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
My Department is committed to raising standards across the country and levelling up opportunities for all. Our £1 billion covid recovery package includes a £350 million national tutoring programme targeted at disadvantaged pupils, and we continue to invest in the growth of strong academy trusts to drive attainment in areas facing particular challenges.
Mr Holden
In blue wall constituencies such as North West Durham and more broadly across the north of England, it is quite clear that the Government’s lifelong learning announcement will really benefit people and communities disproportionately well, helping our Government’s levelling up agenda. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on earnings of individuals who gain a level 3 qualification, rather than sticking at level 2?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point, because there is so much evidence that if people have an A-level equivalent qualification, the benefits that they will have throughout their life are significant, with an increase of 10% of average earnings for those who gain that qualification. That is why our lifetime skills guarantee is so vital to ensure that people right across the country have the opportunities that we want all our constituents to have.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Educational attainment depends very much on the quality of the teachers. In Scotland, teachers must attain a specified professional standard, which is not necessarily replicated in other parts of the UK. The General Teaching Council for Scotland has raised concerns about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and its implications for the profession in Scotland, so will the Secretary of State agree to meet the General Teaching Council for Scotland to discuss these concerns?
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
My right hon Friend is right to delay the exams, as announced today. What assessment has been made of the students who missed learning over the past six months in terms of the catch-up needed for the learning they have lost, and what is the plan, if students are sent home, to ensure that they carry on learning at home online?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend raises the vital point that we need to ensure that we have continuity of education. I think every Member of this House recognises the value that all children gain from being in school with their teachers and having the opportunity to learn, and that is why issuing the direction of continuity of education and ensuring that schools are held accountable for delivering education even if pupils are having to isolate at home is so incredibly important. We need to ensure that every child, whether they are in the classroom or at home, is getting the education that they require.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
High-quality childcare supports children’s development and helps parents to work, and we are therefore continuing to bulk-buy childcare hours from the sector at pre-covid levels, even if providers had closed due to the pandemic. Some 708,000 children attended an early years setting on 1 October, which is an increase of about 300,000 compared with the end of the summer term. We have also encouraged schools to ensure that after-school and breakfast clubs are reopening.
Sara Britcliffe
Many residents in Hyndburn and Haslingden have contacted me regarding our manifesto commitment to delivering a £1 billion flexible childcare fund to support parents and children with holiday and wraparound care. What progress is being made on delivering on that promise?
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important question. We know that families want to be able to access affordable out-of-school childcare, and that is particularly important during the school summer holidays, so our manifesto commitment is to establish a new £1 billion fund from next year to help to create more accessible childcare, including before school, after school and in the summer school holidays. As with all future commitments, this is dependent on the outcome of the spending review, and I hope to be able to update the House with further details following the spending review.
Laura Farris
Nurseries in west Berkshire suffered a loss of fee income during the lockdown, and they are now anxious about a reduction in parental demand. They are grateful for the guaranteed funding until the end of this year, but what assessment has my hon. Friend made of the recovery of parental demand, and what assurances can she give the sector for the rest of the academic year?
Vicky Ford
May I start by thanking childcare providers in west Berkshire and across the country for providing such essential support for our very youngest children? This term, we have committed to block buying those hours from providers, provided that they are open, regardless of how many children are attending, and local authorities should pass that funding on. We are obviously looking closely at the situation from next term, and the future funding will be dependent on the funding review, but the really good news is that attendance is increasing and, on 1 October, the numbers showed that it was about 80% of the pre-covid usual daily level of attendance.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
Data from Ofsted shows that the number of nurseries and other childcare providers with coronavirus cases has, on average, been doubling every week since the start of September, yet many early years workers cannot access covid tests or get quick results, which is forcing them to stay at home. I have heard from a nursery in Surrey that has been forced to close as a result, affecting 40 children and depriving their parents of childcare. Will the Minister confirm whether childcare workers still qualify for priority testing? If so, why are they not getting it?
Vicky Ford
Yes, I can absolutely confirm that education and childcare workers, including those in the early years, are essential workers and have priority access, via the online booking portal. That has been the case since April.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
We have been working closely with the Secretary of State for Transport to ensure that young people can travel and continue to travel to their place of education during the coronavirus pandemic. We have made £44 million available to fund additional dedicated transport to schools and colleges, and we will announce additional funding shortly.
Navendu Mishra
Does the Minister accept that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that local authorities have the funds available to operate low-cost travel schemes, such as the System One scheme in Greater Manchester? Does she agree that it is unacceptable for the Treasury to simply devolve cuts, which will ultimately have an impact on young people?
Gillian Keegan
Of course we have taken very seriously the issue of ensuring that children can get to school and colleges; there has been not only an extra £2 billion in funding to help people to walk to school and to make it safe for them to get to school, but £44 million for dedicated transport. So the Treasury is putting a lot of investment into this area.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
As part of £160 million invested to support remote education, more than 220,000 laptops and tablets have already been delivered, with 40,000 routers additional to that. We are now supplementing this support by making available 250,000 additional devices in the event that face-to-face schooling is disrupted. This represents an injection of nearly half a million laptops and tablets for those most in need.
Siobhain McDonagh
But from 22 October schools will be required to provide remote education to those pupils isolating because of coronavirus. Ofcom estimates that up to 1.78 million children in the UK have no access to a laptop, desktop or tablet at home, and this policy will fail them. With less than two weeks until the changes, how can the education of those children be guaranteed? Is it not time to ensure that every child entitled to a free school meal is provided with internet access and an adequate device at home?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady will probably be familiar with our policy and the fact that we have set up support for schools that will have to provide remote education for children, whereby we are making sure that those children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are properly supported by this programme and investment of half a million laptops.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Although the vast majority of children are back in the classroom, we have made 250,000 laptops and tablets available in the event that face-to-face education is disrupted, building on more than 220,000 already delivered to those most in need. We have also made resources available to schools to deliver high-quality online education, alongside the Government-funded Oak National Academy, which is providing video lessons across a broad range of subjects.
Mark Logan
What measures are this Government putting in place to ensure that disadvantaged children right across Bolton have extra online support to get them through the winter of covid and put a spring in their step in 2021?
Nick Gibb
It is vital that students have a spring in their step and that they have access to high-quality remote education, so we have invested more than £160 million in connectivity, devices and support—including more than 980 laptops and tablets to Bolton Council—alongside additional devices delivered to academy trusts. We are now making available 250,000 more devices nationwide in the event of further disruption. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that Bolton schools and academies have already received more than £1 million in their first catch-up premium payment.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
Covid-19 has had a detrimental effect on some of the most underprivileged children in our society. My right hon. Friend will remember a Westminster Hall debate in September 2016 on this issue. A white working-class boy—an example who represents a substantial proportion of pupil numbers in Lincoln—is 10% less likely to participate in higher education than any other ethnic group or gender. What is my right hon. Friend doing, and what has he done, to ensure that we close this gap and that the ongoing pandemic does not make the situation worse?
Nick Gibb
I do remember that important debate that my hon. Friend secured. I share his determination to see the academic attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils—including white working-class boys—and others closed. That determination has been at the core of all our education reforms since 2010, particularly in respect of the focus on phonics in the teaching of reading, the evidence-based approach to the teaching of maths, and a more knowledge-based curriculum. Since 2011, the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and others has narrowed by 13% at key stage 2 and by 9% at key stage 4. The £1 billion catch-up premium, with £350 million specifically targeted towards disadvantaged students, is designed to address the widening attainment gaps caused by measures taken to tackle the covid pandemic.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
The Government are working to ensure that all students have access to digital learning, including by helping providers to draw upon the existing funding of £256 million for the year 2020-21 to go towards the purchase of IT equipment and wider hardship support. The Government expect universities to continue to deliver high-quality academic experiences for all students.
Richard Burgon [V]
The Secretary of State should have seen the new analysis today that shows that infection rates on university campuses are up to seven times higher than those in surrounding areas. There are fears that this will spread the virus to higher-risk groups in the local community. The Government should have moved teaching online before term started, as the University and College Union recommended. Will the Minister accept the Government’s error in not doing so and instruct universities to move to online learning as the default? Or will she and the Government continue to play Russian roulette with the lives of students, staff and local communities?
Michelle Donelan
The Government have prioritised education. We do not believe it would be right to put students’ lives and academic journeys on hold. Although only a small proportion of university populations have covid, it is an awful experience for every student who is having to self-isolate, which is why it is so important that support—from providing food to mental health and wellbeing support—is there for those students. I was pleased to see the Universities UK statement last week detailing the sector’s commitment to that support, which is in line with exactly what the Government expect.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
In the Education Select Committee sitting last Tuesday, the Minister was unable to answer how many students are self-isolating and therefore totally reliant on accessing digital and online learning. She was also unable to answer how many students have covid-19; how we will ensure that tests are available to students; when the two-week late “imminent” guidance, with robust frequently asked questions on students returning home for Christmas, will be published; or even how many students are currently learning only online. What impact does the Minister think her Government’s incompetence and inability to answer basic questions about covid-19 in our universities is having on the spread of the virus in university towns and cities?
Michelle Donelan
I will begin with the Christmas guidance, which is certainly not late—I am sure the hon. Lady will understand that it is important that we get this right. I am working with the sector, with a sub-working group—the taskforce—to identify the issues and ensure that comprehensive guidance is forthcoming. That commitment to students on Christmas remains. Around 9,000 students currently have covid. This is the data that has been sent to us by universities. It is the cumulative number of cases over the past seven days and is based on a student population of about 2 million. Public Health England informs us that 68 universities have outbreaks. We will go back to those universities to ascertain that data and, as of next week, working with the Office for Students, there will be a new data regime, which will be much more transparent.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
Children with special educational needs and disabilities have faced many challenges during the pandemic, and some of them will find returning to school difficult, but the good news is that more than 80% of those with education, health and care plans are now attending. We have published guidance and resources to support schools to re-engage pupils with learning. We are increasing high-needs funding by a nearly quarter—a record amount—over a two-year period and we are also providing an additional £1 billion in catch-up support for schools.
Vicky Foxcroft [V]
I asked the Education Secretary on 2 July and again on 7 September about support for children with SEND during the covid-19 catch-up. He said that he would write to me, but that letter has not been forthcoming. I ask again: what assisted technology is being offered as part of the distribution of laptops and tablets to enable pupils to work from home if needed? Will the Minister provide an answer this time or will I have to do this again next month?
Vicky Ford
I am enormously proud of the fact that we are one of the few countries in the world that have asked schools to remain open for vulnerable children, including those with the most severe disabilities. Although we know that they could not all attend due to their own circumstances, it is incredibly important that they all get back to schools. On remote learning, to support schools in delivering remote education, we have delivered a range of resources and guidance, including specific support for children and young people with SEND. Obviously, those who were eligible for laptops, receive laptops and devices as part of that programme.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
The Department is committed to the continuation of high quality education for all pupils. We have asked that every school plan for the possibility of local restrictions to ensure continuity of education. We have published a direction, which provides an express legal duty on schools to provide remote education where needed.
Stuart Anderson
In our mission to level up, I am keen to ensure that every child has the resources and support that they need to thrive. What is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that the most vulnerable children and those with complex needs, such as the wonderful children at Penn Fields in my constituency, can have everything that they need to thrive during this time?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is right to highlight the brilliant work at Penn Fields School that serves not only his constituents, but mine as well. I will, if I may, also highlight the wonderful work of Wightwick Hall School, which is in my constituency and also serves his constituents as well. They are doing an amazing job during this pandemic, but it is right to ask how we can support them more. That is why, in terms of covid catch-up funding, the support that we are providing for those special schools is three times the rate of that going to mainstream schools, which recognises the extra challenges that they have to deal with.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Exams are the fairest form of assessment. Ofqual has confirmed changes to A-level assessment content, and we have announced today a short delay in the exam timetable to free up teaching time to ensure that exams remain a fair assessment for all.
Henry Smith
Significant concessions were under- standably made for A-level graduates this year because of covid-19, but what plans are being developed to ensure that next year’s A-level students are not disadvantaged in terms of university places?
Nick Gibb
The Government and universities understand what a difficult time young people have had. We are committed to working together to support the 2021 cohort: that is a key priority. We are also working with Ofqual and the exam boards to consider our approach to exams and assessments in 2021.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
We announced a package of measures in May to support the sector. We have also issued guidance on reopening, reflecting advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, and we have worked with universities to ensure that they have outbreak plans that are shared with their local Public Health England teams. We will shortly provide additional guidance on winter planning and end-of-term preparations.
Tom Randall
A constituent of mine who is also an associate lecturer at Nottingham Trent University wrote to me to say that a safe start to the new academic year would be a boost in a year that has been awful in so many ways. Why was it important to reopen universities? Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent’s suggestion that specific testing and monitoring systems for universities might help to provide a safety net for very close-knit groups?
Michelle Donelan
This Government have prioritised education. We simply cannot ask students to put their lives, or their academic journeys, on hold. To do so would mean removing opportunities, damaging social mobility and punishing young people. The education and welfare of students is at the forefront of all our decisions. That is why we have worked and continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that students get access to tests if symptomatic so that the trace work can kick in immediately.
Bim Afolami
Last week I spoke to several constituents who are students at university. As per the Minister’s answer, I think it is fair to say that education and welfare, in many respects, leaves a lot to be desired. Could she and the Department help me to understand why several universities are not giving face-to-face teaching at all, even in an appropriate socially distanced way; are being extremely draconian in the way that certain students are being treated in terms of their social contact, which is a critical part of being at university; and, in some cases, are even charging £18 a day for food parcels? Could the Minister put appropriate pressure on universities—not all of them but those that are not performing—to sort this out?
Michelle Donelan
Universities are offering blended learning unless they have moved to a higher covid tier, in conjunction with their local Public Health England team. But let me be clear: no university should seek to profit from students self-isolating, and reported charges of £18 a day for food parcels are quite simply outrageous. Students self-isolating in catered halls should receive free food, while other students should receive food that is either free—as many universities, including Sheffield Hallam and Edge Hill, are doing—or at a price that can be afforded within a student’s budget. I have spoken to many universities on this, and I am also writing to them to make the point.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We have published specific guidance to support the full opening of special schools. Recognising the additional challenges that they face, we have announced a package of support worth £1 billion, which includes a £650 million catch-up premium with additional weighting for specialist settings. We are also increasing the high needs funding by an additional £1.5 billion over this year and next.
Sir David Amess
I visited the excellent Fairways Primary School in my constituency this morning. I have also been contacted by two special schools, Estuary High School, which is having difficulty in getting tests for their students in their residential homes, and Kingsdown School, which is very worried about the new guidance issued on 28 August in terms of social distancing. Will my right hon. Friend look at those two points for me, please?
Gavin Williamson
All schools are issued with sets of testing kit, and they have the ability to order more via the NHS portal. I would be very happy to look at the two points highlighted by my hon. Friend.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Schools have continued to receive their core funding throughout the covid-19 outbreak and have been able to claim funds to meet certain exceptional costs in the period between March and July. We have so far paid out £58 million to schools, with further payments due later this autumn, and we are also providing £1 billion in catch-up funding. The Department and Ministers regularly meet school leaders on a range of covid-19 issues, including in relation to costs faced by schools.
Anthony Mangnall
I have been going back to school, and in doing so I have been speaking to a number of headteachers and principals who are increasingly alarmed about the costs they have incurred on PPE spend. What is the Minister doing to assure them that their budgets will not be stripped and that they will be able to recoup some of those losses?
Nick Gibb
Schools have continued to receive their core funding and should be using that to support their covid-19 expenditure. They have also been able to claim up to £75,000 to meet certain exceptional costs in that period between March and July. Brixham College and King Edward VI Community College have applied to the exceptional costs funds, and King Edward VI has received payments and Brixham will be receiving payments shortly.
Ellie Reeves
Headteachers in my constituency tell me they are having to invest significantly in extra cleaning procedures and safety measures, as well as extra staff to cover periods of self-isolation. Further, many schools have also lost reliable income streams from hiring out spaces and fundraising events. Even before covid-19, school budgets were already stretched after years of cuts. With the pandemic set to continue, will the Minister commit today to extra funds for schools in the months to come?
Nick Gibb
This year is the first of a three-year funding settlement for schools. It is the largest increase in school funding for more than a decade, with £2.6 billion more funding for schools this year. In the hon. Lady’s constituency, pupil-led funding will rise by 2.2% this year.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Last week, the Schools Minister told me, as he has just alluded to, that schools have already submitted claims for £148 million for help with the extra covid-related costs they faced between March and July. As he just said, the Government have so far paid £58 million to schools for help during that period. Why is it that the Government accept that schools needed that additional help with covid costs earlier in the year, but are now ignoring pleas from headteachers for the resources they need for covid-related costs from September onwards? When will the Government recognise the significant extra costs of supply teachers required when staff self-isolate?
Nick Gibb
The hon. Lady is right that schools have been able to claim for exceptional covid-related costs for that period of March to July. Our priority now, as schools reopen to all pupils, is to target the available extra funding on catch-up, supporting schools to help all pupils to catch-up lost teaching time when schools were closed to most pupils. The £1 billion catch-up funding includes £650 million distributed on a per pupil basis to all schools, which means that a typical 1,000-pupil secondary school will receive £80,000 in extra funding this year. That is on top of the three-year funding settlement that I mentioned earlier—the biggest funding boost for schools in a decade.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
We are putting an extra £730 million into funding those with complex special educational needs and disabilities next year, which represents a 10% increase year-on-year in the high needs block, and that comes on top of the £780 million increase for this year, which means that the block will have grown by £1.5 billion, which is an increase of nearly a quarter. In Hertfordshire, funding for the high needs block will grow by 24% over that two-year period.
Stephen McPartland
I welcome the increased Government funding in Hertfordshire, but the county council does not pass it through to families on the frontline. It is cutting funding to our Delivering Special Provision Locally groups. Our child and mental health services are overwhelmed. It is focusing on process, instead of our children with SEND. Will the Minister undertake a review of the real accessibility of SEND services in Hertfordshire and help me hold the council to account, so that we can fix SEND in Hertfordshire?
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for his concern for the young people of Hertfordshire and their families. The Government are undertaking a major review of the special educational needs and disabilities system. It is a major priority for the Government and we are considering improvements to make sure that the SEND system is consistent, high quality and integrated across education, health and care and, importantly, that it works with parents, carers and families to make sure that they and their children are at the heart of the system.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his support for apprenticeships. Apprenticeships will be more important than ever to support our economic recovery and help businesses to recruit the right people and develop the skills they need to recover and grow. To support employers to offer new apprenticeships, they can now claim £2,000 for every new apprentice they hire under the age of 25 and £1,500 for those aged over 25.
John Howell
As a country, we rightly champion our wonderful universities. However, we are often too slow—particularly in schools—to promote apprenticeships. Will my hon. Friend assure me that she is doing everything in her power to ensure that apprenticeships are seen as a valid part of our education system?
Gillian Keegan
I can reassure my hon. Friend that, as a former apprentice, this is very much at the forefront of my focus. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that further education is now more important than ever. That is part of the reason we are introducing once-in-a-generation reforms of the FE system through our skills White Paper, underpinning the progress we are already making with T-levels, which is backed by £500 million of funding per year, investing £1.5 billion in the transformation of the FE college estate, investing £2.5 billion through the national skills fund and introducing a new entitlement for adults without qualifications at level 3.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Minister is right to say that apprenticeships are more important than ever, but for all the rhetoric, the way that the Government introduced the apprenticeship levy saw level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship numbers falling to their lowest level for a decade before coronavirus. Since then, we have seen generous incentives in the new kickstart scheme and much less generous incentives for apprenticeships. For all that the Minister says, why do this Government consistently introduce policies that have the effect of reducing the numbers doing level 2 and 3 apprenticeships?
Gillian Keegan
The hon. Gentleman refers, I think, to the switch from frameworks to standards, which did have an impact on some of the numbers, but it was most important that we focused on the quality of apprenticeships. There were a number of apprenticeships early on, when we introduced the reform of the system, that were not of the desired quality. Young people put their trust in us, in the apprenticeship provider and in the employer, and it is most important that they get very high-quality apprenticeships; that is our focus.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
The Government encourage the study of science, technology, engineering and maths at all stages, which is vital for our economy and to drive productivity. In higher education, we are removing loan funding barriers for part-time STEM study at equivalent or lower levels and piloting graduate conversion courses for studying engineering, computer science and artificial intelligence.
Virginia Crosbie
In my constituency of Ynys Môn, I am working with Coleg Menai, M-SParc and the team at Bangor University to organise an innovation jobs fair. How is the Minister encouraging innovative companies such as Dyson to invest in the next generation?
Michelle Donelan
Dyson’s UK site is based just outside my constituency, and I must declare that it has twice sponsored the Wiltshire Festival of Engineering, which I have organised. I am delighted that, as of last week, the pioneering Dyson Institute will be able to award its own degrees. A business taking this step is revolutionary, and I hope that many more will follow, to give students a much more diverse choice in higher education and ensure that we can deliver the skills that this country needs.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Maintained schools are required to teach religious education to all five to 18-year-olds. Any concerns that a maintained school is not meeting that duty should first go through the school’s complaints procedure, and if the complaint is not resolved, the issue can be escalated to the Department’s school complaints unit.
Janet Daby [V]
Religious education helps children to grow up with an understanding of and respect for people from different religious, ethnic and cultural backgrounds. It is also a statutory requirement, but the Religious Education Council tells me that 40% of all schools give no hours to RE in year 11. Does the Minister agree that the Department needs to better support schools to ensure that they are meeting their obligations to teach RE?
Nick Gibb
I agree with the hon. Member. Good quality religious education can help to develop children’s knowledge of the values and traditions of Britain and other countries, and foster understanding among different faiths and cultures. At a national level, the proportion of time secondary schools spend teaching RE has actually remained broadly stable. It was 3.2% of all teaching hours in 2010 and 3.3% in 2019.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
We continue to believe that exams are the fairest form of assessment. Today we announced our plans for next summer’s year 11 exams to take place—the GCSEs—and we will work with Ofqual to engage the sector in planning for a range of scenarios of potential disruption to exams to ensure students get the results they deserve.
Caroline Nokes
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s written statement today and thank him for ending the uncertainty that was facing pupils, teachers and parents alike. Please can he reassure constituents such as one of mine, 15-year-old Charlotte, who wrote to me a couple of weeks ago and inspired this question today, that next year’s exams will take into account the disruption there has been to their learning, while allowing them to demonstrate their ability and what they have learned over the past few years, and please will he reassure her that further detail as to how that will be achieved will be coming very soon?
Nick Gibb
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We do believe that the subject level changes to the content of assessment that was confirmed by Ofqual recently will reduce the pressure on students and free up teaching time. Combined with the timing changes to exams announced today, this does free up more teaching time to help address any unfairness. On top of that, as I have said before, there is the £1 billion catch-up fund, and we will have more to say later in the autumn about the issue of grading.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We are taking unprecedented action to help schools support wellbeing, including wellbeing for education return training, and world-leading trials on ways to promote mental health wellbeing. Disadvantaged pupils will receive high-quality tuition through the £350 million national tutoring programme, and we continue to provide schools with the £2.4 billion pupil premium.
Debbie Abrahams
We have seen the educational attainment gap between disadvantaged and advantaged children widen over the past decade, especially for children with special educational needs and disabilities. On top of this, earlier this year we heard from the Education Policy Institute that this attainment gap had widened during covid. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the impact of covid on levelling up for SEND children?
Gavin Williamson
I think the hon. Lady and I have a shared passion to make sure that we close that gap, making sure that children, wherever they are born anywhere in the United Kingdom, have the very best opportunities in life. As the Prime Minister himself said, talent and ability are evenly spread in this country, but opportunity has not always been so. In an earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson), I touched on the fact that there is a three times weighting for children with special educational needs in terms of the covid catch-up fund, making sure that extra support is channelled that way. I am sure that the hon. Lady has welcomed the announcements we made not just last year but this year which saw a total of £1.5 billion-worth of extra funding being channelled into high need funding in this country over this year and next year.
Mohammad Yasin
The programmes that exist to encourage and inspire bright pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds to access top universities have been severely impacted this year. The application deadline for Oxbridge medicine and dentistry is this Thursday. What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that this year’s state school pupils, who have already been disadvantaged because of the reduced teaching time and mentoring, get a fair crack of the whip?
Gavin Williamson
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the news this year that Oxford and Cambridge welcome more state school pupils than they have ever done before. We want to continue to build on that. We want to ensure that every higher education establishment makes sure that all the opportunities that they can offer are available to every single child, whatever background they come from.
Gareth Thomas
Tackling rising levels of food poverty would be one good way of improving the wellbeing of disadvantaged children and helping to raise educational attainment, so why will Ministers not extend the holiday hunger food vouchers programme to the half-term holiday and Christmas holidays?
Gavin Williamson
As well as the incredibly successful holiday activity programme that we saw rolled out across many areas of England, we are looking at what more we can do in these areas, while recognising the important role that schools play in supporting pupils in their learning but also supporting their families.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
We are working across Government and closely with the higher education sector to provide both practical and financial support through the covid-19 outbreak. This includes publishing reopening guidance to universities informed by SAGE advice, lifting caps on domestic medicine and dentistry causes for 2020-21, and providing both additional capital and teaching grant funding.
Ben Lake
I thank the Minister for her response. She may be aware of concerns that the impact of the covid pandemic on the student experience will see higher non-completion rates, despite the best efforts of students and staff to continue teaching and learning throughout the outbreak. If non-completion rates were to increase, would the Government consider allocating additional financial support to universities to help cover the costs of non-completion?
Michelle Donelan
We have a taskforce that meets weekly, and non-completion is something we have discussed. It is imperative that we support students to continue and complete their courses, and that we unlock their future potential and opportunities. This Government are determined to stand by them and ensure that happens.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Mr Speaker
The Secretary of State is not here. Perhaps we will hear the supplementary question, as we have no further detail.
Shaun Bailey
For students in the Black Country, T-levels and technical education will be a vital part of our story when coming out of this crisis. My further education providers are committed to ensuring that we get this right, but there is some concern about the work experience time allocation element. Will my hon. Friend meet me and representatives from my fantastic FE college, Sandwell College, to discuss how we can ensure that this system works for students in the Black Country?
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
T-levels are a fantastic initiative that the Government have rolled out, and I will certainly speak to the Skills Minister and meet my hon. Friend to discuss how this issue can be sorted.
Mr Speaker
The shadow Secretary of State can now ask two questions to whichever Minister would like to take them.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Perhaps I could start by asking the Schools Minister a question, since he is here. The Secretary of State has repeatedly said that every child would return to school in September, and I support him in that ambition. Being safely back in school is best for children’s wellbeing and learning. Latest figures show that one in 10 pupils are out of school, as bubbles and year groups are forced to isolate whenever a child or a member of staff tests positive for covid. Worryingly, attendance at special schools is down at just over 80%, and some teachers report that parents are withdrawing their children altogether to home-school them.
We are not even at the start of winter, yet hundreds of thousands of children are already having their learning disrupted. We all agree that a functional test and trace system is crucial to keep teachers and children safely in schools. How many pupils and staff are currently waiting for a test result or are forced to isolate? Why have the Government not included school pupils on the list of priority groups for testing, as the schools Minister promised?
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
Teachers and headteachers up and down the country have done a tremendous job of getting children back to school, and 99.8% of schools are open in this country. In special schools some 80% of children with education, health and care plans are in school, and we kept schools open for children with EHC plans throughout our tackling of the pandemic. We have a very successful test and trace scheme, which is why we are able to pinpoint local outbreaks, and why we have statistics about outbreaks up and down the country. By the end of the month we intend—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to those on both Front Benches that topical questions are meant to be short and punchy, not full-blown questions. If people want full-blown questions they should ask them earlier. I have to get through topicals. I call the shadow Secretary of State to ask a question to the Secretary of State.
Kate Green
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place. On 1 October, he said that people must be given
“the opportunity to retrain and upskill”—[Official Report, 1 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 541.]
but it has now been announced that his Department will be scrapping the union learning fund, which supports hundreds of thousands of learners each year, many with little or no formal education. That scheme benefits workers, our economy and business, so getting rid of it must be either astonishing incompetence or playing shameless politics with people’s life chances. Which is it, and will the Secretary of State rethink this wrong-headed initiative?
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
It probably wasn’t worth the wait, Mr Speaker.
It is very kind of the hon. Lady to read out the press release that the TUC sent her, but the reality is that we are investing more in skills and further education than ever before. That is why we are investing over £1.5 billion in capital in further education. That is why we are investing more in level 3 A-level equivalent qualifications. That is why we are driving opportunities forward. I will not apologise; if we think we can spend money that was previously channelled to the TUC in a better way to deliver more opportunities in our colleges, yes, we will do it in a better way, and that is what we are doing.
Mr Speaker
May I just say that the Secretary of State will apologise to the House, because it was rather discourteous of him to disappear?
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
Mr Speaker, I apologise for being a little late. I got waylaid by a colleague asking a question outside the Chamber, and I did not realise the speed at which you were working through the Order Paper; it was so much more efficient than the last Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) raises a really important question about apprenticeships and ensuring that we support youngsters who may find themselves in a situation with the company that they are working for where they are not in a position to complete their apprenticeship. That is why we are working very closely across Government to put in place measures to ensure that if a youngster, or anyone of any age, is in a position where they would not be able to complete their apprenticeship, they can do so, and to support employers to continue to take on apprentices. That includes the up to £2,000 that employers can benefit from by taking on apprentices.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
I was delighted to hear last week that the Scottish Tories now support the Scottish National party’s policy on free university tuition. I am sure the Secretary of State will welcome that U-turn, but can he confirm that the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill will not undermine the ability of the Scottish Government to set university fees in Scotland, or to continue providing free university tuition?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady seems always to miss the point that we live in a United Kingdom of four nations together, where there is one single market, and that we have to ensure that there is efficient and proper use of that market so that all four nations properly benefit.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises such an important point about the importance of having the right provision in Cornwall for her constituents. When I visited her constituency, I saw how she was campaigning so hard to get the very best for all her constituents. I would be very happy to meet her to discuss this further and to discuss how best to ensure that we deliver the brilliant provision she is always rightly fighting for.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
I do not just share my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm; I am right there with him, cheering it on and making sure that it happens. I pay tribute to him and other brilliant Conservative colleagues in Stoke-on-Trent, including of course the Conservative leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council, Councillor Abi Brown, who has been driving this forward so hard. We want to see all schools having that connectivity and the benefits that the internet can bring for every single child in our schools.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. When we looked at the provision of support for children, especially the most disadvantaged, we were looking at the equipment not just in terms of laptops or tablets, but the routers that go with them. We have also been working, along with colleagues from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, with major internet providers on how we ensure that that provision is available for all youngsters across the country.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
It looks as if I will be spending the day with my hon. Friend as we tour Wolverhampton, which would be an absolute delight. I look forward to joining him in doing that. Let me take the opportunity to thank not just those teachers, support staff and parents but, most importantly, the children, who have ensured that the return of schools has been such a success, with so many children getting back to school and having the opportunity to learn. Despite the efforts of some, this has been a success, and children are the ones who are benefiting more than any others.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Nick Gibb
We take this issue very seriously. We have already supplied 220,000 laptops and tablets to schools and local authorities up and down the country—one of the biggest procurements of computer devices in this country. We have plans in place for another 250,000 laptops, and £160 million has been spent ensuring that people have access to the internet should they need to self-isolate. However, at the moment, 99.8% of schools are open and 90% of pupils are in school learning with their teachers.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Gavin Williamson
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, Chris White, who is involved in the Warwickshire College Group and has already made representations to me on this matter. We recognise that the college sector plays an important role. That is why we have been increasing the rate of support and funding. We will continue to work with the sector to ensure not just its future stability but its future success.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
That is why we have given extra flexibilities to colleges and made learner support funds available for devices and to cover connectivity costs, which is an issue that some students have faced. Further education must be at the heart of our recovery from this pandemic, as it is able to reach into many communities that, in the past, have been left behind. It will not only create life chances and opportunities for many young people, but will drive productivity across all parts of the United Kingdom. To ensure that we deliver on that, I look forward to working with my hon. Friend, who is a passionate advocate of further education colleges not just in his constituency but across the country.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady speaks, rightly, with a passion and conviction on this issue that I share. We want to see this ended; we want to see this changed. It is not something that we can allow to continue. She will be aware of the Department’s consultation on the issue, and we look forward to publishing the results in the not-too-distant future. This is incredibly important, as these children are from some of the most vulnerable backgrounds in the country, and we have a duty as a state to do everything we can to protect them.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The purpose of the Office for Students is that
“every student has a fulfilling experience of higher education”.
In the light of the current difficulties faced by undergraduates, will the Secretary of State commit to a post-covid review of the OfS?
Gavin Williamson
I will work closely with the OfS to ensure that it is working with universities and that universities are delivering what students expect and require for their studies. We will always work closely with all government organisations to deliver the very best for students and ensure that universities deliver on students’ behalf.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on our continuing fight against coronavirus and how we intend to fulfil our simultaneous objectives of saving lives and protecting the NHS while keeping our children in school and our economy running, thus protecting jobs and livelihoods.
This morning, the deputy chief medical officer set out the stark reality of the second wave of the virus. The number of cases has quadrupled in the last three weeks. There are now more people in hospital with covid than when we went into lockdown on 23 March, and deaths are already rising. Of course, there are those who say that on that logic, we should go back into a full national lockdown of indefinite duration, closing schools and businesses, telling people again to stay at home as we did in March, and once again shattering our lives and our society. I do not believe that would be the right course. We would not only deprive our children of their education, but we would do such damage to our economy as to erode our long-time ability to fund the NHS and other crucial public services.
On the other side of the argument, there are those who think that the patience of the public is now exhausted, that we should abandon the fight against covid, stand aside, let nature take her course and call a halt to these repressions of liberty. Of course, I understand those emotions. I understand the frustration of those who have been chafing under the restrictions and the sacrifices they have made. But if we were to follow that course and let the virus rip, the bleak mathematics dictate that we would suffer not only an intolerable death toll, but put such a huge strain on our NHS with an uncontrolled second spike, that our doctors and nurses would be simply unable to devote themselves to other treatments for cancer, heart disease and hundreds more illnesses that have already been delayed and would be delayed again, with serious long-term damage to the health of the nation.
I am afraid that it is no answer to say that we could let the virus take hold among the young and fit while shielding the elderly and vulnerable, because the virus would then spread with such velocity in the general population that there would be no way of stopping it spreading among the elderly. Even if the virus is less lethal for the under-60s, there will still be many younger people for whom, alas, it remains lethal.
We do not want to go back to another national lockdown; we cannot let the virus rip, so since June, we have followed a balanced approach, with the support of many Members across the House, to keep the R down while keeping schools and the economy going, and controlling the virus by changing our behaviour to restrict its spread. That is why we have the rule of six and restrictions such as the 10 pm closing time on our hospitality sector.
I take no pleasure whatsoever in imposing restrictions on those businesses, many of which have gone to great lengths to reopen as safely as possible. Nor do I want to stop people enjoying themselves. But we must act to save lives and the evidence shows that in changing our behaviour to restrict transmission between us, our actions are saving lives. Left unchecked, each person with the virus will infect an average of between 2.7 and three others, but the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies assesses that the current R nationally is between 1.2 and 1.5. So we are already suppressing that R to well below its natural level, which is why the virus is not spreading as quickly as it did in March, but we need to go further. In recent months we have worked with local leaders to counter local spikes with targeted restrictions. This local approach has inevitably produced different sets of rules in different parts of the country, which are now complex to understand and to enforce. So just as we simplified our national rules with the rule of six, we will now simplify and standardise our local rules by introducing a three-tiered system of local covid alert levels in England, set at medium, high and very high.
The medium alert level, which will cover most of the country, will consist of the current national measures. This includes the rule of six and the closure of hospitality at 10 pm.
The high alert level reflects the interventions in many local areas at the moment. This primarily aims to reduce household-to-household transmission, by preventing all mixing between different households or support bubbles indoors. In these areas, the rule of six will continue to apply outdoors, where it is harder for the virus to spread, in public spaces as well as private gardens. Most areas which are already subject to local restrictions will automatically move into the high alert level. As a result of rising infection rates, Nottinghamshire, east and west Cheshire and a small area of High Peak will also move into the high alert level.
The very high alert level will apply where transmission rates are rising most rapidly and where the NHS could soon be under unbearable pressure without further restrictions. In these areas the Government will set a baseline of prohibiting social mixing indoors and in private gardens, and, I am sorry to say, closing pubs and bars. We want to create the maximum possible local consensus behind this more severe local action, so in each area we will work with local government leaders on the additional measures which should be taken. This could lead to further restrictions on the hospitality, leisure, entertainment or personal care sectors, but retail, schools and universities will remain open.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out, the Government will expand their unprecedented economic support to assist those affected by these decisions, extending our job support scheme to cover two thirds of the wages of those in any business that is required to close, and providing those businesses with a cash grant of up to £3,000 a month, instead of £1,500 every three weeks. We will also provide local authorities across England with around £1 billion of new financial support, on top of our £3.6 billion towns fund. And for “very high” areas, we will give further financial support for local test and trace and local enforcement, and assistance from the armed forces—not for enforcement, but rather to support local services, if desired in the local area.
I can report that we have been able to reach agreement with leaders in Merseyside. Local authorities in the Liverpool city region will move into the very high alert level from Wednesday. In addition to the baseline I have outlined—this is as well as pubs and bars—in Merseyside gyms and leisure centres, betting shops, adult gaming centres and casinos will also close. I would like to put on record my thanks to Steve Rotheram and his colleagues for their co-operation in very difficult circumstances.
Engagement with other leaders in the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and the Humber is continuing. I know how difficult this is—they, like us, like everyone in this House, are grappling with very real dilemmas—but we cannot let the NHS fall over when lives are at stake. Let me repeat the offer that we are making to those local authorities: work with us on these difficult but necessary measures in the areas that are rated very high, in return for more support for local test and trace, more funding for local enforcement, the offer of help from the armed services, and the job support scheme, as announced by the Chancellor.
I believe not to act would be unforgivable, so I hope that rapid progress can be made in the coming days. Regulations for all three covid local alert levels are being laid today. They will be debated and voted on tomorrow, before coming into force on Wednesday.
We will also keep these measures under constant review, including a four-week sunset clause for interventions in very high areas. A postcode search on gov.uk, as well as the NHS covid-19 app, will show which local alert level applies in each area. We are also publishing updated guidance to explain what the covid alert levels mean for those who are clinically extremely vulnerable. While these levels specifically apply to England, we continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to tackle this virus across the whole United Kingdom.
This is not how we want to live our lives, but this is the narrow path we have to tread between the social and economic trauma of a full lockdown and the massive human and, indeed, economic cost of an uncontained epidemic. With local, regional and national Government coming together in a shared responsibility and a shared effort to deliver ever better testing and tracing and ever more efficient enforcement of rules; with ever improving therapies and the mountains of personal protective equipment and the ventilators that we have stockpiled; and with all the lessons we have learned in the last few months, we are becoming better and better at fighting this virus.
Though I must warn the House again that the weeks and months ahead will continue to be difficult and will test the mettle of this country, I have no doubt at all that, together, we will succeed, and I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for his telephone call earlier today.
We are at a critical moment—“a tipping point”, to quote the deputy chief medical officer. We have all seen the clear and alarming trend in infection rates. The virus is now spreading in all areas of the United Kingdom, though much faster in some areas than others. As the Prime Minister and the deputy chief medical officer said, there are more patients in hospital with covid today than when the country went into lockdown on 23 March, and deaths are rising. Nobody should be under any illusion about where this is heading or about the need for decisive action. The question today is whether the restrictions announced by the Prime Minister can bring the country back from the brink and whether they can regain control of the virus and provide the support and confidence that local businesses and communities need.
That is how high the stakes now are, so we will consider the package, we will look at the small print of the Prime Minister’s statement, we will discuss them with local mayors, councillors and leaders in the areas most affected and we will scrutinise the economic package that sits alongside them. But I have to say to the Prime Minister that I am now deeply sceptical that the Government have actually got a plan to get control of this virus, to protect jobs or to regain public trust. We have tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, but it increasingly feels like the Prime Minister is several steps behind the curve and running to catch up with a virus that he lost control of long ago.
It was less than three weeks ago, on 22 September, that the Prime Minister came to this House to announce new restrictions. He said then that the measures he was introducing would
“curb the number of daily infections”
and that those restrictions were
“carefully judged to achieve the maximum reduction in the R number”. —[Official Report, 22 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 797-98.]
That has not happened. Those measures have not worked. We would not be here today if they had.
There is a pattern here. On 1 July, the Prime Minister told us of his new whack-a-mole strategy to control local outbreaks. Twenty areas have now been in restrictions for more than two months, and 19 of them have seen their infection rates rise, some by very large amounts, so those measures have not worked either.
In May, the Prime Minister boasted of a “world-beating” track and trace system. He told us that it would be a “real game changer” in the fight against the virus. We have debated this many times since, but last week, the figures were the worst yet. The Prime Minister promised that 100% of test results would be turned around in 24 hours. The latest figure for in-person testing is just 24% being turned around in that period.
This serial failure, combined with the repeated leaks and briefings to newspapers in the past few days, have fatally eroded public confidence just when we need it most, so can the Prime Minister tell us what reassurance he can give us that these measures today will be sufficient to get the virus under control? Will he finally accept that trace and isolate should be handed over to local authorities, as we have been saying for months? Will he accept that the support packages announced by the Chancellor simply will not work for many thousands of people, particularly those on the minimum wage? There is huge anger about this in the areas under lockdown, and there is a huge gap in the Government’s plan. Will he confirm that Mayors, local leaders, council leaders and others will be fully involved in any future decisions?
Finally, I want to say this to the Prime Minister. I know that there will be some on his side who will oppose further restrictions, who will look at the data and tell him to disregard it or who will say that the cost of acting now is too high. I want to be clear: the worst thing that the Prime Minister can do is not act quickly and decisively enough, and keep coming back to this House every couple of weeks with a new plan that does not work and is not up to the scale of the task. We need to break that cycle, finally get on top of the virus and rebuild public confidence. I hope that the measures announced today will do that, but the House and the country will be deeply sceptical about whether they can.
The Prime Minister
We have had a slight change of tack, in my view, from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has hitherto been willing to support the measures that the Government are putting in place to restrict the spread of coronavirus. We now see an equivocation; he wants it both ways. He said he supported the rule of six, and then his side refused to vote for it. He said he is unwilling to support the restrictions we placed on hospitality, and he continually runs down NHS test and trace. What he will not say is what he would do or exactly how he would propose to get this virus down without those kinds of restrictions. If he supports the tier 3 measures that Merseyside city region has rightly put into place today, he should say so. He should have the guts to say to local leaders across the country that he supports those measures and that he encourages them to go into tier 3.
It is a stunning silence that we have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. We, by contrast, are working with those local leaders to put in place the measures that will protect their populations, protect the NHS, keep our economy moving and drive the virus down. That is our collective endeavour, and I strongly urge the right hon. and learned Gentleman to work out where he stands and to stop flip-flopping from one side to the next—or rather, to go back to his previous position, which was to support restrictive measures where necessary to drive the virus down.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I recognise that these are difficult times and that he has to make difficult and, I hope, balanced choices, balancing the economic damage against the need to save our fellow citizens. In all this, one positive point that has barely been referred to is that the death rate has fallen from 3% in June to 0.6% at the moment, which has to be seen as possibly part of what the Government are trying to do.
The Government’s strategy, quite legitimately, is therefore to drive down the infection rate—I understand that—while searching for a vaccine, so I simply want to raise a point that others including the scientific advisers have raised. There is a lot of talk at the moment about the two antivirals that have now arrived, remdesivir and ivermectin. Given the Government’s objective of driving down the infection rate, and given that the average age of death at the moment is 82.4, should we not make those antivirals much more widely available at the earliest opportunity, through GPs and every other doctor, in order to get them to people to reduce the likelihood of their going into hospital and dying?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I just try to help everybody? We need short, punchy answers and questions, as that will help us to get through everybody on the list.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is, of course, right to say that we have better treatments, but, alas, the death rate has risen many times over—six times over—in the past few weeks and we have no choice in these circumstances, with more people being admitted to hospital every day, in order to get the virus down.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
In recent weeks, we have all witnessed the worrying trends of infection, the upsurge in hospitalisations and, sadly, the increase in death. The danger of the virus is self-evident. We know that we are at a tipping point, so today must be a turning point, when we must once again act collectively and get back to the absolute priority of suppressing the virus, protecting the NHS and saving lives. So may I ask the Prime Minister: is the policy to bring the R rate below 1 through the highest-level interventions being proposed? Since the beginning, we have known that mass testing is vital. Any delays in the processing of tests slow the start of contact tracing. Can the Prime Minister advise what proportion of tests in the past seven days took longer than 48 hours to process? What steps are we taking to ensure that there is no backlog in processing from the Lighthouse labs?
If today is to be a turning point, the UK Government need to carry out another U-turn on financial support for workers. It is blindingly and blatantly unfair that just as health restrictions are being strengthened economic support is being weakened. The Chancellor needs finally to wake up to that logic. There must be no more last- minute, half-baked economic announcements. Even Tory Backbenchers in the north of England are calling for the furlough to be maintained at 80% of wage support. Will the Prime Minister give some certainty and security to businesses and workers? Will he finally instruct his Chancellor to extend the full furlough scheme beyond October? Businesses and workers must not pay the price for managing the lockdown with closures and unemployment when their businesses would be viable after these special measures.
Will the Prime Minister also confirm that devolved Administrations will be able to trigger the financial support directly without requiring approval from the UK Government when they choose to put an area under heightened restrictions to help reduce the spread of the virus?
Finally, on universal credit and support for the most vulnerable, last Wednesday at Prime Minister’s questions the Prime Minister suggested that I ask him again on his Government’s plan to maintain the lifeline of the uplift in UC support. So now that he has had another week to consider it, will he do the right thing and make the £20 UC uplift permanent?
The Prime Minister
On NHS Test and Trace, capacity has massively increased, to 312,000, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. He asked what steps we are taking. We are introducing new testing sites—I think it is 500 new testing sites—and we are introducing more labs for testing. He also asks what we can do to get the virus down and the measures we are taking. He is completely right that it depends on enforcement and on testing and tracing, but it also depends on each and every one of us following the guidance, working together to get the virus down. That is what I hope he will encourage everyone to do. On the excellent point he raises about support for businesses that are going to be affected by the latest measures, I would just stress that the Chancellor’s latest job support scheme, at 67%, is highly competitive with those of all other European countries and indeed it is more generous than many. We will continue to put our arms around every worker and every business in this country to the best of the ability of this country. On the right hon. Gentleman’s specific point about universal credit, the uplift will remain present for the rest of this financial year.
Mr Speaker
Just to help the House, I will finish the statement at 5.50 pm, so let us help each other.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
This morning, it was announced that the routine testing of asymptomatic NHS staff in hotspot areas would start. This has been long advocated by the Health and Social Care Committee, and I thank the Prime Minister for the progress on it.
We all want to avoid a second national lockdown, which would be devastating for jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence from China, Korea and Italy is that the best way to avoid that is to have earlier, decisive, localised interventions, however difficult and unpalatable, and that today’s difficult decision is not, therefore, about a trade-off between jobs and health, but ultimately the best way to secure both?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says, and I know that local leaders across the country will listen to him. I hope they will accept our offer and go into tier 3 where necessary.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The Government have asked a lot from people during the pandemic: stay at home; close your business; do not be there at the death of a loved one. The British people have borne such sacrifice with grace and resilience; all they ask from the Government in return is clear communication and basic competence, yet it seems that their sacrifices have been squandered by the Government’s failure to build a robust test, trace and isolate system, or even to communicate competently. Will the Prime Minister promise that the new sacrifices he is asking of people today will not be squandered this time?
The Prime Minister
We are working hard with colleagues from all parties to get across our messages, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the support that he has felt able to give for the measures we have outlined. I believe they can be very effective if they are delivered jointly with local authorities and local support. That is what we are working for, and I hope he will join us in that effort.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con)
Pubs throughout Burton and Uttoxeter will appreciate the support available to them through the job support scheme in the event of a local lockdown, but will my right hon. Friend consider the impact on breweries, which will not be eligible for the support but will have no pubs to sell to?
The Prime Minister
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. The regular job support scheme will of course be available to businesses that are open but not able to trade in the way that they would want.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
We must of course do all we can to ensure that the NHS is able to cope with the current situation. I agree with the Prime Minister that a localised approach is the right one, while keeping schools and businesses open. On support for those who have so far not received support, will the Prime Minister commit to putting his arms around people who have not yet benefited from the various schemes that the Government have introduced?
The Prime Minister
We will always do what we can to improve the welfare system for those who are not benefiting, but I remind the House that the self-employed —the group we all care about very much—have so far received £13.5 billion of support. We will continue to look after them as well.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
One of the many reasons why the Prime Minister has proved himself such a formidable and popular politician over so many years has been his resolute belief in the common sense of the British people. Instead of a constant blizzard of arbitrary rules that will serve only to collapse the economy and destroy businesses and jobs, will he remind people of what is important—social distancing and washing hands, and the groups most at risk, including the elderly and people with health conditions—and once again put his trust in the British people to act responsibly? After all, believing that individuals make better decisions for themselves, their families and their communities than the state can make for them is surely at the heart of what it means to be a Conservative.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and the best decision that individuals can make for themselves, their families and their communities is to follow the guidance: wash your hands; face; space; and protect the NHS and save lives.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
People from Conwy, which has 122 cases per 100,000 people, are not permitted by Welsh law to make non-essential journeys into Meirionnydd next door, where cases stand at 18 per 100,000. But people from Liverpool, with almost 1,600 cases per 100,000, can still go on holiday in Gwynedd and Ynys Môn. People in Wales are asking the Prime Minister: how is that fair?
The Prime Minister
The guidance is very clear that people from areas with very high levels, such as Merseyside, should not be making those journeys.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the case rate remains relatively low in Essex, the number of cases is doubling every 10 days? Is it not better to bring in decisive measures that will suppress the curve before it climbs, rather than wait until after, provided those measures are effective and there is economic support, particularly for the hospitality sector?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right, and that is why we are bringing in this package.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Today, we seem to have a partial admission of the failure of the Government’s outsourced test and trace system. When so many of us have argued for so long that it should be in the hands of local public health teams, does the Prime Minister regret handing billions over to the private sector, which has failed so spectacularly? Will he now give this system back to local public health teams, who know their communities best, so that they can be responsible for test and trace in all areas, not just those with high numbers? Finally, will he stop saying that he has put his arms around the self-employed, when more than 3 million of them have had no support since March?
The Prime Minister
I repeat the point that I have made about the self-employed: £13.5 billion has been given to support them, and where there is more we can do, we will obviously look at it. The hon. Lady makes an interesting point about whether a local approach would have been better throughout this than a national approach. All the evidence is that we need both. That is what we have supplied, and that is what we will continue to supply. That is why we are expanding our support for the local approach. The experience of other countries shows that we need a national approach, because otherwise the local test and trace operations simply do not join up. Plenty of countries have had that experience, and that is why we are taking an approach that joins up local test and trace with national test and trace.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
What does the Prime Minister make of the special envoy’s statement that
“We in the World Health Organisation do not advocate lockdowns as the primary means of control of this virus”?
The Prime Minister
I totally agree with what David Nabarro had to say—I think he is completely right. I think that the best way to control this virus is common-sensical restrictions on person-to-person contact, because it is that person-to-person contact that spreads the virus. That is what we all need to do.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
Northern Ireland is suffering from some of the worst covid figures in the UK. Can the Prime Minister follow through on his commitment to give the Northern Ireland Executive the financial firepower to follow the science, do what is necessary to address a deteriorating situation and give businesses the support they need?
The Prime Minister
Of course. Businesses in Northern Ireland will receive exactly the same support on the basis of Barnett consequentials; that is inevitable.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to work at a local level, but I hope he will understand my disappointment that Wolverhampton has been lumped into a tier 2 system, despite the protestations of all three MPs and the local council. My fantastic pubs and restaurants have done everything asked of them, and now, because they are in tier 2, they face no financial support at all and a devastating effect on their viability. Will he urgently look at that?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but actually, the job support scheme is precisely available to pubs, restaurants and businesses in her constituency that may be open but are not able to trade as they normally would.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is aware that, if we are to tackle these horrendous rises in covid-19 in the Liverpool City Region, we need a much more effective track, trace and isolate system, but we do not have one yet. Will he accept my suggestion that we establish a Liverpool City Region test, trace and isolate taskforce, including the NHS, local authorities, the Metro Mayor and other stakeholders, to report by the end of this week with suggestions on how the unused NHS capacity that exists could be used more effectively, so that we have a proper test, trace and isolate system in place?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion. I can tell him that we are already working with the Liverpool City Region on improving local test and trace. His suggestion is very apposite and one, I am sure, that will be taken forward in the course of those conversations.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
We are seeing a very unwelcome trend from the Labour party, which backs the Government’s sensible measures one week, only to flip flop and change its mind the next week. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and several constituents from Derbyshire Dales who say that what they want to see is this House working together on sensible policies rather than political point scoring?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. What the people of this country want to see is unanimous support for measures that restrict the spread of the virus. We have had that before, and I hope that we will have it again. I also hope that Opposition Members who are calling on me to do more in Greater Manchester will prevail on the authorities there to come into tier 3 and to help us to get there.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Tragically, one of the few certainties about this second wave is that economic hardship will rise, so why will the Prime Minister not review the level of statutory sick pay, which even the Health Secretary said that he could not afford to live on, or, crucially, extend the holiday hunger food voucher programme to cover half-term and the Christmas holidays?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given substantial sums—£380 million already—to provide meals for kids in need of free school meals in these difficult times, and we will continue, through universal credit and other support, to help families across this country throughout this crisis.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s collaborative approach with local government and with the mayors, but will he bear in mind that we have unity among the politicians and the public health experts across the west midlands under our skilful and much-respected Mayor Andy Street in support of the current levels of restrictions, because they do appear to be working? The medical evidence and political consensus suggest leaving the west midlands at level 1 with the additional local restrictions.
The Prime Minister
Alas, the virus’s continued rise across the country is not uniform, but the judgments that we have made are ones that we are sticking to.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
For the record, Mr Speaker, as you are aware, Halton, although a member of the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority, is actually in Cheshire. The Prime Minister or his Ministers announced new restrictions on 14, 22 and 24 September and as recently as 3 October national or local restrictions, which impacted on my constituency. Is this not an example of how the Government are shifting from one restriction to the next without any real proper plan? My constituency of Halton has a lower rate of infection than a number of other areas that are not in the highest restriction rate. May I ask the Prime Minister why Halton is in that highest restriction rate when others are not?
The Prime Minister
This Government are of course obliged to adapt their plans to combat the virus, as the epidemic changes shape and changes course. Our objective remains unchanged, which is to get the R rate down in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and elsewhere, while keeping education open and keeping our economy going. That is something on which both sides of this House are united.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The Prime Minister has said there will be a four-week sunset for areas with the highest restrictions. What reassurance can he give to areas in tiers 1 and 2, some of which have had additional restrictions already for two and a half months, that this will not become a permanent state?
The Prime Minister
We keep all these things under constant review, and nothing could be more attractive to the Government than moving the whole country out of the present restrictions that we are in as fast as possible. That requires us all to follow the guidance.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister just said that he wants to put his arms around every worker in the country, but that will sound pretty hollow to those people left alone and abandoned, who have been excluded from any covid support from this Government. They now face a £20-a-week reduction in their universal credit, so will he answer the question that I am asked by my increasingly desperate constituents every day? How are they to pay their bills?
The Prime Minister
Don’t forget that this Government have increased universal credit by about £7 billion, perhaps £9 billion—£1,000 a year—and the uplift will remain in place for this financial year, as I told the House earlier.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
By when does my right hon. Friend expect to have vaccinated the vulnerable population? What is his confidence in that date, and why does he have that confidence?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Alas, I cannot give him a date by which I can promise confidently that we will have a vaccine. There are some very hopeful signs, not least from the Oxford-AstraZeneca trials that are being conducted, but, as he knows, SARS took place 18 years ago and we still do not have a vaccine for SARS. I do not wish to depress him, but we must be realistic about this. There is a good chance of a vaccine, but it cannot be taken for granted.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Instead of supporting the established system in public health, the Prime Minister has invested £10 billion in privatised companies. It has not controlled the virus, it has not saved lives and it has not rebuilt the economy. In Brent, the wonderful CEO, Carolyn Downs, with the leader of the council, Mo Butt, had control of local testing. We were able to test people very quickly, and in surrounding areas. The Government have taken the majority of the testing away. People are told they have to travel miles to get tested and, in addition, care workers have waited seven days to get their test results. When will the Prime Minister stop his obsession with this centralised approach and go for a decentralised approach that works?
The Prime Minister
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, and obviously, again, I am sorry for the bad experiences that some people have had with the excessive turnaround times for NHS Test and Trace and so on, but I do think that the mixed approach that we are taking is the right one. We need a joined-up, national Test and Trace system combined with the work of local authorities, and that is what we are delivering.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the tireless work that he is putting in to tackle this wretched virus. A number of constituents running hospitality businesses have contacted me, such as Cheryl, who runs the Station Hotel in Bishop Auckland. She is particularly concerned about the lack of households being able to meet within her pub. Can the Prime Minister reassure Cheryl that we will look at lifting those local restrictions as soon as feasibly possible, and that we will also look at taking every step possible to provide additional financial support for those in tier 2 lockdowns?
The Prime Minister
Of course, and in addition to providing support for hospitality—pubs—in Bishop Auckland through the JSS that I mentioned already, there is the business rate cut that my hon. Friend is familiar with and the grants that I have announced today. But the best thing, as she rightly says, is to get the virus under control so that we can lift these restrictions altogether. That is what we want to do.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
We all know that rising infections will mean more restrictions, but worried staff in viable businesses in Leeds want to know that they will be looked after if they are forced to close in future. I presume that the Prime Minister can give the House an assurance that the council would be consulted before that happened, but for someone on the minimum wage who would lose a third of their income in those circumstances—by the way, the French and German schemes are more generous than those applying here—can the Prime Minister assure my constituents that they will not, under any circumstances, be evicted from their homes because they could not afford to pay the rent?
The Prime Minister
I must respectfully take issue with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the scheme, which remains internationally competitive. In France, it is 60% for some, 70% for others. In Germany, it is about the same. In Italy, they have an 80% provision, but there is a serious cap—a very low cap—-in Ireland; it is down at 60%. This is a highly competitive scheme, and it is one that I think is generous by international comparisons. On his point about evictions, nobody wants to see anybody evicted because of the hardship they have suffered because of coronavirus, and that is why we have extended the period in which landlords are prevented from conducting such evictions by a further six months.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Families across the country, in whichever of the new tiers, rely on childcare, whether formal or informal. Without it, key workers and those in the wider economy would be unable to work and many children would be unable to get to and from school. Will my right hon. Friend make sure that access to childcare, whether it is professional childcare or relatives and neighbours, remains available throughout this pandemic?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course. My hon. Friend is totally right about the importance of childcare. We remain committed to giving 30 hours of free childcare. The crucial thing about our measures is to keep the economy moving as much as possible.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
In university cities like Exeter that have a covid spike in student accommodation but not yet significant community spread, but that nevertheless inflate local figures, what is the Prime Minister’s strategy for containing those spikes in student accommodation and preventing the need for lockdowns affecting the rest of the community?
The Prime Minister
The differentiation that is often made between students and other members of the public is sometimes overdone. Students are playing a heroic role in containing the virus where they can in following the guidance and not spreading it back into their families and their home towns. I thank them very much for what they are doing and hope they continue in that way, in Exeter and elsewhere.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to reject the twin dire choices of a second national lockdown or letting the virus rip, and to take up the far more challenging and complicated path of localising our actions in particular areas. My constituency is low-incidence for the virus but the hospitality sector is hard hit, and Christmas is now in the frame. What moves might there be, going forward, to hyper-localise actions, and what support will there be for my constituents’ jobs and businesses?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it would be a wonderful thing if we could hyper- localise actions in the way that she suggests. Alas, the disease being what it is, we cannot reduce to too small a size the areas in which we place restrictions. The best thing that her constituents can do, and the best thing the whole country can do, to get through this as fast as possible is to follow the package of measures that we have set out. As I have said to Opposition Members, the best thing would be if cities and regions across the country came together and delivered the package that we have set out.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Health whether he would fund local authorities in the north-east that have put forward a proposal for local test and trace services. He said in response:
“We put an extra £10 million into the local authorities in the north-east to support contact tracing”.—[Official Report, 5 October 2020; Vol. 681, c. 634.]
Today I am told in a telephone briefing that there is no money available. Which is it, Prime Minister? Can we fund the local authorities in the north-east to provide that effective test and tracing?
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady may have missed what I said. We are putting up to another £1 billion into supporting local authorities and £500 million into supporting local test and trace and enforcement.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
While rightly moving to simplify the message, does my right hon. Friend agree that flexible local approaches are the best way to tackle outbreaks in order to prevent a total lockdown and minimise the wider economic impact, particularly on low-incidence-level areas such as Broadland?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly right. That is the strategy that we have been pursuing for some time now, and that is why it is necessary to intensify the restrictions in some areas.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister keeps telling us that test and trace provision is being increased, yet the covid-19 testing facility at Bedford’s Borough Hall has just reduced its service provision from seven to four days a week at a time when the infection rates are rising. So I have a simple question, Prime Minister: why?
The Prime Minister
I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the test centre that he mentions. As I have said, we are increasing test and trace capacity and the number of tests conducted the whole time. As I said, I will be happy to write to him about the particular case he mentions, but it is still the case that this country continues to test more people and conduct more tests than any other country in Europe.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The decision to place Cheshire in tier 2, and the additional restrictions that that will entail, will inevitably impact on families and businesses across Eddisbury, not least the already decimated wedding industry and its existing supply chain. Will my right hon. Friend look again at what further targeted support can be made available for that industry, which will struggle to remain viable through another six months of effectively being closed?
The Prime Minister
I have real sympathy for those in the wedding industry who have been affected. It is a great industry, and times are very tough for them. That is why we are putting in the jobs support scheme and extra grants for businesses. The best way forward is for us to get the virus down and get the spread down, so that we can reopen those types of businesses as fast as possible.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
Many of my constituents support covid-19 public health measures, but they feel that, despite their rhetoric, the Government have not reciprocated. It is not only those 3 million who are excluded from support, there are also those on universal credit who will lose the £20 weekly top-up, those on legacy benefits who receive nothing, or those who missed out on furlough because their payroll was run one day after an arbitrary and retrospective date. The Prime Minister has boasted about putting his arms around people, but is it not time to show people that he has a heart?
The Prime Minister
I must repeat what I said earlier: by other global standards this Government have done a huge amount—£190 billion already—to support people, businesses, jobs, and livelihoods across the country. On the specific point about universal credit, we have increased its value by £1,000, and that will remain in place for the rest of this financial year.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking Devon County Council and Public Health Devon for their response to the virus so far, where swathes of local actions are in place to contain local outbreaks? Does he agree that it is vital for national and local government work together to tackle differences in the regional prevalence of this virus?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend, and everybody in Devon, and the local authorities, for their efforts to keep the virus down. This is a giant collective effort, and alas, even in the south-west we are seeing the virus going up, although by nothing like as much as in other parts of the country. It is going up across the whole country, and we must work together to get it down.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister says that he is listening and working with local authorities, but that simply is not true. Since the beginning of the crisis, local authorities and directors of public health have argued for a locally based test and trace system. When will he admit that his national approach and national system has failed? Will he hand over to local authorities and directors of public health the responsibility and resources to ensure an effective local test and trace system? That is the only way we will get on top of this crisis.
The Prime Minister
I think I have answered that point about four times already. We need a combination of both national and local.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Parents in my constituency rely on friends and family for informal childcare, and even under the new three-tier restrictions I believe that informal, pre-arranged childcare can continue. As a new parent himself, I am sure my right hon. Friend understands that sometimes circumstances dictate that parents need emergency childcare. That is happening more and more with childminders or nursery staff having to isolate. Will the Prime Minister confirm that emergency informal childcare can still be used to assist parents, even under the three-tier system?
The Prime Minister
Tell me about it, Mr Speaker! My hon. Friend makes an important point, and there are obviously provisions for 30 hours of free childcare. Her point about emergency childcare is well made. That is why we need to keep the economy moving in the way that we are.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The chief execs of 17,000 hospitality businesses—representing half a million jobs and millions of customers every week, including many in my central London Southwark constituency—say that not one of them has seen a super-spreader incident and none has had direct contact from the tracing system. Testing and tracing is not working, so why will the Prime Minister not get a grip and fix those systems, instead of floundering, trying to find someone else to blame, and putting more lives and more jobs at risk?
The Prime Minister
That is why we are investing massively in NHS Test and Trace, and in a co-ordinated local effort. As I have said before, we are now testing more people than any other country in Europe, and we have contacted hundreds of thousands of people across the country and persuaded them to slow the spread of the virus. Rather than continually knocking NHS Test and Trace, let us work together to support it and build public confidence.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Prime Minister and the Government have been faced with a crisis the like of which we have not seen since world war two. Despite everything, they have kept our NHS safe and casualties to a minimum, and the economy continues to function. Will the Prime Minister commit 100% to my constituents on Ynys Môn to do everything he can to prevent a second UK-wide lockdown, and join me in thanking them for their incredible effort in keeping our island's infection rates down?
The Prime Minister
I thoroughly congratulate the people of Ynys Môn on what they are doing and on keeping infection rates down. I hope that they will continue to work with the rest of the country to follow the guidance and save lives.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Thousands of women are carrying the anxiety not only of bringing new life into this world in the middle of a pandemic, but of potentially having to go into labour alone. Despite changes to the Government’s guidelines, too few hospitals are allowing women to take a birth partner into hospital with them. As somebody who experienced very painful and long labours, I cannot bear the idea of a woman facing that alone. In order that we do not look back in shame on how we treated pregnant women and new mothers during this period, will the Prime Minister do what he can to make sure that hospitals do their bit to ensure that women do not face labour alone?
The Prime Minister
I wholly share the hon. Lady’s feelings about the vital importance of allowing women to have a birth partner with them during labour. As she rightly says, we have changed the guidelines to make that possible, but if she has particular cases in mind where this is not happening, I would be grateful if she would write to me with the details.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Government have quite rightly focused on protecting the NHS, but we also need to keep the NHS serving patients in South Cambridgeshire, which, like other parts of the country, has relatively low levels of covid, but plenty of people with other medical conditions that need planned and emergency care. As the second wave strikes, can the Prime Minister tell me what steps the Government are taking to ensure that all patients, whatever their condition, can carry on getting the treatment that they need?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is spot on. It is so important to avoid an uncontained second wave in order to protect the NHS, and allow the treatments and therapies for other non-covid afflictions to continue.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Just a month ago, the Prime Minister described his moonshot plan, under which millions of tests would be done and returned every day. He said,
“if everything comes together, it may be possible even for challenging sectors like theatres to have life much closer to normal before Christmas.”
Families are now feeling that a normal Christmas is further away than ever, and local health officials in our area have said that people are waiting for six days, not a day, to get their test results. If we could come back from the moon and get back to what is happening on planet Earth, when will he have enough testing capacity in place so that my constituents can get their results in 24 hours?
The Prime Minister
The daily test process has gone up by 34% just in the last month, and daily capacity has gone up by 28%. As the right hon. Lady knows, by the end of this month, NHS Test and Trace is confident that it will be doing 500,000 tests—it will have capacity, I should say, for 500,000 tests a day.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
No one envies the Prime Minister having to make these incredibly difficult decisions. Last week’s Office for National Statistics community survey showed that by far and away the biggest age group catching the virus is the student age group. Since age is a much bigger predictor of risk than geography, are the Prime Minister’s advisers considering making recommendations about how individuals can control their own risk by age?
The Prime Minister
One of the issues that we have—I tried to address this point earlier—particularly with the large numbers of multi-generational households such as we have in this country, is that it is very difficult to confine the virus to one age group and one generation. Alas, one of the reasons we are so concerned is that it is starting to spread quite substantially among the over-60s, as we are seeing now in the Merseyside region.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Prime Minister, disabled people have felt like an afterthought throughout this pandemic. I would like to ask one simple question that requires only a yes or no answer. Will there be a sign language interpreter at your press conference this evening?
The Prime Minister
I doubt we will get one in time, but the point is registered.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
From what the Prime Minister said, I have worked out that the entirety of Thirsk and Malton is in the lowest tier of risk, and I am very keen to keep it there. Now that we have data that is super-local data, can we have restrictions that are super-local? Rather than looking at things on the county-wide level of North Yorkshire, where we have varying levels of incidence, can we look at them at a district council level, as Hambleton and Ryedale, which have very low levels of transmission?
The Prime Minister
I hear my hon. Friend, and I understand the point that he makes. Alas, as I said earlier, micro control of this virus is very difficult without restricting people’s freedom of movement in such a way as to be very difficult for people in Yorkshire.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It was very welcome to hear the First Minister of Scotland confirm earlier that the three-tier system being unveiled in Scotland in a few weeks will closely align with the one for the rest of the United Kingdom, as consistency of messaging is key to saving lives. With that in mind, will the Prime Minister confirm that a four nation, whole-UK approach remains at the heart of what the Government are trying to achieve in combating coronavirus?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend for what he does to make sure that happens. The ways that we co-operate are much more significant than the differences between us.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Will the Prime Minister confirm that people who can work from home should do so? Therefore, will he reinstate digital democracy in this Parliament, which allowed MPs to participate in debates and ask questions while self-isolating or shielding so that they do not risk infecting other people as they travel to work, infecting others at work or being infected themselves?
The Prime Minister
On this matter, Mr Speaker, I defer to you and the House authorities.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
My constituents in Ashfield have worked incredibly hard to obey all the rules and guidelines to keep covid at bay. I am therefore deeply disappointed that we have found ourselves in the same lockdown situation as Nottingham, where rates are eight times higher. We are not in tier 3, as I first feared, but that is not a fair reward for my constituents. Can my right hon. Friend please assure me that our rates will be reviewed on a weekly basis, and that when they come down we will be taken out of tier 2?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for representing his constituents well in the way he does. Of course, we will make sure that we regularly review the measures for his constituency, and indeed for every constituency in this country.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The only think that is world beating about the Prime Minister’s track and trace system is its capacity to take taxpayers’ money and put it in the hands of friends of the Tory party, and deliver a chaotic system. That contrasts with the performance of local government, which has performed miracles at a local level while being starved of resources by the Government, who promised money and then reneged on that promise. Will the Prime Minister now provide the resources to local government if he is going to give it extra responsibility in delivering track and trace?
The Prime Minister
I note the ideological scorn of any private sector work, which I thought I had left the Labour party these days, but does not seem to have done. I share the hon. Gentleman’s veneration of local authorities, as a creature of local government myself, and that is why we have given an extra £3.7 billion to support local authorities in this crisis. As I told the House just now, there is a billion more to come.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Lincolnshire is a vast rural county with many large towns. Can the Prime Minister assure me that any future restrictions and measures imposed on my county will be as targeted as possible and be made together with Lincolnshire County Council leadership?
The Prime Minister
It is the burden of what I am saying today that we want to do everything in co-operation with local leaders and local authorities.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Football clubs such as Newport County AFC have, like many industries, been hard hit by the pandemic. They need to see the Premier League stick to its obligations to provide assistance to lower division clubs. Will the Prime Minister ensure that happens?
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for the £200 billion they have already put in, which has supported employers and employees in my constituency, but North West Durham constituents in events and hospitality are under severe pressure at the moment, with restrictions already hammering their bottom line. In County Durham, what support is available for businesses? Does the Prime Minister know when the negotiations on whether we will be in tier 3 or tier 3 will be determined with local authorities?
The Prime Minister
For the implications for his constituency, my hon. Friend should look at the gov.uk website. He should be in no doubt that the Government are committed to supporting businesses, jobs and livelihoods across the country. That is why my right hon Friend the Chancellor unveiled the job support scheme, and it is why we have uprated universal credit and put in many other measures, including cuts in VAT and business rates, that will continue for a long time to come.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Prime Minister has the difficult task of leading the country through this health crisis, and it should not be used to score political points in the way that it has been by some today. However, does he recognise the real concern that there is, even among many supporters of his party, at the impact of the policies that have been followed? There is also questioning of the effectiveness of those policies, because we are back today where we were in March of this year. What assessment has he made of the impact of the policies announced today, in terms of the forced closure of businesses, whether that is on jobs, bankruptcies, long-term health or increased levels of poverty?
The Prime Minister
With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we are not back to where we were in March, because the R is not at those levels and we are not going back to a national lockdown of the kind we saw in March. What we are doing is taking a series of carefully modulated local and national measures designed together to get the R down, keep education going and keep the economy moving.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
My constituents in Meriden have worked really hard to comply with the guidelines, and I am sure they will adapt to the new tier system to protect the NHS and keep the rate of infection low. Because they have worked so hard, will the Prime Minister commit to working to review things and get them out of tier 2 as soon as possible? They have been doing their part, and they deserve it.
The Prime Minister
Yes. I am aware of the feelings in the midlands and, indeed, around the country. I can tell the people of Meriden that we want to get them out of any kind of restrictions as fast as we possibly can.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
Prime Minister, we are all disappointed and distressed that we are back where we were in March in many ways. The Prime Minister says that he wants to keep the economy going, but for many businesses and individuals, particularly the clinically vulnerable, that will be impossible. Will the Prime Minister and Chancellor end this chop and change, knee-jerk reaction approach that we have seen in recent days and extend the job retention scheme and furlough until next June so that businesses and individuals can have certainty and clarity about the support they will get, which will enable them to plan their way through this crisis?
The Prime Minister
I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes, but she will also understand that the schemes that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced go on until next spring. We should not forget that the original furlough scheme has yet to elapse.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Nightingale hospital in Harrogate has been stood up ready for full-staff readiness. That 500-bed hospital was built in 18 days by 600 people—staff from the NHS, our armed services, Harrogate Borough Council and colleagues from the private sector. It was an example of local and national working together. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that that combination of local and national, public and private is the way to bring all the resources we can to tackle this pandemic?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I can assure the people of Harrogate and elsewhere that we are stepping up preparations across the country, but the Nightingales, as I think Stephen Powis of the NHS has confirmed, are being stood up in the north of the country as well.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be as aware as anyone that people do not generally go to the pub to meet their own wife; they go to the pub to be with other people. In the current programme that the Prime Minister has put together, there is no support for those pubs, so he is saying that he will cover and support pubs that are forced to close, but many of those pubs will find their business model and their businesses untenable. Will the Prime Minister do more to support those pubs that might be open but, frankly, are not able to make a living?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly why, on top of the low business rates, the VAT cuts and so on—and the grants that we have given—the job support scheme is directly designed to support those businesses that will remain open, like pubs, but which are not able to trade as they normally would under some of these restrictions. That is what it is there for.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Businesses in my central London constituency are hurting because of the low footfall. While of course we need to take appropriate measures to control the virus, does my right hon. Friend agree with me that we need to balance the interests of the economy, because it is only with a functioning economy that we can pay for our excellent NHS?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right, and that is why I made the point, in almost identical terms, earlier on.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Can I thank the Prime Minister for listening to calls from Members from across Greater Manchester on both sides of the House to work with us locally to tackle the virus while remaining in tier 2, which I think he has announced today? But does he agree with me that it is vital we take the public with us, and that means credibility that the tough measures he is outlining really do follow the evidence of where transmission is occurring? He has yet to provide evidence that closing pubs and restaurants would make a material difference in transmission, but action on households would, so will he today recommit to working with Greater Manchester leaders on tackling household transmission—proposals put forward to his office last night?
The Prime Minister
The deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, addressed that point directly earlier on today about transmission in hospitality settings. Clearly, we need to reduce the overall budget of transmission that is going on in the country, and that is one sector that we can address. I am interested in what she says about Greater Manchester; my information is slightly different. What I would hope is that we can work together to bring down the rates in Greater Manchester, which at present are certainly worrying.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Many businesses in Aylesbury are affected by the 10 pm curfew, despite the low infection rates locally, so can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is and there always will be a scientific basis for restrictions on economic activity?
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
Would the Prime Minister confirm that the north-east is at tier 2? Can I recommend to the Prime Minister a document published this weekend by the Association of Directors of Public Health called “Protecting our communities”? This document suggests a comprehensive national strategy that embraces locally led responses. However, for these local interventions to work, directors of public health in local authorities in the north-east need the much heralded, but as yet not forthcoming, resources, so that with their local leadership working together with the communities they serve, we might have a real chance to turn back the tide of this virus. But we need the money—real money, not promissory notes from the bank of empty rhetoric.
The Prime Minister
I do not know whether £190 billion counts as a promissory note or empty rhetoric, but that is what the Chancellor has provided so far in support. I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says about local responses. That is entirely right, and we are certainly looking for locally led responses to help us to get the virus down.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Could the Prime Minister say how we can use the three-tier system to enable all types of businesses to use a risk assessment base to their operation to help them remain open and fully working in all but the very high-tier instances?
The Prime Minister
All businesses that are covid-secure should be able to keep going, and I hope that they will.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
Will the Prime Minister look at the case of a young constituent of mine who has gone from a successful career in banking to facing the real prospect of bankruptcy, all because he set up his own business on the wrong side of the completely unnecessary cut-off date for self-employed support? He has used up his savings; he cannot pay the bills. Will the Prime Minister act to close this significant gap in support for the newly self-employed?
The Prime Minister
We have to have some sort of cut-off date in order to deal with the possibility of fraud. I am obviously very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and I wish him all the best. In the meantime, there is the support available under universal credit, but the best thing for him and for the whole economy is to keep things moving and to hope that he gets the kind of job that he wants as fast as possible.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
In Delyn, which would likely fall into tier 2 on the new scale, we have draconian travel bans imposed by the Welsh Government, which mean that people can go shopping 20 miles in one direction but cannot go half a mile in the other to visit family. That movement restriction makes a massive difference to business success, but Treasury support will not apply because businesses are not being mandated to close. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the virus does not respect county boundaries and join me and my north Wales colleagues in calling on the Labour Government in Wales to publish their information and justify their decisions, as he does on a regular basis?
The Prime Minister
I certainly echo what my hon. Friend says about the Government in Wales. Businesses of the kind that he refers to in his constituency obviously have access to the job support system when they are forced to trade in a way that is not normal for them.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
When my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) asked the Prime Minister about partners attending labour, he said that if she had any problematic examples, she should bring them to his attention. I have a constituent who so far in her pregnancy has lost two of her three triplets, one at eight weeks and one at 20 weeks. She was then told that she could not bring her partner with her to the 34-week scan. Obviously, scans ought to be good news for parents, but sometimes they are not. We had an intervention from the Mayor and support from the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, and her partner was then allowed to visit, but this is another issue. It is not just about attending labour; the partner ought to be there for scans as well.
The Prime Minister
I am so sorry for the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent. She makes a very important point about partners being there for scans. I will look into the matter she raises.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s approach to using health, economic and behavioural evidence in reaching their decisions, but a recent poll suggested that only some three quarters of people expected to isolate intended to do so, and that as few as one in five had actually done so. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key to tackling this pandemic is shared responsibility, not just between national and local government but with every single citizen?
The Prime Minister
Indeed. Everybody who is told to self-isolate because they have been in contact with somebody with an index case of covid should remember that there is £500 to help them but also a £10,000 fine if they fail to do so and therefore risk the virus spreading further.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Liverpool will be placed on the highest restrictions from Wednesday, with the closure of pubs, clubs, gyms and other leisure facilities for at least four weeks. Will the Government stand by their commitment to safeguard businesses by properly compensating them and allowing them to survive the latest restrictions imposed on Liverpool city region, and provide us with the necessary financial support to protect jobs and livelihoods?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced grants of up to £3,000 and why we have the job support system, which is designed to help people in exactly the circumstances the hon. Lady describes.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I welcome the introduction of three tiers, which will give more certainty to everyone, but while hospitality outlets in Rugby have worked hard to make their premises safe and have been supported by police, community wardens, business improvement district rangers and street pastors, the 10 o’clock curfew has led to many leaving the pub to go to a shop to stock up with booze, often with their friends, to drink at home. If it is necessary to keep 10 o’clock closing, should off-licences be treated equally?
The Prime Minister
I understand my hon. Friend’s point about people’s behaviour after leaving the pub. That is why it is vital that everybody shows common sense and follows the guidance.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
You and I, Mr Speaker, and the Prime Minister could probably live on a one-third pay cut on our pay. Someone on the minimum wage, with a one-third pay cut on their pay, cannot live and pay the bills and will therefore be disincentivised to follow the rules. Will the Prime Minister look again just at the minimum wage people to ensure that the new scheme has a floor?
The Prime Minister
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. That is why we have extended the job support system. The universal credit system is also there to provide a safety net and to help people, precisely because, as their incomes may go down, so universal credit goes up. That is the point of the system.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Every weekend in my constituency, a large car boot sale takes place. I have no objection to that, but next weekend, just a few hundred yards down the road, Cheltenham races will be run without any paying spectators. Surely that is an anomaly. Will the Prime Minister address that by allowing sporting venues to open to welcome paying spectators, as long as they do so in a safe way?
The Prime Minister
We are generally well disposed towards any business or organisation that allows its activities to take place in a covid-secure way. We will proceed with our plans to do that for sporting events as soon as we possibly can. As for the car boot sale in my hon. Friend’s constituency, I urge everybody attending it to observe social distancing and stop the spread of the virus.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
This morning, Professor Van-Tam said that the resurgence in covid-19 cases among young people is being spread to the older generation. We know that the World Health Organisation’s mantra is, “Test, test, test”, but the test, trace and isolate system is not good enough. Does the Prime Minister think that universities such as Hull University in my constituency should set up their own testing facility for all their students, including asymptomatic students, as the University of East Anglia and Cambridge University are now doing?
The Prime Minister
I believe the hon. Lady has mentioned the issue of Hull University’s testing facilities before—perhaps it was another hon. Member—but I will certainly find out what the obstacle is to Hull’s testing facilities. There is no reason in principle why that university should not be testing in the way that the other universities she mentioned are doing.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I repeat Bournemouth University’s offer to establish a testing lab on its campus to help the local community. I welcome today’s statement, but the Prime Minister is well aware of the importance of the hospitality industry to Bournemouth’s economy. I would be very grateful if he reviewed the 10 pm curfew as urgently as possible.
The Prime Minister
I understand my right hon. Friend’s point and I have every sympathy with Bournemouth’s hospitality industry, which I have enjoyed many times in the past, as I am sure we all have. Alas, we have to make restrictions in the overall volume of transmission that is taking place in our society. That is an obvious place to make a difference, and that is what we are doing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad to be back. My wife and I are still speaking after two weeks. If there had been a third week, there would have been a problem, but we are still together.
Could the Prime Minister provide an outline of his discussions with the First Minister, with special reference to the proposed circuit breakers that some chief medical officers are calling for, acknowledging that they would be successful only if they were UK-wide and centrally funded, as there is simply no funding available at present to allow businesses to continue to operate if they are forced to close yet again? This is particularly relevant to areas such as mine in Strangford, which has the second-lowest number of cases in the whole of Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister
One of the problems is that places like Strabane in Northern Ireland have about 820 cases per 100,000, which is about the highest in the UK, perhaps in the whole of Europe. That is why we have to take the actions we are taking. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the circuit breaker. We want to give these measures time to work, if we possibly can.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
May I thank the Prime Minister for his welcome statement? I have been visiting pubs and event businesses in Meon Valley, where the covid transmission rate is below the national average. What reassurance can he give to businesses, which are looking to plan ahead, that restrictions will be lifted flexibly where transmissions revert to a low level?
The Prime Minister
I can give my hon. Friend every possible assurance that as soon as transmission is obviously down—as soon as we have got the R down below 1— things will change very much indeed.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister and his team for engaging across the weekend, and for the decision to place Warrington into tier 2, rather than including it in the wider Merseyside region. One of the many questions I am asked by businesses, particularly in the hospitality sector, is: what are the criteria for moving Warrington back into tier 1 and reducing the level of restrictions locally?
The Prime Minister
That is a very good question. A lot of people ask about the precise criteria. We look at a number of different measures. We look at the hospital admissions and the rate of transmissions in the community. A number of things are taken into account, but one thing that was clearly and particularly influential in the decision on Merseyside was the transmission, as has just been mentioned, into the over-60s group, which is obviously very concerning. As I just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), when the R comes down, that changes it.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
Under the initial furlough scheme, staff had 80% of their salary paid if there was no work for them, but the Chancellor’s new scheme pays only two thirds of wages, which for minimum wage staff can be as little as £5.80 an hour. And only those businesses forced to close will get support, even though supply chain businesses will also be hit. If we are going to beat this virus, we need a full package of financial support in all tier 2 and tier 3 areas that pays everyone affected 80% of their wages. Can the Prime Minister commit to providing that support?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of this Government’s record in raising the living wage by record sums. The hon. Lady will have heard what I said earlier about continuing with our support for universal credit—continuing with the uplift in universal credit—for the whole of this financial year.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
While I was volunteering just this morning at Watford General Hospital, where it happens to be Think Clean week, the wonderful specialist infection prevention and control support worker Cheryl Atkins used an ultraviolet system to show me how easily this or any virus can spread through poor hand hygiene. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is incumbent on us all to fight covid by washing our hands regularly and by following the incredibly simple yet tremendously powerful guidance of “Hands, face, space”?
The Prime Minister
I agree totally with my hon. Friend, and it should be Think Clean week in Watford and across the whole of the UK.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Today the Government have placed Merseyside into tier 3 lockdown. For 10 long years, my city has been under the boot of Tory austerity, and now the Prime Minister intends to shut down our economy while keeping furlough support at 67%, which has all the hallmarks of once again placing our city into a state of managed decline. Will he listen to our metro Mayor, our city Mayor and local MPs and stump up the cash for a furlough scheme based on 80% of wages, without the reliance, as he keeps saying, on universal credit? If it was the right thing to do in March, it is the right thing to do now.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to Steve Rotheram and other leaders in that area for the support they are giving for the measures we are putting in place. I think that they understand the real dilemma that we face, which is that we must get the virus down but we must also keep the economy going and support jobs. That is what we are doing.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
It is really frustrating that Mansfield is heading into new restrictions when our rate of transmission is 10% of that of Nottingham city—despite being further away from it than Derby, for example, which is not being similarly restricted. I understand the need to get ahead of the virus, but I argued strongly against these arbitrary-seeming boundaries. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this will be regularly and properly reviewed, and that Mansfield will not be automatically tied to the city’s fate when it comes to removing these restrictions in the future?
The Prime Minister
I understand completely the frustrations of the people of Mansfield. I am afraid that further restrictions are necessary across the country in the way that we have outlined today, but of course they will be reviewed very regularly.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Halton part of my constituency in Merseyside has been placed in tier 3. The Cheshire West and Chester part is in tier 2. In the Cheshire West and Chester part, we have the nonsense of the 10 pm curfew, which does not follow the evidence and needs to be reviewed and changed. In the Halton part, we have people who are now required to live on 67% of the minimum wage, which is nowhere near sufficient. Look at this again, Prime Minister. Step up and look at this again.
The Prime Minister
I am afraid I must reject what the hon. Gentleman says in the sense that I think he is being inconsistent or trying to have it both ways. Most people, I think, in this country want to see restrictions that get the virus down, and that is what we are bringing forward and supporting. I think most people in this country also want to see support for people who are put out of business through no fault of their own, and that is what we are also providing.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Carshalton and Wallington residents have worked hard to keep the virus rate down to one of the lowest levels in London; however, with varying degrees of guidance and restrictions across the country, sometimes the guidance can be difficult to follow and people need clarification. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that this new covid three-level alert system will make it easier for people to understand and ultimately follow the guidance?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed; that is why we have gone for the three-tier approach and anybody in any doubt whatever, whether or not in Carshalton—I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents for the effort that they have made—should get on to the gov.uk website and see what they need to do to comply.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Many of my constituents in Luton South work for Luton airport, its supply chain and linked businesses, such as Theobolds Coaches, which I visited last Friday. While businesses in tier 3 that are forced to close will be offered some Government support, what support will be offered to those businesses in tourism and airports that are not in tier 3 but are so distinctly affected by the addition of tier 3, and are struggling due to a lack of consumer confidence?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a very important point, but for some of the businesses that she talks about—aviation, for instance—we have packages. Whether through Time to Pay or through the Birch process, we are trying to look after the aviation sector, but for all businesses that are unable to trade as normal the joint support system is there.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Pubs, restaurants and cafés in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington have invested heavily to create covid-secure environments. That is reflected in the fact that, on the last figures I have, in the last 14 days there were no recorded covid outbreaks in such places and there is no evidence at all of significant transmission of covid in these important community assets. Will the Prime Minister therefore join me in thanking local business owners for their efforts in creating such secure environments, and agree that we should do everything possible to ask local residents, within reason and abiding by Government guidance, to support these important hospitality venues and community assets?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I thank the people of Bury and I am, of course, sorry for all the privations that are being endured, not just in Bury but across the country. The best way to get the businesses that my hon. Friend talks about back on their feet is for us all, as I say, to follow the guidance, get the R down and take the country forward.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]
I have listened to the Prime Minister this afternoon, but the reality remains that if the Government do not quickly set out much more comprehensive support for places such as Bradford, where local restrictions are having a disastrous impact on our businesses and communities, many jobs will be lost in our local economy, and businesses will go to the wall. Will the Prime Minister guarantee that every area gets the support that it needs, and will he reopen the discretionary grant scheme so that local authorities such as Bradford can respond to the needs of their businesses and communities to protect jobs and livelihoods?
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are supporting local authorities such as Bradford not just with the £3.6 billion we have already given, but as I said earlier this afternoon with another £1 billion to come.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) [V]
I thank the Prime Minister for his very clear statement, but compliance will be a major issue even if people understand the rules. Part of the problem is that people think the situation will just go on and on for the next decade. Although I understand the Prime Minister’s reluctance to talk too much about a vaccine—he made that clear in an earlier answer—can he help people in Lichfield and the rest of the country by saying that, with new drugs and new vaccines, once we have got over this winter, that will be it?
The Prime Minister
I have very little doubt that, once we have got through to spring, we will be in a completely different environment. Indeed, I have high hopes that things will change very fast as a result, as my hon. Friend says, of new technologies that are coming on stream. But for the time being we have to concentrate on the tools we have in hand, and those tools are the packages of restrictions that we have set out and the basic guidance about restricting contact person to person and restricting the spread of the virus. That is what we have to do for the time being.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
The reality for many in the hospitality sector is not a close-down for a week or two, but a shutdown for the rest of the winter season. These businesses are vibrant and can provide vital jobs when the spring comes around, as they have done in years past, but only if they can survive this closure. When Germany can furlough through until next year, why won’t the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
The Chancellor has set out the job support scheme, which, as he said, goes through till next year.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that if we are to get broad compliance with these very tough lockdown measures, ordinary, sensible working people need to understand that they are fair and logical. Will my right hon. Friend therefore agree to publish precise details of not just what the rules are but why each one is necessary?
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Key to stopping the spread of the virus is giving people the financial support they need to self-isolate when they need to, but millions of working people still do not have that. The Government’s test and trace support payment scheme is totally inadequate; only a small proportion of workers qualify, and even for those who do, at £500 for up to two weeks, the scheme pays less than the minimum wage. Will the Prime Minister finally do as I urged him at Prime Minister’s questions back in March and raise statutory sick pay to the level of the real living wage, extend it to cover all workers and give people the financial security they need to self-isolate?
The Prime Minister
I just remind the hon. Lady that, in addition to the £500, there is also the support of universal credit. As to those who are thinking of not isolating still, alas I must tell the House that there is a fine of £10,000.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I was glad to hear the Prime Minister refer in his opening statement to the need to continue elective operations. My own trust has pledged to continue them through winter for as long as possible. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the decision will continue to be locally led and that he will do all he can to prevent a backlog?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and it is exactly in order to prevent a further backlog that we need to prevent an uncontained outbreak of coronavirus now. That is why we are putting in place the measures we are.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister should have no problem with giving me a positive answer to my question. For lockdown restrictions to work, public support is essential. For people to give up what they enjoy most, they need to understand why. Will the Prime Minister commit to sharing with the public the evidence on why specific types of businesses have been forced to close?
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
I thank the Prime Minister for his support for my campaign to ensure that all women can have partners with them for all scans and all their labour, but will he confirm whether pregnant women throughout the country who are in their third trimester should be shielding, given their much higher vulnerability to covid, and that employers should recognise that and support them to work from home or in roles that are not on the frontline?
The Prime Minister
Pregnant women who are in any doubt about what they should do to shield from covid should consult the gov.uk website for advice, because there is plenty there for pregnancies.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I understand and agree with the need to prevent households from mixing to cut covid rates on Merseyside, but this tough local lockdown is going to destroy many businesses and jobs that will not be eligible for the limited local furlough so far announced by the Chancellor, because they will not be forced to close by law—they will just lose most of their business. Will the Prime Minister undertake to look again, with his Chancellor, at the business support scheme, with the aim of ensuring that jobs and businesses can survive this tough next six months and will be able to grow bigger again in better times, rather than have to close now, with all the misery, unemployment and bankruptcy that is going to result?
The Prime Minister
Of course, in addition to the billions that we have invested—including £19 billion in coronavirus business interruption loans to small and medium-sized enterprises and £38 billion in bounce back loans, all of which are still available—we are making cash grants of up to £3,000 for businesses, such as those in Merseyside, that have been forced to close as a result of local lockdowns.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s expressing the view that a second national lockdown is not the right course for our country. As well as kicking the can down the road, it would be totally unfair on areas, such as the one that I represent, that for all manner of reasons—and there are many—have a completely different rate. Given the fact that we obviously have a north-south split in our country right now—there is no judgment or blame in that, and there should not be; it is just a stark fact—what is the Prime Minister’s opinion on that and what information has he been given by the experts as to why?
The Prime Minister
The reality is that the disease is rising across the country. We have seen in other European countries and around the world that it sometimes rises fastest in one place rather than another. The sensible thing is to tackle it in a local way, which is what we are doing.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Between 27 September and 3 October, 89% of positive cases were reached by local authority public health tracing in Wales, but for the equivalent period just 74% were reached by the outsourced, centralised system in England. That is not ideology; that is just better virus-control policy to save lives. Test and trace needs trust to be effective. Does the Prime Minister now acknowledge that outsourcing the system was an error?
The Prime Minister
No—no more than getting a vaccine or test device from the private sector is an error. We need a mixture of public and private and of national and local, and that is what we are doing.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
My Colne Valley constituency, as part of the Kirklees Council area, which is part of West Yorkshire, is going into tier 2 of the covid restrictions. Will the Prime Minister please tell me and my constituents whether we are now tied to the fortunes of West Yorkshire as a whole? Or can smaller, more localised geographical areas move out of the tiers as people make local sacrifices?
The Prime Minister
I appreciate the sacrifice that my hon. Friend’s constituents have been making, and I am sorry for the privations that are being visited on people across the country. To see exactly where you are and what you need to do, get on the website. As soon as we can take areas out of the measures that they are in, of course we will do so.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Without evidence, people will not have confidence in the Government, so what is the scientific evidence for the restrictions that the Prime Minister has announced, which will affect 1.5 million people in the Liverpool city region? People need hope that these measures will be short-lived, so what is the exit strategy and specifically what will the infection rate have to fall to for the restrictions in the Liverpool city region to be lifted?
The Prime Minister
Clearly, the most important thing is that the R should get below 1.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Seasonal flu deaths for the past two years have been relatively light, which means that, in the normal course of things, we would expect a hard winter, noting that in 2014-15 there were 26,000 deaths and in 2017-18 there were 28,000. I appreciate that the Government are doing everything they can to increase the number of vaccinations, but given that we can vaccinate against that disease, unlike covid, will the Prime Minister redouble his efforts to ensure that those who are vulnerable this winter get the flu vaccine that they need?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why I encourage everybody who is vulnerable to get a flu vaccine now, and that is why we have 30 million available.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Today we had a Yorkshire briefing with 15 minutes’ notice that failed to invite all Yorkshire MPs, and neither have all Yorkshire council leaders been contacted. We are left waiting for the Prime Minister’s website update to find out which tier we are in. This shambles is creating confusion and fear, and we need clarity, so will decisions about Hull and East Riding be made together as part of Yorkshire, made separately, or made as part of Yorkshire and the Humber? How much notice of the changes will we get?
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Lady that the Government at all levels have been in constant contact with authorities in Yorkshire for the past few days, and I am very grateful for their co-operation.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I recognise the Prime Minister’s focus in his statement on introducing a much more simplified restriction regime that offers greater clarity and strikes a balance between the risk of spreading the virus and economic activity. Can he tell us what discussions have taken place with the devolved Administrations on taking a uniform approach across the United Kingdom, and is he able to update us on whether the Leader of the Opposition has supported such activity in engaging with the Welsh Government to encourage them to follow suit, because this will have a major effect on Treasury support and the simplicity that businesses in my constituency can draw on?
The Prime Minister
It is certainly the case that there is a wide measure of co-operation across all the devolved Administrations with the Government, and it is also the case that, to the best of my knowledge, the Leader of the Opposition has at least sometimes backed the restrictions. I hope very much that we will continue to work in that collaborative way.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) [V]
The measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today are sadly necessary, given the sharp rise in cases, but hospitality businesses in Rushcliffe, such as the fantastic community-owned Air Hostess pub in Tollerton, which I visited last week, are understandably worried about the impact that stopping households mixing will have on their business just as they have got back on their feet. Can my right hon. Friend confirm how often the tier 2 measures will be reviewed, and can he assure me that they will be kept in place in Rushcliffe only until infection levels have decreased in the borough?
The Prime Minister
I understand my hon. Friend’s anxieties and the anxieties of the people of Rushcliffe, and we will keep all restrictions under constant review in order to remove them as soon as we possibly can.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is quite clear, as we move into further restrictions and with the virus increasing, that we are not going to go back to live music anytime soon. My Belvidere constituent, Craig Johnston, came to see me at my surgery on Friday, and he is concerned by the lack of support for people in the live music industry. What is the Prime Minister going to do for Craig?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue, and that is why we put £1.57 billion into supporting the arts. That funding also covers freelancers and people who are involved in the live music industry, but the best thing for them is to get those types of events back up and running as fast as possible.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I would like to tackle a misnomer, if I may. Is it not because this Conservative Government respect personal freedoms that these difficult but pragmatic measures are necessary in the short term to keep people safe?
The Prime Minister
It is indeed, because people should have the freedom from fear, the freedom from seeing their jobs destroyed in the long term and the freedom to go about their lives in the normal way. The only way to restore those freedoms to this country is for us all to follow the guidance, get through this thing in the way that we are doing and get back to normal as fast as possible.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
Test, track and isolate must be made to work; without it, nothing can work. Can the Prime Minister tell me where transmission is occurring in Newcastle now, rather than guessing based on US data? If he cannot, after six months and hundreds of millions of pounds spent on private contractors to track transmission, will he accept that fundamentally what is not working in this pandemic is the Prime Minister, and the businesses and people of Newcastle are paying the price?
The Prime Minister
It is thanks to the great expansion of NHS Test and Trace that we know where the virus is being transmitted in this country and where the incidence is rising, and contrary to what the hon. Lady says, we know it with increasing and granular detail. That enables us to take the local measures that we are taking, and I take it from what she said that she supports those measures in Newcastle and the north-east.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a flexible local approach to tackle outbreaks? Does he also agree that, when looking at which tier an area moves into, the distinct nature of outbreaks at universities should be taken into account for authorities containing a university, such as Newcastle-under-Lyme, rather than relying on a single, catch-all case rate?
The Prime Minister
Indeed, but as I said earlier, I am reluctant to make a hard-and-fast distinction between students and other members of the population. They are heir to the same afflictions as the rest of us. By and large, students are doing a great job in following the guidance, and we encourage all of them to do that.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Whatever new restrictions are introduced in each of the three tiers that the Prime Minister has announced, it is essential that we do everything we can to keep children at school and keep children learning. With that in mind, will he ensure that, where a positive case is identified in a school, the smallest possible number of children are sent home, rather than a whole year group, as is sometimes the case at present? Will he do that to ensure that children’s long-term opportunities are not damaged, that inequality does not rise further and that children’s education is not hurt even more by the necessary fight against this virus?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises an exceptionally important point. A great deal of work is being done on the right size of the bubble, as it were, and how many infections should be decisive in taking action in schools. I am very happy to say that—at the moment, at least—we have almost 90% of kids in school and 99.9% of schools open. That is a great achievement by teachers, parents and pupils alike.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The furlough and self-employment schemes have provided crucial help to many millions of people, but unfortunately, around 3 million fell outside the scope of those schemes. May I appeal for help for those groups, such as the newly employed, the newly self-employed, directors of limited companies and freelancers on short-term contracts? Some of them are suffering real hardship.
The Prime Minister
Indeed, and I have mentioned the £13.5 billion that we have already given to the self-employed. My right hon. Friend understands the difficulties of the cut-off date, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has illustrated. It is to help people across the country that we have increased universal credit, for instance, which will continue for this whole financial year.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister knows that the control mechanisms introduced in Greater Manchester can work only if we have an efficient test, track and trace system. He told the House earlier that he aims by the end of this month to have half a million tests completed daily. Can he make it clear that track and trace works only if those tests deliver results very quickly? When will we get to the point when those half a million tests will be reported back in a reasonable time and in most cases within a day?
The Prime Minister
We are turning around tests as fast as we possibly can and laying on new labs and new test sites, and I am very confident that we will get up to half a million tests a day by the end of the month. I am not going to make a commitment now about turnaround times, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
During a pandemic, life and love continue. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has strained every sinew to protect people’s lives and liberty, but will he undertake to review, over time, the guidelines that say that a venue that could seat 200 as a restaurant could seat only 15 if it happens to be for a marriage ceremony?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend, like many Members across the House, draws attention to what appears to be an anomaly in the regulations and in the guidelines. There are many such issues that we are doing our best to iron out, but when you are dealing with a pandemic such as this and when your only tool of influencing human behaviour is guidance, I am afraid that such anomalies inevitably arise. We will do whatever we can to iron out any inconsistencies there may be.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
In areas such as Bradford, which have had local restrictions since July, people living in care homes have gone months without face-to-face contact with loved ones. For people with dementia, a lack of social contact can cause a marked decline. Will the Prime Minister commit to doing everything he can not only to keep care home residents safe, but to work to reintroduce visits, for example, by testing loved ones on a regular basis? Can he confirm whether there will be changes to the shielding guidance in tier 2 or tier 3 areas?
The Prime Minister
On the guidance for tier 2 and tier 3 areas, the best thing residents of those areas can do is get on the website and check exactly what is needed. But the hon. Member makes a very important point about care homes. I think the whole House feels for those who are in care homes, perhaps nearing the end of their lives and worried that they may not see their loved ones. It is a truly terrible situation. No one would want to do that lightly. We try to make exceptions for very difficult circumstances, but we must reduce the incidence in care homes, or we must keep it as low as we have got it. We saw what happened earlier this year and we really do not want to see a repeat of that.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
There has been really positive engagement between No. 10, the Government and local authorities in the north of England over this weekend. I support calls for local authorities to do more on track and trace and on the issue of care home visitor access. Will the Prime Minister keep encouraging his teams to look at creative solutions between local authorities and Government, and how we allow loved ones to visit their sick and elderly relatives?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. Creative solutions are in order on that important matter, and I thank my right hon. Friend for that. We really have to go the extra mile in such difficult cases and see what maximum protection we can offer loved ones who need to visit their elderly relatives in very difficult circumstances.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Sunderland, along with a lot of the north-east, went into local measures a few weeks ago and a number of asks were made of Government: some £14 million for test and trace; and some £24 million for business support. Almost four weeks later, there was been no response one way or the other. Could the Prime Minister commit to look into what the logjam is and get a response quickly to our local authorities because they need to know what is happening?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely I will. The hon. Member will have heard what I said earlier about the support for local authorities, but I will make sure we look particularly into what is happening in Sunderland and get her an answer.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
As Conservatives, we often speak of levelling up. However, now is the time to level with the British people. There is no silver bullet. All measures to stop the spread of covid have painful effects on our economy, social lives and mental wellbeing. Voices on the Opposition Benches believe that British people are incapable of understanding complex issues such as Brexit. The Conservative party is the champion of individuals’ rights to make autonomous decisions without state interference. Will the Prime Minister double down on our party’s historic commitment to invest greater trust in the individual to decide what is best for themselves?
The Prime Minister
Indeed, and I hope that the individual will also recognise that the risk that we carry—he or she carries—is not just to ourselves, but to the whole of the community because, in the end, we are all potential vectors of this disease and we may bring it inadvertently to someone who is more vulnerable than ourselves. That is the risk. That is why we are bringing in these measures, why we have had the package of measures that we have had throughout this pandemic, and why we now need to intensify them in some local areas now.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Just to follow up on the question from my fellow Kirklees MP, the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), can the Prime Minister clarify: if the numbers are right and they are going in the right direction, it is possible for local authorities, or areas within local authorities, to come out of these restrictions—if numbers allow and it is safe—even if the wider region cannot?
The Prime Minister
Of course we keep all this under review but, as I have said several times throughout the afternoon, you have to keep your geographical area fairly coherent. I know that that causes a great deal of frustration for hon. Members and I have been hearing itt for weeks and months, but that is the way that we have to do it.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I was down as No. 116 on the list today, so may I thank the Prime Minister for answering so many questions in the Chamber today? Regulatory impact assessments are pesky little things, but they are absolutely vital in assessing the impact of regulation on the community and particularly on small businesses. Can my right hon. Friend commit to ask his Cabinet colleagues to prepare regulatory impact assessments for the three-tier approach, to have them scored by the Regulatory Policy Committee and laid before the House of Commons within the next 30 days?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s general hostility to unnecessary regulation of any kind and, believe me, it hurts to do a lot of the things that we have had to do over the last few months, but I see no reason at all why, without being too bureaucratic about it, we should not conduct an assessment of the implications of these measures as well.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
Last week, prompted by data and scientific advice, the Scottish Government acted to introduce new restrictions to halt the spread of the virus. The measures, which were criticised at the time by Scottish Conservative politicians, have been largely followed by the Prime Minister this afternoon. It is vital that businesses and individuals get the financial support that they need through this crisis. In that case, why will the Prime Minister not match the public health powers that the devolved Governments already have with the financial powers which would allow them to do whatever it takes, whenever it is necessary, to support businesses and individuals, instead of always having to hope that eventually his Government will catch up?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is one of the features of this crisis that the UK Treasury has been able to step up to the plate and support people throughout the United Kingdom. That is going to be our approach throughout and I am grateful also for the close harmony in our approach to which he alluded earlier.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I fear that talk of closing hospitality venues such as pubs, restaurants and cafés misses the point, given the very limited transmission of covid within them. For example, this has averaged at just 2.4% in Stockport over the last four months. Is not the danger in closing them that people will meet in each other’s homes, where transmission is much higher, rather than in these covid-secure venues?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend knows, in level 2 areas and indeed, a fortiori, in level 3 areas, there are restrictions on household contact that are designed to bring down that transmission. You should not meet other households indoors in either a domestic or a hospitality setting.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The latest technical glitch in the Prime Minister’s so-called world-beating test and trace system, which has been dubbed a “data enrichment” process, has meant that many positive cases among students have automatically been attributed to their home address, instead of to their university address. That has affected about a quarter of new cases in Richmond upon Thames in my constituency, and it has been replicated in Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Hertfordshire, Essex and elsewhere. How can quick and effective local tracing take place if cases are being reported to the wrong place, and how might that affect decisions about which tier areas are placed into?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member makes an important point but, with respect to her, we are aware of that phenomenon—data showing where students, or anybody, are registered with their GP, rather than where the transmission is taking place—so we obviously aim off for that.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Health Secretary has confirmed that parts of Teesside, including my constituency, will also enter tier 2 restrictions from Wednesday. I desperately wish that these restrictions were not necessary, as they will understandably place a great strain on the mental health of my constituents, who will now be limited in their interactions with friends, families and partners. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the people of Redcar and Cleveland, who put their trust in the Conservative party for the first time in December, are at the forefront of his mind, and that we will lift those restrictions at the earliest opportunity?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s views entirely and I desperately wish that these measures were not necessary. The better and more united way we can enforce them, the faster we will be able to lift them, and in Redcar, and across the country, we will be able to get on with our agenda of uniting and levelling up. By the way, we have not forgotten about that—we are continuing to do it, irrespective of this crisis, as I think the people of Redcar would expect.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for answering well over 100 questions in over two hours, and I am grateful to those who have participated. There will be many other MPs who would have loved to have got on the call list.
I suspend the House for three minutes.
Business of the House
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now have a business statement on which I will call only the shadow Leader of the House and the SNP spokesman to ask questions.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement.
Further to the earlier statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, tomorrow’s business will now be:
Consideration of a business of the House motion after which the House will be asked to approve the following regulations: The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Medium) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (High) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local Covid-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020; The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Collection of Contact Details etc and Related Requirements) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1005); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Hospitality Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1008); The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1046); and The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1029).
At the conclusion of proceedings on these regulations, the House will proceed to remaining stages of the Fisheries Bill [Lords]. The business for Wednesday and Thursday remains unchanged from that previously announced. I shall make a further statement announcing future business on Thursday.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for coming to the House to make a statement.
When will these regulations be published? The Leader of the House listed all of them. Will they be taken together, or separately by region? How long will the debate on the regulations be? Will it be a full day’s debate? There are constituents who are losing their jobs as we speak, and they will expect their MPs to scrutinise and debate the regulations fully. Will the subject matter include the package of economic support available for the communities affected and the evidence that has been used to place our constituencies in the different tiers?
The Leader of the House will know that Members have been unable to take part in some of the debates on primary legislation for public health reasons. Could he confirm that we can return to virtual debates allowing all hon. Members to take part equally as these regulations are so important and they need to do their democratic duty on behalf of their constituents?
The Secretary of State for Health said on Wednesday that there will be a new convention that wherever possible we will be holding votes before such regulations come into force. Could the Leader of the House confirm that if there are any future changes to the tiered system where constituencies are moved from one tier to another, we can have a debate and a vote on that?
We will work with the Government if there is any legislation that needs to be expedited. However, the House first heard of the financial package on Friday when the Chancellor made a statement to the media at the same time as the Prime Minister was talking to the leaders in the north-east and the north-west, and some of our colleagues—hon. and right hon. Members—were not even invited to that call. Will the Chancellor come to the House regarding any future package, because economic support goes hand in hand with lockdown measures? We should not have to hear about this in a “Dear colleague” letter when he is just across the road.
All our citizens behaved absolutely brilliantly during the first lockdown, and that resulted in a lifting of restrictions over the summer. Will the Government repay that trust by ensuring that they treat our constituents’ elected representatives in a democratic way by informing hon. and right hon. Members of any measures that are made in this House, and doing so expeditiously?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I hope that the orders will be laid even while I am speaking, but certainly the intention is for them to be laid very shortly. A programme motion will be attached to that. It will not be a full day’s debate because we will be moving on to the Fisheries Bill, but there will be some hours of debate available.
The right hon. Lady is right to point out that it was unfortunate that the Chancellor’s package was leaked and therefore an announcement needed to be made when the House was not sitting. This is most regrettable, as announcements should be made to the House first, and that was the intention of the Chancellor and of Her Majesty’s Government.
With regard to remote activities, interrogative proceedings remain possible remotely, but it is worth remembering that attendance at this House is essential work and that all the restrictions still allow people to travel for their work, even out of a restricted area, so Members remain entitled, free and, indeed, under some element of duty to attend this House if they are capable of doing so. The commitment is to have votes on matters that are of national significance. Inevitably, that is not a precise definition, but I hope that the Government and Members of this House will work together to ensure that any issues that are of national significance, and are widely deemed to be of national significance, will come to the House first. I think that is the right thing to do, and the commitment that my right hon Friend Secretary the Health Secretary made in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) in a recent statement made this absolutely clear.
May I thank the right hon. Lady for the support that she has volunteered today and for her right praise of the behaviour of the people of the United Kingdom? We are governed by consent and therefore regulations that are passed by this place need the consent of the British people given through their representatives. That has been given in a remarkable way, and I am sure that that will continue. It will certainly be shown in the respect by Members of Her Majesty’s Government to this House. The Prime Minister was on his feet for the best part of two hours answering as many questions as he possibly could, and this level of engagement is only right and proper.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
We welcome the opportunities that will exist for scrutiny, and I refer the Leader of the House to the amendment that we tabled to the coronavirus extension motion, which detailed some of the kinds of scrutiny that already take place in Holyrood. Perhaps there are lessons that can be learned about the more open and transparent way that the Scottish Government have been conducting themselves since the start of this process.
Under the proceedings under the pandemic orders, the EVEL—English votes for English laws—Standing Orders have been suspended. Who knows how long that suspension might last for? I would still expect that we will exercise our self-denying ordinance where these regulations relate directly to England and Wales and fall within devolved competence, although, of course, we would be interested in any Barnett consequentials that come from expenditure.
I want to back up the shadow Leader of the House on the point about virtual participation and remote voting. These regulations are going to make it more difficult for Members to travel, irrespective of historical rights. Members might be in households where they have to self-isolate, or they might not want to set that example to their constituents, so I plead with the Leader of the House to consider, at the very least, virtual voting and if at all possible, virtual participation in substantive proceedings.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The devolved authorities and Her Majesty’s Government are working closely together, and I think that is important. It is right that EVEL has been suspended during the time of this pandemic, in the way that we are currently sitting, to ensure that things are passed through this House without requiring the extra complication of the EVEL Standing Orders. I would say with regard to remote voting that the hon. Gentleman has 36 votes his back pocket, and I think he might have had 37 had it not been for a rather unfortunate resignation—least said, soonest mended.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you for the business statement. As Members know, normally, the call list or the ability to get on the call list for tomorrow would have already closed. That would be pretty useless for Members, seeing as they did not know what the business for tomorrow was going to be, so the Speaker’s Office has announced that the call list will remain open today until 9 pm in order for Members to be able to get on the call list for tomorrow.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June)
Point of Order
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is there any reason why you have just announced that Back Benchers were not allowed to ask a question during the business statement? It was only announced today and it would have been a perfect opportunity for Back Benchers to come in on spec and hold the Leader of the House to account. There is no reason why that should not have happened. There could not have been a call list because it was only announced today.
You said earlier that a very large number of Members of Parliament could not get in for the Prime Minister, despite his best efforts, and I was one of them. I might have wanted to ask him why the old should not be allowed to self-isolate if they want and the young to work if they want, but I was not able to ask that question. Perhaps I could have asked it to the Leader of the House, but you decreed otherwise. When we have these ad hoc business statements in the future, given that we are talking about civil liberties and very important matters tomorrow, we should be allowed to come into the Chamber, as we used to, and hold the Leader of the House to account.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I fully appreciate the point that you are making, Sir Edward. Of course, you could have asked the Leader of the House for the option of a debate on the question you just asked, not ask him to answer it, but I am being pedantic. I fully understand Members’ frustrations, but the decision was taken because of the business of the House that we have today and the fact that we asked the Prime Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and answer questions for more than two hours, which allowed us to get in 117 Members. That is why we are under time pressure today. I fully appreciate the frustration that you have enunciated.
The House is suspended for three minutes.
Agriculture Bill
Monday 12th October 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 12 October 2020 - (12 Oct 2020)
21:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 347 / Noes: 212 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 332 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 344 / Noes: 206 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 3, 4 18 and 30. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal. Having given careful consideration to Lords amendment 18, which would establish a Trade and Agriculture Commission, I am satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue that is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 February. In accordance with paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 78, the amendment is therefore deemed to be disagreed to and is not available for debate.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The ruling that you have just made regarding amendment 18 will surprise, if not stun, many people outside, who had placed much hope in the Trade and Agriculture Commission. Could you provide the House with any further details of the rationale, because on first reading it is not clear what the financial implications of this particular provision would be? What—if any—other remedies might be available to Members of this House to pursue this matter further?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order. As he is an experienced Member of the House, he knows that when Mr Speaker and the Public Bill Office look at these amendments, they do so very thoroughly. Although they do not have to give a reason why an amendment is allowed or not allowed, the statement that I have just made is quite rare in the 28 years that I have been a Member—and I think Mr Speaker has done rather well, to be honest.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is not really Mr Speaker I wish to challenge. I just want to say that it was not beyond the wit of Ministers to table a money resolution so that we could have dealt with amendment 18. This has put Mr Speaker in a very difficult position.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am sure that I speak on behalf of Mr Speaker when I say how grateful he is for the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and the way in which he has made it. Those on the Treasury Bench have heard his point.
Clause 4
Multi-annual financial assistance plans
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 2 to 8.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10.
Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 13 to 15.
Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 18.
Lords amendment 19 to 46.
Victoria Prentis
I should begin by declaring my interests; my family have farmed near Banbury for many years.
This Bill represents a decisive break with the common agricultural policy, as we move to a system that will deliver both for farmers and for the precious environment for which they care. I was delighted to see the Bill pass its Third Reading in the other place, led by my wonderful colleague Lord Gardiner of Kimble. It has now enjoyed over 100 hours of parliamentary debate in its current incarnation, and, of course, had already passed its Committee stage in 2018. Rarely has a Bill been so scrutinised. Although there remain areas of disagreement, it is heartening to hear the loud support for British farming from all parties at both ends of this place. I will speak to each amendment in turn.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for giving way; I spoke to her before we came into the Chamber.
Last week I had a Zoom meeting with Lakeland Dairies, which is one of the major agrifood businesses in my constituency. The company is keen to understand the complexities of east-west and west-east movement, as well as north-south movement—from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland—for its products, which are milk products in liquid form. It is really important to have clarity on this complex issue. I have asked the Secretary of State for a meeting, because he has had various meetings with me in the past. I just want to ensure that we have a meeting with him so that we understand the process before we move forward.
Victoria Prentis
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Secretary of State has met him about Lakeland Dairies in the past, and I am sure he will be delighted to do so again. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it is a very complex issue.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Victoria Prentis
If I may, I will make a tiny bit of progress, otherwise we really will be here for another 100 hours.
The purpose behind Lords amendment 1 is to demonstrate the connections between this Bill and the Environment Bill. I am pleased to say that these connections very much exist already. Environmental improvement plans will already definitely be taken into account when determining the strategic priorities that sit within the multi-annual financial assistance plans in clause 4.
It is lovely to see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), in her place. She and I work very closely together. Ours is a very united Department, and we view farmers and environmentalists as often very much one and the same. Our future farming policies will be a key mechanism for delivering the goals set out in the 25-year environment plan, but we can take the steps we need to improve biodiversity only if the majority of farmers are firmly on side.
On Lords amendment 9, I would like to reassure the House that work is already taking place in this sphere. We have already commissioned an independent review of the food sector, led by Henry Dimbleby, and his interim report was released in July. We take his recommendations very seriously. We have made a firm commitment to publish a food White Paper within six months of his final report, which is expected next spring. This could well lead to a report sooner than is actually proposed in the amendment.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Minister realise why some of us would be a little bit sceptical about her reassurances on timescales, given that the Environment Bill has gone missing for the last 200 days? Why should we believe her when she tells us that this is going to come forward shortly? Why not just accept this amendment? It is going in the same direction as she says she wants to go, so she should just accept it, and it would make it a lot easier.
Victoria Prentis
I am currently on amendment 9. I wonder if the hon. Lady was talking about the previous amendment; I am not sure. Nevertheless, I am delighted to say that enjoying at the moment I am what my predecessor referred to as my loaves and fishes week: I have agriculture today and fish tomorrow. I would say that Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs legislation is very much front and centre in the business of the House this week. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is looking forward very keenly to bringing forward the Environment Bill, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will have further news on that shortly.
Sir Edward Leigh
On the subject of loaves, can I bring a message from the county of Lincolnshire, which produces 2 billion of them a year? It is the bread basket of England. This is a general point, but I was talking to farmers and I think they just want to be reassured on this point. They are the most efficient farmers in the country, and they want to be assured that when we do free trade deals, our competitors under these deals will be working under the same regulations as our farmers. That is all they want, and that was the whole point of the Lord Curry amendment about a Trade and Agriculture Commission with teeth. If the Minister can just give that commitment, they will be reassured.
Victoria Prentis
My right hon. Friend will be very pleased, when I come on to that section of my speech, to hear the reassurances that I hope I will be able to give him.
Back to amendment 9, and I think the report we have promised within six months of Henry Dimbleby’s report will in fact come sooner than is set out in this amendment.
The response to the pandemic has demonstrated again and again the resilience of our UK food supply chain, and I am really pleased with how well Government and industry have worked together. I would like to thank everyone in the food industry—from our farmers to those in retail and everybody in between—for responding so quickly and efficiently to some very challenging conditions.
It was a real privilege to chair the cross-Whitehall ministerial taskforce, which tried to ensure that food and other essential supplies reached the vulnerable. We worked with industry to smooth the way wherever possible, including relaxing competition laws and drivers’ hours. We have also worked with retailers to massively increase the number of online delivery slots. We are all too aware that many find themselves in food poverty for the first time. As the taskforce, we were able to secure £16 million, which we gave to frontline charities that are directly helping get food to those in need, and we allocated £63 million to local authorities so that they can provide direct support to people who cannot afford food.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recently did a covid report, and the £63 million and the £16 million were really important in getting food out to those in society who need it most. May I have an assurance that if it is needed again, we will move very quickly to get it there? Unfortunately, after covid there will be a higher number of unemployed and great pressure on food and food security.
Victoria Prentis
I met the Trussell Trust and the Children’s Society last week to discuss how effective that local authority grant was. I know that my hon. Friend, who has done so much work in this space, has also taken evidence to that effect. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks right now, but I assure him that I will make sure that those comments are fed through and, if the need is there, that that is seen as one of the options available and a very direct way of getting money to those who are in food poverty. The Trussell Trust is itself preparing a report on how effective that grant has been.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
All the indicators are that food poverty is on the rise, so I ask the Minister, as I asked the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary: why will Ministers not extend the food voucher holiday hunger scheme to the half-term and Christmas holidays?
Victoria Prentis
I know that the hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this matter for some time. He has heard what the Department for Education has to say about that. The scheme that I am discussing is the £63 million scheme, which of course did not go just to families with children, although they were heavily represented among the recipients of that scheme. We will pass on those comments and those of the Trussell Trust and, of course, the EFRA Committee when considering how we tackle food poverty directly over the course of this winter. We all know that this is going to be a difficult time for many.
Returning to the Bill, we already have powers in what was originally clause 17, which commits the Government to
“lay before Parliament a report containing an analysis of statistical data relating to food security”
in the UK. We listened to the concerns raised regarding the frequency of the food security report and, through Lords amendments 5 to 8, reduced the minimum frequency of reporting from five years to three years. Of course, we can still report more often than that, and in times of strain on food supply that might well be appropriate.
Turning to Lords amendment 11, I recognise the positive intentions behind the amendment, but I am afraid I take issue with the drafting. The Government are committed to reducing the risks from pesticide use. We have already tightened the standards for authorisation and withdrawn many pesticides from the organophosphate and carbamate classes. Integrated pest management will be a critical part of future farming policy. Under our existing legislation, the use of pesticides is allowed only where a scientific assessment shows that it will have no effect on human health, including that of vulnerable groups.
The amendment, although undoubtedly well intentioned, is far too broad. It extends to any pesticide and any building, and would include pesticides that are important for productivity but pose no danger whatsoever to health. Even worse, it also extends to any open space used for work, which on my reading would prohibit the use of pesticides in fields entirely. I encourage hon. Members to read the amendment carefully before supporting it.
Caroline Lucas
The Minister will know that Lords amendment 11 is based on one that I tabled, which the Lords supported. I think she misrepresents the amendment. It is perfectly clear that it would be possible for the Government to bring forward regulations to specify exactly the minimum distances. It is no coincidence that Lord Randall himself has said how important it is that this amendment is passed to protect human health. That is what we need to do. The Government could go away and design the regulations, but this is the overarching amendment to achieve that.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid I do disagree with the hon. Lady’s reading of the amendment. My case would be that we already have regulation in place to protect human health from risks, including those in the vulnerable sectors of society, which I mentioned.
Victoria Prentis
I will not just at the moment, but I will later.
I am afraid to say that, despite the considerable thought that has gone into the amendments, we have not yet found a magic form of words that will address all the concerns and avoid undesirable side effects. In asking the House to reject the amendments, I will set out the set of solutions, both legislative and non-legislative, that I hope will allay the fears that Members have expressed. In my view, this range of measures, and constant vigilance on the part of Government and, indeed, consumers, are of more use than warm words in primary legislation.
I will start by reiterating that, alongside my colleagues on this side of the House, I stood on a clear manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. As I have said many times, our current import standards are enshrined in existing legislation.
They include a ban on importing beef produced using artificial growth hormones and poultry that has been washed with chlorine. The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 carries across those existing standards on environmental protections, animal welfare, animal and plant health and food safety. Any changes to that legislation would need to be brought before Parliament.
It falls to our independent food regulators, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland, to ensure that all food imports into the UK are safe and meet the relevant UK product rules and regulations. The FSA’s risk analysis process is rigorous, completely independent of Government and based on robust scientific evidence, along with other legitimate factors such as wider consumer interests and the impact on the environment, animal welfare and food security.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I want to be very clear: the concerns that people have about the Bill and the Government’s decision not to accept the amendment are not about the quality of food. We understand that the product is not a danger. What we are concerned about is the production and the impact on the producer. If we undermine animal welfare and environmental standards, we may well have quality food to eat but we will damage our farmers and the integrity of our farming industry in the process.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman is partly right. Many of the concerns expressed, perhaps more wildly, in the tabloid press—possibly not by the farming sector—are indeed about the safety of food. I seek to reassure everybody that those regulations are in place, and there is no danger to safety or to the existing standards that we enjoy, and have enjoyed for many years as members of the EU. When we come on to the next argument, which we could perhaps characterise as a more protectionist argument, we need to balance the competing factors of trade deals that we already have, continuity trade agreements and trade deals that we want to enter into in the future, and work out how we scrutinise those trade deals to ensure that our farmers are getting a fair deal. I will go on to set out some of the ways that we hope to do that.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
In the letter that my hon. Friend sent to all MPs on 6 October last week, she wrote that accepting the amendments
“would make it very difficult to secure any new trade deals.”
That is the bit that makes people suspicious. I do not doubt for one second her sincerity. I have known her for years and she is a Minister of the utmost integrity, and I do not doubt anybody in her Department either, but is the view that she has expressed at the Dispatch Box today shared in heart and mind across the whole of Government, including the Department for International Trade?
Victoria Prentis
Yes, those in the Department for International Trade stood on the manifesto that my hon. Friend and I were also proud to stand on. We are absolutely committed to high standards.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend has helpfully set out the very high standards that any imports will be required to meet coming into this country. Therefore, is there any reason why this House should not be given proper opportunity to scrutinise any free trade agreements before they are signed, so that we can ensure that those agreements do not enable produce to come into this country that is lower than those standards?
Victoria Prentis
If my hon. Friend can contain himself, I will get on very shortly to a long section of my speech that details how Parliament will be able to scrutinise future trade agreements. It is important, and I think that we do do that, but I will set that out very shortly.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Just to refer back to the letter that the Minister sent last week, the Government’s response to the Lords amendments is that they would create a vast set of conditions that do not apply to current EU trade deals. Will she explain that a bit further, please?
Victoria Prentis
Yes, I will be getting on to that in a minute, too. Members will see that Lords amendment 16 has a large number of conditions that, were it to pass, would apply to continuity—so, rollover agreements—and to any new agreement that we signed. One of my concerns, just to give the hon. Gentleman an example, is that the amendment would require other countries to abide by exactly the regulations that we have in this country. Those might not be appropriate because of climate, for example, or the way a country is physically. Our hedgerow regulation, for example, would look fairly odd in parts of Africa, but that is just one example.
I will make a bit of progress. We have high standards in this country, of which we are justly proud, and there is no way the Government will reduce those standards. Our clear policy, in fact, is to increase them, particularly in the area of animal welfare, and I hope to be telling the House a lot more about that next year.
It is important that our future trade agreements uphold those high standards. We can ensure that with a range of safeguards, parliamentary scrutiny being one of them. My right hon. Friend the International Trade Secretary has today confirmed in a written ministerial statement to the House that there will be a full scrutiny process for the Japan deal and all other agreements that we strike. When it is agreed in principle, a copy of the deal will be issued to the International Trade Committee. It can then report on that, and I know that it will scrutinise the deal carefully.
The Government are committed to transparency and to aiding scrutiny. That includes publishing objectives and initial economic assessments before the start of any trade talks, which has been done to date. We have also provided regular progress updates to Parliament. For example, we recently provided updates on the conclusion of negotiation rounds with the US and Australia, and we are engaging closely with the International Trade Committee and the International Agreements Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee in the other place. That includes sharing future trade agreements before they are laid in Parliament through the process set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. Today, the Secretary of State set out how that is happening for the Japan deal.
We will always endeavour to ensure the Committees have at least 10 sitting days to read through the deals or potential deals on a confidential basis. We are also sharing a full impact assessment, which covers the economic impacts along with the social, environmental and animal welfare aspects of any deal, and that impact assessment has been independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee.
Finally, at the end of negotiations, we are committed to ensuring that the final agreement text is laid in Parliament for 21 sitting days under the CRaG procedure, which will ensure that the House has sufficient time to scrutinise the detail of any deal. I know that there has been some debate in both Houses on the effectiveness of CRaG, but it is the established procedure under our constitution. Our overall approach to scrutiny goes beyond many comparable parliamentary democracies.
Further important scrutiny is provided by a range of expert groups that advise the Government on trade policy. They include the Department for International Trade’s agrifood trade advisory group, which was renewed in July and includes more than 30 representatives from the food industry—I nearly said “heavyweight” representatives, but I would not want that to be misinterpreted. DEFRA also continues to run various supply chain advisory groups such as the arable group, the livestock group and the food and drink panel. They provide expert advice as we negotiate, which is fed directly in to those negotiating.
We also listened carefully to powerful points made by Members of this House and the National Farmers Union, which is why we established the Trade and Agriculture Commission in July. The commission is working hard. It has met six times and set up three working groups covering consumers, competitiveness and standards, bringing more than 30 additional representatives to help with its work. Recently, the commission launched a call for evidence to 200 relevant parties, which asked several questions, including on how standards can best be upheld while securing the benefits of trade. Its report will come before Parliament later this term to be debated.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I hope I am not jumping the gun, but will the Minister look to extend the purview of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to longer than six months? It should be a permanent body that is established to scrutinise our trade deals.
Victoria Prentis
I am afraid that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not within my gift; it is a matter for the Department for International Trade whether the work and life of that commission is extended. Further to the point of order made earlier about our inability to discuss Lords amendment 18 this evening, there is no need for any amendment to the Bill in order to set up or continue the Trade and Agriculture Commission. It was done without any need for legislation, and it will be perfectly possible and proper for Members to talk to the Secretary of State for International Trade if they wish the commission to continue.
The commission was set up with a fixed term and a tight scope, which was a deliberate decision, to avoid duplication of the work of the agencies and other groups that I have just set out. It was set up in order to feed directly into our trade negotiations with the US, Australia and New Zealand. We remain open to listening to any concerns about the operation of the commission and will continue to co-operate with DIT to ensure that it meets expectations.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking laudably about the Trade and Agriculture Commission but then somewhat passing the responsibility to her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is not with us today. What assurances can she give us that her voice will count in those discussions about the Trade and Agriculture Commission? That body is central to the Bill we are discussing, yet the Secretary of State is not here to answer questions.
Victoria Prentis
I must politely disagree. I do not think that there needs to be any amendment to the Bill in order to continue the great work that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is undertaking. It was set up without the benefit of legislation; it does not need that. I have just set out why it was set up in a time-limited way, in order to produce a report that will be debated in the House this term, which is useful, as it will feed into the negotiations. It was set up with that timescale in mind. Whether we want to set it up for future trade agreements is something to discuss another day, but I do not agree that it has anything at all to do with the Bill.
Neil Parish
I accept that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is not my hon. Friend’s responsibility. However, on amendments 12 and 16, if the Government could come forward with a proposal to extend its life or to set up a smaller commission to deal with individual trade deals, they would see off any possible rebellions tonight.
Victoria Prentis
Oh dear. I remain very fond of my hon. Friend, who continues to tempt me, Madam Deputy Speaker, down routes that we really do not need to go down in discussing this legislation—indeed, we are all busily debating amendment 18 as if it were before us.
To return to what we are meant to be talking about, if amendments 12 and 16 remained in the Bill, they could create a long list of new conditions that imports under trade agreements would have to meet. Such conditions do not exist under any agreement that the UK or the EU have to date, and they could also apply to trade already taking place, which we very much hope will be the subject of roll-over deals.
We will drive a hard bargain for access to our market, and existing import conditions will need to be respected. However, trading partners would be extremely unlikely to agree to all the potential new requirements in the amendments. The amendments are also not totally clear on what we would be asking of our partners. For example, what is relevant to protect the environment in the UK will surely not be what is relevant to other countries with different climates or conditions. From rules on nitrates to rules on hedgerows, our standards are sometimes bound to differ from those abroad.
Given that uncertainty, I am concerned that the amendments could jeopardise the 19 currently unsigned agreements that we are seeking to roll over. Trade, of course, already takes place under those agreements, with existing import requirements met. Unpicking those and demanding the numerous extra conditions in the amendments could upset the current deals if partners refused and walked away. In the worst-case scenario, that could affect whisky exports to Canada, worth £96 million, potato exports to Egypt, worth £30 million, and milk powder exports to Algeria, worth £21 million.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
I think the hon. Lady said a moment ago that the problem with the amendments was that they would impose conditions that the EU has not sought to apply to any existing trade agreements, but is that actually the case? Is it not true that the free trade agreement between the EU and Chile in 2003 explicitly included a reference to animal welfare—the point made a moment ago—and that when the EU negotiated a trade deal with the Mercosur countries last year, it made the reduction of tariffs on egg products conditional for the first time on the countries concerned, namely Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, keeping their hens in line with EU animal welfare standards? If the EU can do that, why are the Government resisting us doing that when we take back control?
Victoria Prentis
As the right hon. Gentleman knows very well, the EU has been able to put welfare standards of various kinds and levels in different trade agreements over the years. That is a perfectly proper thing to do, as long as it is done in compliance with international law. The point I was trying to make—I apologise if I did not make it sufficiently clear—is that it would be unwise, particularly in the agreements we are seeking to roll over in very short form, to add a set of conditions that, to my reading at least, are not entirely clear and that are broadly drafted. It would be difficult to agree with the partners with whom we already trade as part of these continuity agreements a whole new set of conditions and, indeed, a method of assessing those conditions in very short order. That might well put them off agreeing a deal with us. That is my concern.
In summary, the tools we have to ensure high standards are, as I have tried to set out, many and varied. They are strong enough to protect standards, even under pressure. We have existing regulation under retained EU law, which is watched carefully and controlled by the Food Standards Agency. Parliament can scrutinise new trade deals, as indeed the Select Committee on International Trade is about to do for the Japan deal. Other experts, including those on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, can advise us on trade policy. Last, but by no means least, we have the buying power of the British consumer, who is increasingly committed to high standards of animal welfare.
We will carry out a serious examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK market. We will start to consult on that before the end of this year. That combination of measures will protect producers of high-welfare British food, while allowing us to import when we wish.
Turning to amendment 17 on emissions reduction targets—
Victoria Prentis
I have turned, I fear.
Amendment 17 is another well-intentioned amendment, but it would add an unnecessary layer of complication. The Secretary of State is already required to have regard to the Government’s commitment to achieving net zero under the Climate Change Act 2008. The Government have also introduced carbon budgets, which cap emissions over successive five-year periods. If we are to achieve the UK’s net zero target, emissions reductions will be needed in all sectors. Not setting sector-specific targets allows us to meet our climate change commitments in the best and speediest way. Agriculture has an important role to play in reducing emissions, but we must recognise that planting trees and restoring peatland will take a very long time—probably not my lifetime—to deliver the best results.
We will continue to work closely on that issue with the NFU and others, including the greenhouse gas action plan partners.
Caroline Lucas
Given that emissions from agriculture have not decreased—they have remained static for years—there is every good reason to focus on the role of agriculture in driving climate change. It is not just a question of planting trees, which, as the Minister says, takes a long time. She could start by not burning the peatlands, which is leading to more and more climate change right now. That is the kind of immediate measure that could be in the Bill.
Victoria Prentis
I am sorry if I did not explain myself clearly enough. Of course we are committed to reducing emissions from agriculture, which produces about 10% of emissions, as the hon. Lady knows. It is important to work on that. I commend the NFU, which has set an ambitious target for doing just that. Many measures will be set out in the Environment Bill, which will come before the House shortly. Of course, the Agriculture Bill will be a key part of delivering net zero, as our future farming schemes are a powerful vehicle for achieving that goal.
Richard Fuller
Perhaps the counter-argument to that of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) is that farming needs long-term stability and sense. Governments sometimes change, but this target will remain. How does my hon. Friend balance the requirement for the dexterity that she has described in the Environment Bill with the overarching target, which could provide some stability as we achieve some of the goals that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has asked us to achieve?
Victoria Prentis
That is exactly what I am trying to do. I am seeking a balance between a laudable aim that we are all signed up to and not setting sector-specific targets, for which amendment 17 provides. I do not think that would be helpful. However, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that we need to do everything we can in the agricultural sphere to work on this important issue.
I will now deal with the Government amendments. Amendment 2 requires all new multi-annual financial assistance plans introduced after the end of the agriculture transition period to be published 12 months before coming into effect. The first multi-annual financial assistance plan, which covers the seven-year agricultural transition, will be published by the end of this year. All subsequent plans will be published at least 12 months ahead of their coming into effect. Those in the other place felt strongly that building in time between the publication of multi-annual financial assistance plans and their coming into effect would allow farmers to prepare for them and adapt to any potential changes. The Government agree and are pleased to propose that amendment.
Amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8 change the frequency of reporting on food security—to which I spoke briefly earlier—by requiring reports to be published at least every three years. The first report will be published before Parliament rises for Christmas next year, 2021. This report will include an analysis of statistical data relating to the impact of coronavirus on food security in the United Kingdom.
Amendments 10, 13, 14 and 20 to 29 were requested by the devolved Administrations and reflect the positive working relationship that we have with our counterparts there. I am pleased that each of the devolved legislatures has given legislative consent to the Bill.
Amendments 10, 13 and 14 require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the DAs before making regulations within their competence under clauses 32 or 37. Amendments 20 to 29 give the DAs the power to make supplementary and consequential provisions in all areas of the Bill for which a legislative consent motion was sought. Amendment 15 removes the provisions in clauses 42(4) and 42(5), as devolved Ministers have assured us that they are not required in law.
Amendments 3, 4, 19, 30, 31, 45 and 46 are technical amendments that ensure that clauses 14, 15 and 16, as well as their equivalent provisions in the schedules for Wales and Northern Ireland, will operate as intended. The clauses rely on a body of retained EU law being created at the end of the transition period. We have recently been advised that that may be necessary to allow us to continue to fund existing common agricultural policy legacy schemes.
Finally, amendments 32 to 44 enable legislative powers created by the Bill to be exercised on or after the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent. This will enable us to act quickly to ensure that there is no gap in the powers required to operate existing schemes and to provide financial assistance to farmers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am sure that colleagues will be aware that this debate must finish at 9 o’clock and there are still two Front-Bench contributions to come. I will therefore set an immediate limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches, although I fear that may have to go down if we are to have any chance of getting everybody in.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments 1, 11, 16 and 17, and on amendment 18 I send my best wishes for a speedy recovery. I declare an interest: my little sister is a farmer in Cornwall. I thank all farmers for their work throughout the covid-19 pandemic.
This is a crucial moment for British agriculture. Today, Members on both sides of the Chamber are given a choice about what kind of country we want Britain to be. Do we want to be a nation that shines as a beacon around the world, standing up for our farmers, for the welfare of our animals and for the environment? Or do we want to throw all that away, just for the vague promise of a trade deal, so that poor-quality food is served to our children, standards are undercut and carbon and animal-welfare responsibilities are exported? I do not want to see Britain be the kind of country where our farmers are forced out of business, decimating our proud rural tradition.
I do not think anyone in this House wants lower-quality food on our plates, but unless the Government show some leadership and back British farmers, there is a real risk that that could happen. Labour has been clear that the Bill must include legal guarantees that our high UK food and farming standards will not be undercut in post-Brexit trade deals, whether with the USA, Australia or any other country. That is because Labour backs British farmers. In calling for food standards to be put unequivocally in law, I wish to speak not only for Labour but on behalf of the 1 million people who signed the NFU’s petition on food standards and, of course, on behalf of British farmers from Cornwall, Plymouth and Devon to the east of England, to Wales and to Scotland when I say: put high food and farming standards into law. Do it now—do it today.
It may seem a long time ago, but less than a year ago the Conservatives made a pledge on food standards in their manifesto. This is how it started:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
This is how it is going: our farmers risk being undercut by cheap imports from abroad within months. If the Government are serious about keeping their manifesto promise to safeguard standards, they should put that guarantee into law. If that promise was good enough for the Conservative manifesto, why is it not good enough for the Agriculture Bill, this Government’s flagship piece of legislation on food and farming? I say to the Minister that refusing to put that piece of the manifesto into law raises the question as to whether thar part of the manifesto was truly meant and whether that promise can be believed.
Sir Edward Leigh
Why does the hon. Gentleman think that so few British farmers vote Labour? Is it because they recognise Labour as a metropolitan elite outfit?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful for that intervention, because it gives me a chance to say that we back our British farmers. Tonight, they will be looking at the votes cast in this place to see whether Members of Parliament that represent farming communities, be they red or blue—these communities are represented on both sides of this House—support British farmers or choose not to do so. That will be a decision for each and every Member, but let me be clear: farmers are watching what happens in this debate tonight and what votes are cast, and their votes are not secured for the next election. Their votes are to be played for. I look forward to that competition.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is making a great series of points. I am sure he would humbly accept that in the election last December the Conservatives made gains from his party in many urban parts of Britain because of the characterisation that Labour had taken those seats for granted. Is the same thing not here on the table tonight: large swathes of blue in rural Britain that the Conservatives assume will vote for them come what may? Is it not the lesson of tonight that at the next election many Conservative MPs will be in the same position as his colleagues were in December?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The important thing I have taken away from my discussions with farmers in Devon and on visits to farms up and down the country is that their votes are not guaranteed. The votes of rural communities are not guaranteed and are there to be won, but they need to be won through a strong vision and through delivery. Taking votes for granted is not a good electoral strategy anywhere. We need to look at what farmers will benefit from and what will they not benefit from. I worry that leaving a back door to their being undercut in trade deals is neither a good economic strategy for our country, nor a good political strategy for those people advocating it.
I expect the amendment to strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission to be redrafted in the Lords, and I hope it will come back to us soon. Amendment 16, on strengthening the trade commission, and amendment 18, on food standards, are a one-two—they are a classic British double act. I do not believe that the temporary and fragile Trade and Agriculture Commission would be able to stop the International Trade Secretary, Dominic Cummings and the Prime Minister signing a trade deal with America that would include imports of chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef. That is why we need that one-two—strengthened scrutiny of trade deals and protection for our farmers—in law.
Jim Shannon
The agrifood sector is very important to Northern Ireland. We have built up a regulation and a standard that we have sold the world over. I hope the shadow Secretary of State will press Lords amendment 16 to a vote, because it would ensure that our products retained their standards the world over and that they would not be lost in this deal. Does he share my concern?
Luke Pollard
I share concerns about the quality of food that could be imported after a post-Brexit trade deal is done, unless there is a legal lock.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s points about the importance of farming and of a long-term vision to support our farmers. I think that tonight’s debate is significant for us and for the farming sector in the future. Does he agree that consumers are very concerned not only about the quality of our food and the risk of things being done by the back door, but about the viability of our farms?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and I agree with those concerns. British consumers have spent decades arguing for increased animal welfare in our agriculture production, and putting their faith in those brands, supermarkets and products that have higher levels of animal welfare than others. That concern exists.
I want a trade deal with America, but it is really important that we do not pay for that trade deal with the livelihoods of our farmers. That is why the commission needs to be strengthened, providing extra scrutiny of standards, and we will need an amendment that locks those standards into law. I want the commission, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) hinted at in his intervention, to be put on a permanent statutory basis and to produce a report on every trade deal so that this House can vote on it. Our farmers feed the nation. The least they should expect is that their elected representatives have the opportunity to vote on whether to accept a trade deal that could devastate the economy. The Minister is right that a Bill is not required to set that up, but that means that the only thing required is a choice—and that is a choice that the Government have chosen not to make.
Jonathan Edwards
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is an important point. Increased accountability would actually strengthen the hand of UK negotiators. I remember scrutinising the TTIP deal between the EU and the US in Washington, and one of our last meetings was with members of the food lobby, who told us, “Nothing is going through Congress unless we agree with it.”
Luke Pollard
I agree. At least British Ministers will not have to utter the phrase, “It won’t get through Parliament,” because Parliament has, sadly, voted itself out of having a say, making it one of the few Parliaments in the world that will not have a say on any trade deals with Britain.
Let me address briefly some of the reasons the Minister gave for not supporting the amendments, because it is important that we consider the arguments. Last week I heard the International Trade Secretary say that if we have high standards, that would risk having a crippling effect on agricultural exports from developing countries such as Kenya. I know that Members are concerned about that, but the problem is that it is not right. At the moment, thanks to our membership of the EU, the Government have nine trade deals with sub-Saharan African countries, and so far not a single one of them has been rolled over. We risk losing those trade deals with sub-Saharan Africa if we do not renew them by 31 December. If we care about our agricultural exports, that should be the priority. The Minister also knows that the Government should have a better plan for improving the post-Brexit UK version of the EU’s generalised scheme of preferences, which sets lower tariffs for developing countries in exchange for meaningful protection of human rights, labour rights and the environment.
What else is used as an excuse for the Government not putting their promise into law? The Minister mentioned labelling. I have spoken proudly from this Dispatch Box about the need to buy local. I want consumers to look out for the red tractor and other local accreditations when they are making purchasing decisions. But let us be real: an extra label will not stop lower-quality food being sold in Britain. It offers a meagre apology on the packaging, but only where there is packaging. Ministers know that 50% of our agricultural production does not go into retail. It goes into food service—to cafés and restaurants, food processing and the like—where the origin of the ingredients is, at best, hidden. That is precisely where chlorinated chicken would be sold and eaten first. It would go to big caterers and into mass production—places where consumers cannot tell where their food has come from or know the standards it is produced to. It would go into hospital food and into meals for our armed forces and our schools. The Government claim that the amendment is unnecessary because standards are included in the withdrawal Act, as we have just heard. However, the EU’s import restrictions apply only to products banned on the basis of safety and, as was mentioned earlier, they do not deal with animal welfare or environmental protections, which is what this amendment seeks to do.
There is one more excuse, which has not been spoken about so far, that is absolutely key to the Government’s future trade strategy, and it is about taxes. Could not Ministers just tax these products a wee bit more with an extra couple of pence on tariffs and let the market decide? This is something I have heard and read about in Tory-leaning media, but let me be clear with Ministers, because all those in this place know what the Treasury and the Department for International Trade are planning. Charging a few extra pence on lower-standard food import tariffs while public anger is at its highest will give Ministers a convenient soundbite to offer a nation ill at ease with the Government’s policy. They will then be able to drop those tariffs through secondary legislation when the anger dies down. The end result will be that we still have chlorinated chicken and food produced to lower standards on sale, whether it is for a few pence more or a few pence less. That will not stop those products being sold in the United Kingdom. It will authorise and legitimise it, and it will sign the death warrant for farm businesses the nation over. That is why we want these standards put into law.
In the midst of a climate and ecological emergency, it is imperative that we have a clear road map for agriculture to reach net zero. The NFU has done a good job in its work so far, and I want to thank farmers for the efforts they are making to cut carbon emissions, which are a sizeable chunk of UK emissions. That is why we back efforts to have clear, sector-specific plans that farmers can follow, and we also back efforts including the amendment tabled by Lord Whitty in the other place on pesticides. That matters because of the impact not only on the environment but on human health.
I fear that, in seeking to disagree with these amendments tonight, the Government might be trying to hint at the Salisbury convention, which is that the other place should not interfere with manifesto commitments. However, the Lords are doing something different from that: they are doing a reverse Salisbury. They are asking the Government to stick to their manifesto commitments. In such circumstances, the Salisbury principle does not apply, and the Lords should ask the Commons to reconsider these amendments on food safety and on the Trade and Agriculture Commission again—and again, if necessary. Every time this House votes on these amendments, more and more farmers will be looking at the voting list to see which Members support the farmers and which have chosen not to. We cannot take any votes for granted, and I warn Conservative Members against doing so.
Just last week the Leader of the Opposition and I visited the farm of the NFU president, Minette Batters, in Wiltshire. That was our second meeting with the NFU president in a month, but the Prime Minister still refuses to meet her. I would be grateful if the Minister could pull a few strings to get the PM to meet farmers to talk about this issue.
Victoria Prentis
I believe that the president of the NFU will be visiting Downing Street later this week.
Luke Pollard
Where the Leader of the Opposition leads, the Government follow. I am grateful for that. That visit to Wiltshire was not in vain, I see—[Interruption.]
What kind of country do we want to be? [Interruption.] I do not think that a country whose MPs shout at each other in a debate like this is a country that is good—[Interruption.] I have not heard that from this side and I encourage those on the Conservative side to recognise that as well. There are people watching this debate in farming communities up and down the country. They are tuning into BBC Parliament and parliamentlive.tv for the first ever time, and they should see parliamentarians performing at our best in this debate.
I want Britain to be a nation of quality—[Interruption.] Let me start that again, because the people at home might not have heard me over the chuntering. I want Britain to be a nation of quality, of high standards, of ethical treatment of animals and of stewardship of our landscapes; a custodian of high environmental standards; and a nation that challenges other nations to compete with us fiercely but to do so on a level playing field. I want Britain to be a beacon country with our values proudly on show, not just in soundbites and manifestos, but in our laws, trade deals and behaviours. That is what the amendments on food standards seek to achieve. It is a moral compass that this Agriculture Bill desperately needs.a It is because of that, and because Labour backs our farmers, that we have voted at every opportunity against the Bill, which singularly fails to protect our farmers from being undercut by food produced to lower animal welfare and environmental standards abroad. Our farmers are not afraid of competition but, when we maintain high standards for them but allow potentially food produced at lower standards to be imported, that is unfair. It is not a level playing field. That food would be illegal for British farmers to produce here, but somehow it would be okay to have it through the back door. That cannot be allowed and that is why our food standards must be put into law.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Neil Parish.
Neil Parish
It is great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and to speak in this debate. I say clearly that I shall be supporting amendments 2, 12 and 16 tonight and I will explain why.
This Agriculture Bill goes exactly in the right direction. As we have left the common agricultural policy, we can now move in a more environmental direction. We can bring in much more rotation of crops and go back to traditional types of farming. We can reduce nitrates and pesticides, plant more trees, capture carbon in more grassland, have more grass-fed beef and lamb, and produce poultry and pigs to very high standards. We are reducing all the time the amount of antibiotics used, and we are creating a much greater and better product. Animal welfare is at the centre of our production.
I welcome the fact that our farmers have produced such excellent food throughout this pandemic, and I pay tribute to the food processing industry, which is worth £120 billion to this country. It is the largest manufacturing industry in this country and 60% of the food that is processed is produced in this country under very high standards. So the whole direction of the Bill is right, it has to be the case and I very much support it and the way that we go. It gives us the independence and sovereignty to do it. Likewise, we now have the sovereignty to develop, argue for and produce our own trade deals. So why are we not a great beacon of animal welfare and the environment as we negotiate these trade deals? We have in our manifesto a commitment both on animal welfare and the environment. Would it not be right for the Secretary of State for International Trade to have the armour of Parliament’s backing to say, “I can’t negotiate away that particular part of the deal with you because it is written down in law”?
Richard Fuller
Does my hon. Friend agree with me on the frustration that hon. Members feel that, when it comes to trade deals, we are told at one time, “Well, it can be in that Bill,” and at another time, “It needs to be in that Bill”? Would it not have been helpful if the Department for International Trade had been here today?
Neil Parish
It would indeed. My hon. Friend is right. If we try to amend the Trade Bill, we get told, “That is not the place to put it.” If the Agriculture Bill is not the place to put it either, where is the place to put it? The place to put it is in this Parliament. I will very much support this, as do my hon. Friend and many Conservative Members. We want to negotiate very good trade deals, and not only with Australia, New Zealand and America. Do not forget that this is about not today and tomorrow, but probably several years down the road. What about when we start to do trade deals with Brazil? Brazil has burned down 2.5 million acres of rainforest this year and what do they do? They grow sugar beet and soya, they produce poultry intensively and they destroy the rainforest. When they have destroyed 2.5 million acres of rainforest every year, they will move on to another bit of land. They have destroyed the fertility of that land. They do not even farm the land in the right way. They destroy the environment and the land for farming and if we are not careful, that is exactly where we are going to take it.
Instead of that, we—the British—believe in animal welfare. We believe in the environment. All the signatories to the NFU petition agree on the way forward. So do the Government. I have every respect for the Government and the Minister. But, for goodness’ sake, get the backing of Parliament. Yes, we will get a certain amount of scrutiny of the trade deals when they are done, but the deal will be signed and then presented before Parliament. There will then be the option of objecting to it, or voting it through.
That is why the work has to be done. We do not need the whole Trade and Agriculture Commission; we could have a slimmed down version that could consider every individual deal over the years, as we sign it, to ensure that we do not trade away those standards, and that we improve standards across the world—that we raise the standards of animal welfare and the environment. Surely that is laudable. All of us can support that, irrespective of our political party. I urge the Government: instead of saying, “We’ve got the power. We can vote it down and stop those rebels whatever happens”, we want something really positive from the Government. I support the Minister very much in what she is doing, but let us get this measure in, so that we can actually support trade and trade deals in the future.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made a passionate speech.
I rise principally to speak in support of amendment 16, although I will have a few words to say about the missing amendment 18. Amendments such as Lords amendments 9 on a national food strategy, and 11 on pesticides, are clearly devolved matters and properly decided by our Government in Scotland. However, in solidarity with our friends in England, I wish to express disappointment that this Government have chosen simply to strike all the amendments down, rather than to amend them and use them to improve the Bill. I cannot understand why they have not taken that opportunity. Regrettably, however, I think I am right in saying that very few—if any—Opposition amendments or new clauses were accepted by the Government throughout the course of the Bill, so perhaps I should not be so surprised.
I welcome Government amendments 10 to 15 and 20 to 29, which mean that the UK Government will have to gain the consent of the devolved authorities in further areas such as organics, but once again I contrast that approach with the bulldozing of devolved competences in the internal market Bill. I wonder if one hand of the Government is aware of what the other hand is up to.
There remains plenty to be worried about in the Bill, and the dismantling of England’s farm support system, to be replaced by some amorphous idea of payments for public goods, must rate high on that list. The issue that causes the most concern to food producers in Scotland, and to Scottish consumers, is that of food standards. The extra scrutiny measures that the Minister has announced are of course useful, but I look in vain for something with real teeth that can quell the very real concerns that we hear from all corners of the House.
One provision that has been inserted into the Bill will do something to address that gap and place the issue of food standards in the Bill, and we should keep that provision. Lords amendment 16 relates to clause 42 of the Bill, as it was bounced back here from over there, and it should be kept in the Bill. It is not perfect but it is serviceable and it offers some protection against what are sometimes appallingly poor standards of food production in other countries.
Shoppers have some idea of the quality of what they buy in the shops because of the regulations in place to ensure the quality of food from farm to shelf. Those regulations—those safeguards—will be dumped if this Government get their way. We know that because there have been plenty of opportunities to put protections and guarantees into legislation. This Bill, the Trade Bill, the withdrawal Bill and the internal market Bill have all been passed up by the Government, denied, done down and refused.
This Government sometimes seem hell-bent on reducing the quality of our food supplies and, frankly, it is not entirely clear why. Some have suggested that it is to secure a trade deal here or there, but that seems too high a price to pay. I am left considering only the possibility that they simply have not thought this through because the alternative explanation is that they intend to drive down food standards and consumer protections. Some say that that is because they have the wealth to ensure sufficient high-quality food for themselves and so give not a jot for the health and wellbeing of others. That, frankly, would seem a strange attitude for elected representatives to have. However, I see few other explanations for the refusal at least to replicate our existing food protections. The former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, now Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, promised us several times that UK food standards would not be undermined by future trade deals. Here is the best and very possibly the last opportunity for this DEFRA Secretary and his Minister to do something about it.
I must say a few words about the rather hamfisted use of parliamentary tactics by the Government to prevent debate and a vote on Lords amendment 18, which would require the Trade and Agriculture Commission to make a report on recommendations for policies to protect food standards, domestic production, the environment and animal welfare, and the Secretary of State to lay the report before Parliament. It has long been suspected that the Trade and Agriculture Commission was created so that the Government might evade the wrath of their Back Benchers and a likely defeat in this Chamber. Here was an opportunity to create a Trade and Agriculture Commission with some real purpose and strength, instead of leaving us with the weak sop to the Government’s MPs that it is currently. Instead of creating a commission that had the ability to overturn any decisions made by Governments that might threaten the viability of our farming and food and drink sectors, we have a body that is frankly nothing more than a poodle of the International Trade Department. It looks like yet another internal battle between the Department for International Trade and DEFRA has been comprehensively won, or lost, once again.
We in the SNP have repeatedly expressed concern about the body over its lack of any real teeth and the lack of regard for the devolved authorities. These proposals do not go far enough, or did not go far enough, as reports do not provide concrete protections or requirements for the Government to act, but they also do not reflect the reality of devolved competences, and we insist that the devolution settlement be considered and respected in any reports so produced. With all that said, the Tory Government are offering nothing more than empty words as a protection for food standards and a report by the Trade and Agriculture Commission would at least do more than that to protect food standards. However, as we see tonight, even that wee bit of protection has been blocked by the Government.
All Scottish MPs received a letter signed by dozens of farming, health, environmental and social justice organisations recently pleading with us to support higher food standards through these amendments—from the National Farmers Union Scotland, to Citizens Advice Scotland, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland, the Leith Community Crops in Pots, Unite Scotland, Unison Scotland, the Trussell Trust and many, many more. The question for me is: will the Scottish Tories ignore them all?
I note from the most recent survey of Which? on the subject that some 95% of the respondents from Scotland who voted for the Conservatives in 2019 called for food standards to be maintained, with around three quarters of them saying that they were uneasy, first, because the UK Government had not entirely ruled out for good lifting the bans on chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef; and, secondly, because such bans could be lifted with a vote in Parliament. Again, I call on the Scottish Tories to do the right thing by all their constituents—to give them the protection that our citizens look to their elected representatives to provide and vote for this amendment to stay within the Bill. We challenged Scotland’s supine six to do the right thing by their constituents and by the people of Scotland at the time of the Trade Bill debates, but they meekly followed their Westminster leader through the Lobbies once again. Will they finally, this time, do their jobs and represent the interests of the people who elected them to this place?
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I draw Members’ attention to my declaration of interest in the register.
I want to speak in support of amendment 16. I had also hoped to speak in support of amendment 18. I commend the Government for introducing amendments 2 and 5 to 8 in the Lords. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture, which sponsored Lords amendment 275 on improving regulation of gene-editing techniques, I thank the Government for responding positively to this with the offer of a public consultation this autumn, meaning that we do not have to discuss that amendment here today.
Having called on Report for producers to have more time to plan and restructure their businesses under the new agricultural policy, I warmly welcome the Government’s Lords amendment 2 mandating the publication of multi-annual assistance plans at least 12 months ahead of implementation. I also strongly support the Minister on Lords amendments 5 to 8 responding to the calls from me and others on Second Reading for the Government to report on British food security more frequently than every five years. Personally, I would have liked the Government to go slightly further, but the three years that is now proposed is a step in the right direction, and I welcome that.
I firmly back the broad aims of the Bill and believe that the Government have improved it in the Lords in response to suggestions from the sector and parliamentary colleagues. However, I continue to support amendment 16 and will vote for the proposed changes in line with the principle of the amendment. This is an important piece of legislation and we have to make sure that we get it right. Amendment 16 has the same intention on food import standards as the Commons amendment tabled on Report by members of the EFRA Committee, as touched on by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). I believe that our arguments remain now as strong as they were then, if not stronger. Ministers have frequently suggested that this is not a trade Bill, but I would reiterate that the issue of fair terms of trade for high standards in British agriculture simply cannot be separated from farming and environment legislation, which is what we are discussing.
I have listened closely to what the Minister has said, I have been encouraged by her words, and I know that she has worked extremely hard on this, but, as I said, I will vote today to write concrete legal protections into the Bill. I hope that a continued stand on this issue will encourage the Government to put our manifesto commitment to maintain UK standards on to the statute book—something that will reassure consumers as well as the industry on this issue.
Steve Brine
On amendment 16, my hon. Friend—and neighbour on this Bench—is absolutely right. Is not the wider point that we would be sending out a message that we want the rest of the world to change their practices? It is not just about what we do domestically; it is about Britain being a beacon for the right thing elsewhere in the world.
Julian Sturdy
I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
On that issue, it would be helpful for the Minister to address whether the legal guarantee regarding amendment 16 would impact on the UK’s progress towards our climate change and net zero goals. I think it would, and without that guarantee, it would be much easier to bring in Brazilian beef, for example, which would increase the carbon footprint for a family shop—it would be much higher. That does not even touch on the issue of palm oil or the destruction of our rain forests, which have already been mentioned.
I will finish by talking about the fate of amendment 18. I really do think that the Minister should look at strengthening the role of the Trade and Agriculture Commission in the way the amendment suggests. I know that, technically, we cannot vote on it or debate it tonight, but I do think, as she has already heard from Members across the House, that this issue is not going to go away, and it must be addressed.
Hilary Benn
I, too, listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I have to say that I agree with the hon. Members for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), because I do not understand the Government’s resistance to putting these sensible changes into legislation. The problem the Government have is that the more they claim to want to do what the amendment is seeking, but then say, “But we can’t do it”, the greater they raise in the minds of everyone watching—farmers, consumers and others, as well as colleagues on both sides of the House—the idea that something else is going on here. So, let us be honest about this.
We all know how trade negotiations work and the pressure that trade negotiators come under. Let us consider the United States of America—with which the Government, to be fair, are very keen to get a trade agreement, because they have decided to move away from the best trade agreements they have, with the European Union. The fact is that that pressure will exist regardless of who wins the presidential election next month. I think the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) put his finger on it when he read from the letter, in which it appears that Ministers are saying, “Well, don’t do this because it will make it more difficult”. But how is doing what the Government promised to do in their manifesto more difficult—and it is only fair?
The Minister talked about undesirable side effects. I listened very carefully but I heard her give only one example, which was her reference to hedgerows in Africa. I understand the point she was trying to make, but it does not really work when we look at the new clause in amendment 16, because subsection (2)(b) talks about standards that
“are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to”
the areas we are discussing. Furthermore, the very next subsection gives the Secretary of State the power to determine what those standards are equivalent to. The argument made by the Minister, for whom I have great respect, that somehow there will be a fixed process that would lead to absurdities does not really wash when we read what is actually in the amendment that their lordships have put together.
I want to talk about sow stalls, which were banned here in 1999. No doubt the Minister will be aware of the new cruel confinement law, as it is called in California, which not only bans the use of sow stalls in that state, but bans the sale in California of pork produced in other American states that still use sow stalls. I am advised that that includes Iowa and Minnesota. Could the Government please explain why it appears that California is able to ban food products produced by what we regard as cruel means in other states of the United States of America, but that we somehow have difficulty in doing the same in deciding our new rules?
The final point I want to make is on the new clause in amendment 17. Again, I do not understand the Government’s argument. The Minister said that sector-specific targets were not really helpful, but the basic and obvious point is this: if we are going to meet our climate change targets, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, we are going to need progress in every single sector of the economy, agriculture, land use and forestry included. Therefore, it seems that it would be really helpful to have an interim target to help the farming industry to make the changes that we know will have to come. I am pleased to hear that quite a few Government Members will vote for them, but I urge the Government at this stage to think again.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Farming and the future of the agriculture industry are subjects that I am incredibly passionate about. Before entering this place, I had been involved for my whole life in the farming sector, and I use this opportunity to draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is my view that for far too long our agriculture industry and the entrepreneurial spirit that the sector undoubtedly encompasses have been restrained and stifled by the workings of the common agricultural policy. Through the CAP, our agriculture industry has become less competitive through ill-thought-through subsidy schemes that have impeded productivity, stifled innovation and failed to protect the environment as much as we could have. Let me be clear: this is the fault not of the farmer, but of the system they have been constrained by. A change is required and this Bill goes a long way to shaking up the system and achieving that, which is great news.
I will use my time to talk about Lords amendment 16. This has rightly received much attention and I have given it immense thought as I want to ensure that our agriculture industry thrives and is truly sustainable long into the future. However, as we look to adopt new legislation, it is vital that we scrutinise the detail and the anticipated consequences.
Let us be clear about the current position: the Bill does not lower food safety standards. Of course, the amendment goes much further and obligates that any agri-environmental food import must be produced and processed under standards that are equivalent to the UK for animal health, plant health and environmental protection. We must ask ourselves: while the intentions are entirely laudable, in reality, what will the consequences be for the supply of food that we wish to import, such as the vast amounts of tea imported from Kenya, bananas from the Dominican Republic or coffee from Vietnam?
Let us take environmental standards, for example. If Vietnam and other developing countries, such as Ghana and Indonesia, that export coffee beans to the UK were expected to provide evidence that they meet UK carbon emissions targets, I can see that that would have a dramatic impact on the UK retail and hospitality sector, as I suspect that countries would not be able to meet such requirements. Equally, it would not make sense for the UK to require trading partners with certain climates and environmental conditions, which are very different from those here in the UK, to meet our specifications, such as the UK’s requirement for nitrate vulnerable zones, which are specifically adopted to UK conditions. It is vital that that level of detail must be explored and considered at this stage, to see whether it is practical to try to enforce this amendment to a domestic piece of legislation abroad and to see whether it is workable in law. I want to see a thriving agricultural sector.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend’s argument is that we must not put in a standard because we will stop imports from certain countries, so is he suggesting that we just go to a lower and lower common denominator to allow food in from anywhere? When we do a trade deal, we can write this into law. We could actually write this into law with all the least developed countries to give them preference in trade with us, rather than throwing out our trade to Brazil and Malaysia.
Robbie Moore
I believe that a totally protectionist approach is the wrong one for the success of our agricultural industry in the long term. We have a huge opportunity available to us. This amendment would constrain our agricultural food sector’s ability to grow, expand and meet the new export opportunities that will come from our country setting out on the world stage and negotiating new trade deals, which we should be bold and optimistic about for our UK farming sector—for example, expanding whisky exports to Canada, potato exports to Egypt and milk exports to Algeria. I am proud to say that British beef is back on US menus for the first time in more than 20 years, and that market opportunity needs to be explored.
Tim Farron
Let us start with some common ground. I am pretty sure everybody in the House thinks that the paying of public money for public goods is a good thing and that the environmental land management scheme is—in principle, at least—a good thing. Of course, by the Government’s own admission, the environmental land management scheme, or ELMS, will not be accessible to all farmers until 2028. We are three and a half months away from the scheme that it replaces beginning to be phased out, and 85% of the profitability of livestock farmers in this country is based on the basic payment scheme. My first ask is that the Government be mindful of that. They must not take a penny away from the BPS until ELMS is available to every farmer in this country. Given that fragility and that upcoming change in payments, it is all the more important that we do not put British farming at risk as a consequence of the new arrangements for trade.
Paying for public goods is vital. Those public goods are biodiversity, food security, access, education and so many other things, including the landscape that underpins the lake district’s tourism economy. All of them are at risk if we make the wrong decision here. Amendment 16 is so important because it underpins, and prevents the Government from undermining, British values when it comes to animal welfare, the sovereignty of this place in scrutinising and reviewing legislation and trade deals, and the future of farming itself.
What is the USP of British farming’s food exports? It is quality. If we allow the undercutting of our farmers through cheap imports—cheap because of the poor quality of their production—we undermine our reputation and our ability to trade internationally and be successful. It is important for Members to understand that amendment 16 is about strengthening Britain’s hand in negotiations. If our negotiators say to the US negotiators, “We’d love to help you out, but we can’t because Parliament won’t let us,” that is real strength which allows us to get the kind of deal that is good for British farmers, for the environment and for animal welfare. It would strengthen this Parliament. The Minister said that we have spent 100 hours debating the Bill. That contrasts very worryingly with the length of time we will have to scrutinise trade agreements that will last for generations. It will strengthen our standing and reputation as a country if we write into the Bill our determination to ensure that we uphold animal welfare and environmental standards, as so many Members on both sides of the House have said.
The only reason that the Government would resist the enforcement of minimum standards in the Bill is if they wanted to allow themselves the freedom—the wriggle room—to sell out our farmers. In a letter publicised last week, the Minister said:
“Such conditions would make it very difficult to secure any new trade deals.”
In other words, “If you don’t allow us to throw our farmers under a bus, we’ll not get the trade deal that we want.” If we care about not only farmers, animal welfare and environmental protections but the communities that those farms underpin, such as mine in Westmorland, we are letting down generations of farmers and the heritage that they promote and have protected if we allow the Government to throw all that away in negotiations. If Members want to back British farmers, they cannot just wear a wheat badge once a year—they must vote for the amendment tonight.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I rise as a Member of Parliament for a very agricultural constituency, and as the product of a farming family—in fact, I think I still have a place on offer at Harper Adams if this career does not work out—as well as a former Minister for agritech, former trade envoy, and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on science and technology in agriculture.
This is a major moment, when we take back control of our farming policy from the EU after 40 years, and of our trading destiny and sovereignty. It is on a par with 1947—the last great reset of agricultural policy—or, indeed, the corn laws. I welcome the Agriculture Bill, and the work of DEFRA Ministers and officials in setting out a framework that supports commercial British farming—a great British industry that is leading in the world—and recognises that its important environmental work, which involves managing 70% of our land area, requires additional support. In broad terms, I strongly welcome the Bill.
I welcome even more strongly the Conservative party’s commitments, both in our manifesto and over the last 18 months from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at the time of the general election. I also welcome everyone who asked about our commitment to ensuring that we do not in any way undermine those standards. The Prime Minister put it beautifully when he said,
“we will not accept any diminution in food hygiene or animal welfare standards… We will not engage in some cut-throat race to the bottom…We are not leaving the EU to undermine European standards”.
He could not have been any clearer.
For that reason, I welcome the comments of my friend and neighbour, the Secretary of State for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), her agreement to the Trade and Agriculture Commission and her personal commitment to ensuring that we do not negotiate away any standards. This really matters: to the great industry of British farming and agriculture; to consumers watching today, who want to know that we are looking after their interests; to voters, to whom the Conservative party gave those solemn commitments last year; and, dare I say it, to this party, which I have always seen as a party of the countryside, of stewardship, of rural community, and of high standards in animal welfare and environmental farming. That is what is on the table when we vote tonight. Either we are that as a party, or, in the countryside, we are very little.
This should be a hugely exciting opportunity for us to set out an ambition and lead globally, to use our trade leverage to promote fair trade around the world, to give our farmers a level playing field, to embrace variable tariffs, and to ensure that we support growers around the world to follow the standards that we need them to embrace. We have to double world food production on the same land area with half as much water within 20 years. That is a massive opportunity for our agritech industry. Imagine if we used our tariffs variably to say, “We won’t accept food that breaches our minimum standards. We will lower tariffs on decent food, but we’ll zero tariff food produced in ways we know we need as a global community.”
But there is a major problem: the Government, despite endorsing all of that vision, are today stripping out the proper establishment of the commission that the Secretary of State for International Trade herself agreed to, carefully negotiated in the House of Lords. They are asking us to rely on CRaG—a process agreed decades ago that was not designed for this purpose, and which will mean that this House will not have a say on trade deals—and asking us to rely on the WTO, which specifically prohibits animal welfare and food production standards as a legal basis for any trade restrictions. We are saying that we defend farming and the standards that we support, but denying this House the means to guarantee them.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
What else has my right hon. Friend done about how he feels about this matter? Has he written to anyone about it?
George Freeman
I am grateful to my distinguished hon. Friend. The truth is that we can talk about standards, but if we expose UK farmers and growers to imports coming in at a lower price because they are not fulfilling those standards, they will not be able to compete and we will be throwing away the opportunity of having a great industry that leads the world. Lord Curry, who tabled the amendment in the other place, said:
“Under the current terms, the commission will set up for six months and will submit an advisory report to the Secretary of State, which will be presented to Parliament. It will then be disbanded and disappear into the mist. There is no obligation on the Secretary of State to take its recommendations seriously”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 July 2020; Vol. 805, c. 145.]
If we, as a Government and as a party, are seriously committed to honouring our commitments, I would like us to go further. Why do we not commit to enshrining our standards properly in some form of schedule—the standards that we will not undermine or allow any Minister of any Government to negotiate away? Why do we not give this House the power to ensure that it can scrutinise properly? Why do we not embrace a trade policy that is fit for this 50-year opportunity, which puts the British flag at the top of the mast for standards, and go out into the world and say, “We’ll use our trade leverage and variable tariffs to support the good, benign practices that the world urgently needs”?
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
This is a vital piece of legislation, and it is symbolic. This is the drawing of a new era for the United Kingdom and our agriculture industry outside the European Union, with the ability to shape our own policy on food production, standards, the environment and animal welfare. It is a test, therefore, of what our standards will be, what value we place on our farming and agrifood sector, and how the sector can prosper while we ensure that our environment is protected for future generations.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, the focus has rightly been on standards, and I make no apologies for bringing my remarks to standards again today. I welcome Lords amendment 16, which, if added to the Bill, would provide the legislative assurances needed for consumers, farmers, processors and retailers that the Government are committed to protecting the standards that we all value, enjoy and want to see protected, not eroded.
Jim Shannon
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that steps are taken to ensure that food imported into the UK under future trade deals is produced to equivalent standards to what we have been producing in Northern Ireland for the last number of years? It is so important to retain and build upon the qualities that we, in Northern Ireland and across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, have had over the past few years.
Carla Lockhart
I agree wholeheartedly. As I said at the last stage, flooding our market with cheap imports and cheap produce will have a disastrous impact on our farmers. We cannot claim to back British farming one day and not protect our farmers in law the next. I am conscious that since the Bill was last before the House the Government have made many verbal commitments on this issue, so why not put them into legislation? What is the justification for saying something outside this House if they will not enable it through legislation within the House?
We, as Members of this House, have a duty to act in the best interests of our constituents at all times. To do that, we must ensure that the food that our constituents eat, from the youngest to the oldest, is of the highest standard and that our agricultural industry—the cornerstone of our society—is protected in law. It is extremely disappointing that Lords amendment 18 was ruled out of scope. My colleagues and I would have supported it on the basis that it would allow this House to scrutinise trade Bills, their impact and the standards being allowed with our new trading partners. This House should be accountable for every food product imported into the UK.
Farmers in Northern Ireland, with a farming model largely based on family farms where the work is hard and the margins are by no means guaranteed, look at the Government’s reticence in legislating on standards with suspicion, and I share such suspicion. For the Government to demand the highest standards of their own farmers, at considerable cost, financially, socially and mentally, but refuse to make it law that importers will face those same demands is just bizarre. I urge the Government to think again. We need the Bill to allow our local Department to administer direct payments from 2021, and, as such, we will support it overall, but we do so in protest, and out of our farmers’ need to receive that much needed financial support.
In closing, let me touch on the amendments and the provision in the Bill relating to environmental standards. The farmers I represent and those I spoke to regularly are wholly committed to the highest environmental standards—standards that will far exceed those in many countries with which the Government will seek to do trade deals. However, in return for a focus on sustainable agriculture those farmers need the Government to recognise that they cannot do it alone. They need the Government to support them, and thus far support has fallen far short. That must be addressed. This House has a choice today. I will stand up for British farming and its world-class standards, and I hope that others will join me.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As I think you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you have often been in the Chair, I have been closely involved with the Bill at each stage of its seemingly interminable progress through the House. I spoke on Second Reading on both occasions, and I served on both Bill Committees, in this Parliament and the last. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak once again today to make the case for rewarding good stewardship of our land—I believe that is what the Bill does, for the most part—and for maintaining high standards in food production. Obviously, we are here to discuss why the Bill falls short on that front.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I am the son of a Berwickshire farmer, and I am proud to represent one of the most fertile parts of rural Scotland. The food producers in my borders constituency are the best in the business; the quality of our produce is second to none. Others have spoken in this debate on both sides of the question, particularly around food standards, and they are all just as passionate about their own local areas.
What this debate has shown more than anything is the consensus that exists across the House, reflecting the views of people across the country, that our high UK standards of environmental protection and food production are the right ones and that they must be preserved. Where there is disagreement, it is about how we can best do that in the years ahead.
I understand why some hon. Members will support these amendments from the House of Lords, and I understand why a number of my constituents got in touch to ask me to do the same, but I will not, for three main reasons. First, I do not believe that they are in the best interests of farmers and producers in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. We are in this position because we have left the EU, and we will soon be outside the common agricultural policy and the common commercial policy. It is worth taking a moment to remember that these matters were settled when we were members of the EU. The EU did not, does not and will not ask its trade partners to adopt all its environmental and food standards, as the amendments would ask the UK to do in the years ahead. The trade deals we now enjoy, which we hope to roll over, were signed on that basis. Making the proposed changes would put the continuation of those trading relationships at risk.
Secondly, the amendments are not necessary. The law already forbids the things they seek to guard against. Chicken washed in chlorinated water is banned in the United Kingdom. Growth hormones in beef are banned. In the last few decades, it was the EU that signed trade deals, and this House had no role in agreeing them. In the future, the House will be a player in that process. The UK Government will conduct the trade negotiations, and this Parliament will scrutinise the Government and hold them to account. In the end, Parliament can block an international treaty if it so chooses.
Thirdly and finally, I fear that these amendments would be harmful to some of the world’s poorest people. Requiring every country we do a trade deal with to match all our rules would make it virtually impossible to reach agreements with developing countries. Those countries might lack the necessary bureaucratic infrastructure to meet all our reporting requirements, or the rules designed for a rainy island in the north Atlantic might just not be suitable for their climates.
I do not doubt the sincerity of anyone supporting these amendments; I simply disagree that the amendments represent the best way forward. They are not in the interests of food producers, they are not necessary to protect food standards and they would be bad for trade. Free and fair trade is what allows us to enjoy food and drink from around the world that our great-grandparents had never heard of. It allows our producers to sell their exceptional quality products globally. It is what is lifting the most vulnerable people in the world out of poverty. Trade is a force for good, and with the high standards that we set in law and the enhanced scrutiny that this House will provide for years to come, we have nothing to be afraid of.
Caroline Lucas
Until the last speech, I was going to say how lovely it was to feel a common view coming from the Government and Opposition Benches. Let me just say why I think the last speaker was wrong. He said that if we adopted Lords amendment 16, for example, we would be imposing standards on developing countries that they could not reach. In fact, the EU has all sorts of arrangements with poorer countries precisely to be able to support them in improving their standards. There is nothing here that would inflict inappropriate standards on some of the poorest countries. The hon. Gentleman also said that our standards are safe, but they are not safe if they are going to be undermined by cheaper imports that do not meet those same standards. That is tantamount to handing a knife to our farmers and asking them to cut their own throats. It is not a sensible strategy.
I want to speak to some of the amendments from the other place and particularly to Lords amendment 9, on the national food strategy. The amendment stipulates what that strategy should contain, including things such as the sustainability of food production and consumption, improving dietary health, reducing obesity, minimising food waste, ensuring that public procurement supports a shift towards sustainable farming, and so on. It is significant that cross-party support for the amendment in the other place was strong.
The letter the Minister sent to MPs last week explained that the Government object to amendment 9 because it would
“impose arbitrary timetable requirements for objectives the Government has already committed to fulfil”.
I hope she will forgive us, but we want to see that commitment in the Bill. We have seen already in the debate that we do not trust vague commitments, and certainly not vague commitments that do not even have a timetable to them, given that, as I said earlier, the Environment Bill is already 200 days late.
Lords amendment 11 is about protecting people from the adverse health impacts of pesticide use. It addresses what crop pesticides are currently permitted in the localities of homes and schools, as well as the exposures, the risks and the acute and chronic adverse health impacts for rural residents. It does not specify the distance required between pesticide use and nearby public space—that is for secondary legislation—but I can tell the Minister that we had a lot of support from the Clerks in both Houses in the drafting of the amendment, and we are convinced that it is an effective amendment to protect human health. It is very significant that Lord Randall, who is a former environment adviser to the former Prime Minister herself, has said how vital the amendment is.
Recent events have revealed that the precautionary principle is one of the most important scientific principles we have, and we should be implementing it here. It does not substitute for the overall shift that we need to see towards agro-ecology, but it would do something to protect rural residents who look out of their windows right now and see farmers in protective equipment in their tractor cabs, protected from the impacts of the crops they are spraying, while those rural residents have no protection whatever. We should be standing up for them and protecting them, and that is what the amendment would do.
The Lords amendment on the climate emergency is vital. It would require the Secretary of State to have regard not just to the UK’s net zero target of 2050, but to the Paris climate agreement and the critical importance of acting now to drive a steep reduction in emissions by 2030. Right now, the Government are showing their world-beating ability to set long-term targets on climate change at the same time as demonstrating a world-beating ability to utterly fail to accompany them with either the policies or the funding required to deliver them. That amendment would put that right.
Finally, as others have said, it was laid down in the Government’s manifesto that they would maintain standards, yet when they are put to the test, they fail again and again. Those standards should not be put on the altar of a trade deal with the US and sacrificed; they should be implemented. That is what the Government promised in their manifesto, and that is what they should deliver.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
After that rant, I am very pleased to take part in this debate. I have to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), because I think he gave one of the most outstanding speeches I have heard in this House.
I start by drawing attention to my declaration of interest as a farmer. I have lived with this subject for some 67 years of my life—my father was a farmer. I have a passion for the countryside, I have a passion for British farmers producing high-quality goods, and I have a passion for British farmers managing the British countryside in the way that it is, and that is the way the public want to see it continue to be managed. The Bill gives us an ideal opportunity, through the way we are going to purchase public goods, to continue to raise the standards of British agriculture.
I have been in this House for 29 years. I have not seen a single free trade agreement negotiated by the EU that has damaged British farming standards, and I do not believe that will happen in the future. I have listened to every word that my hon. Friend the Minister has correctly said from the Front Bench. What we do not want to do is jeopardise the 29 or so roll-over free trade agreements from the EU by passing legislation in this House tonight that would do such a thing.
While being passionate about maintaining high standards, I do not think that Lords amendments 12 and 16 are the way to do it. The way to do it, as was so rightly said by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, is through variable tariffs that make clear to our trading partners that if they do not adhere to our high standards, we will raise the tariffs on their goods. That is the way to do it.
The second way to do it is to beef up the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government can do that unilaterally without any legislation. They can simply renew the term of the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and I urge her to have serious talks with the Department for International Trade to see whether that can be done. It does not need to be put in the Bill. We do not need amendments to the Bill. We might need to look at it in the Trade Bill if the Government are not sympathetic to my arguments, but that is a different matter for a different day, and I might well support amendments of that sort if I do not see progress.
There are lots of things I do welcome in the Bill, and my hon. Friend the Minister has been right to mention them, particularly Government amendment 2, which relates to multi-annual assistance plans for farmers. That is absolutely vital for how we will support our farmers in the 21st century. We want them to be producing more of the food that our British consumers eat. While I have been in this House, I have seen more and more goods imported into this country, whereas if our farmers could start to produce more, all those imports—things such as yoghurt and cheese—could be replaced with goods produced in this country. If we keep up our high standards, we will continue to export more and more to other countries. Recently, we have seen our pork and milk powder go to China and my excellent Cotswold lambs go to France. There is a huge opportunity around the world if we keep our standards up. That is the way we need to go: not dumbing everything down, but keeping standards up.
I am delighted that some of my ideas on food security are in amendments 5 and 6 and will be included in the Bill. That is important and gives our farmers the stimulus to produce more of the high-quality food we want to eat. One thing that the coronavirus lockdown taught us was that the supermarkets, such as Waitrose and even Lidl, that went out of their way to promote British food did best and are now prospering in a way that they had not previously.
The Government should not accept amendments 12 and 16, but they should act through tariffs.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
In following the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), I will try not to resort to impolite comments such as that which he directed at the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). He could not see the embarrassment on his colleagues’ faces when he made that comment.
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 16. The clarion voice of the people is at issue here and it is our responsibility as MPs to convey the horror with which our constituents view the Bill and its in-built opposition to their ambitions for food safety that respects the environment and safeguards the welfare of our animals.
The people of Scotland have spoken clearly in rejecting the Bill and its aims, and Ministers would do well to listen. If the Minister is listening for the voice of Scotland, I can assure her that she will find it over here on the SNP Benches, not over there on the Tory Benches. Scottish Tory MPs do not even speak for Scottish Tory voters, 95% of whom backed calls for food standards to be maintained, according to Which? People are asking why the Tory Government and the majority of their Back Benchers do not listen to the people—[Interruption.] That includes those who are chuntering from a sedentary position right now. Perhaps if the risk was of chlorine-washed chanterelle mushrooms or hormone-injected foie gras, Tory Ministers would have less of a deaf ear than the one they have turned to those of us who are happier dining on chicken fried rice and mince and tatties.
So much for taking back control, the newly independent, yet strangely impotent UK cannot specify the standard of food we will import going forward: John Bull under the heel of Uncle Sam right enough. That pitiful transatlantic asymmetry rings truer now than at any stage in Anglo-US history. The Tory Government have demonstrated in the most humiliating and unedifying way possible that nothing will get in the way of a US trade deal—in and of itself a highly questionable negotiating position.
The Government have betrayed civil society across these islands and ignored valid evidence and well-documented concerns about the Bill and its shoddy back door, leading to a food standards horror show. The will of the people of these islands is ignored by a Government who have purposely allowed the DIT tail to wag the DEFRA dog on food standards.
That highlights a betrayal that will take some beating—all in the name of breathing life into the Brexit myth of no global trade without Brexit. Meanwhile, Mercedes, Zara, Airbus, Heineken, Volvo and L’Oréal all sell big from within the EU to the US without the need for European Governments to betray their populations and farmers through the food that they produce and feed to their children.
The Government are capable of listening to industry as we saw during covid, when they listened intently to the supermarkets about food supply and to the private supply chains about food distribution. So why will they not listen to farmers on this issue? Farmers have been very clear on matters of provenance, the risk to their business of an any-price trade deal, and the supply of seasonal labour.
Why do the Tory Government seem to hold our farmers in such contempt? The question is rhetorical. We all know that it is because of the twin Tory totems of Brexit and immigration, which, for the hard of thinking, are one and the same thing. On a post-Brexit trade deal, the DIT speaks for Government. The Home Office speaks for Government on immigration, specifically their disastrous approach thus far to access to seasonal labour from abroad. No wonder many are beginning to ask what exactly DEFRA speaks for.
If the Government persist in proscribing the most basic protections for our food supply from the Bill, no amount of watery, weasel words will hide the simple fact that a Government that cannot act as guarantor for the food we eat cannot act as guarantor for anything. Scotland is taking a different route.
Bill Wiggin
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), just as I did after his maiden speech. May I say that he needs to allow a little more of his Scottish charm to seep into his speeches? I need to declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as a breeder of Hereford cattle. Some 88% of Herefordshire is farmland, and 10,200 people work on our 2,812 farms.
On amendments 12 and 16, let me say that farming is not a religion; it is a business. We need to increase farm incomes, cut NHS expenditure on obesity, lose the need for food banks, and ensure that we behave towards our livestock in the way that we behave towards one another: with respect, kindness and, most of all, understanding of the huge challenge all this presents. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Green party, Extinction Rebellion and many others have their own agendas on how to run the landscape, so their contribution is not surprising, but the NFU’s is surprising, because it has gone far too far in trying to wrongly frighten people. We must remember that the Agriculture Bill is primarily a continuation Bill. The amendments would put strict conditions in place when the EU negotiates a free trade deal, whereas when we, as part of the EU, negotiated free trade deals with other countries, none of those restrictions were in place. If we impose strict food requirements, America will challenge and win at the WTO. Opposition Members may rejoice at that, but the EU will not be able to accept those terms either.
Robbie Moore
Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole House wants to achieve better standards across the board, but we must look at the detail that amendment 16 brings?
Bill Wiggin
I agree not only with my hon. Friend but with my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), who said he made an excellent speech—he did. Our two largest trading partners would be gone, threatening £22 billion-worth of exports of food, drink and feed—everything we are selling. The EU has already threatened to ban animal products, a trade worth £3 billion, only last year. That should be no surprise. Trade deals with non-EU countries would be gone too: the hard-fought trade deal with Canada and 43 trade agreements with 70 other nations. We think that our food standards are very high, yet we allow religious slaughter, we are gassing pigs in our abattoirs, we do not insist on catering or welfare standards labelling, and we fudge our grass-fed labelling—
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
In 2018, 25% of the sheep slaughtering in this country was done without stunning. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is totally unacceptable and that, before we start preaching about other nations, we should look at our own animal standards after animals have left the farm?
Bill Wiggin
Rightly or wrongly, it would become illegal, if we follow these rules, to bring anything from the EU that did not allow that into this country. My hon. Friend is right to raise that; it is wrong. Food labelling is the solution, and to have a grass-fed label that allows 49% of the feed to be grain is just not right.
We need to be an outwardly global, free trade-friendly but sensible country. These amendments are much more to do with stopping subsistence African farmers rather than Texan ranchers. It might surprise some of the supporters of these amendments to learn that we are already importing illegally produced food through the EU. Supermarkets sell Danish bacon—with English-sounding farm names, to fool customers—from pigs whose mothers are kept in sow stalls, which were banned in the UK in 1999, on the grounds of cruelty.
Neil Parish
Does my hon. Friend also accept that when we banned those sow stalls and tethers, Europe did not, and it decimated our pig industry in the meantime? Therefore, if we do not get the trade considerations right, we will trade away all our food production, like we have already.
Bill Wiggin
I do not get any extra minutes for that intervention. I ask Members also to think about our stocking density for chickens, which is 39 kg per square metre, as opposed to 42kg in the EU. German hop growers use chemicals that would not be allowed in this country, and apparently the French will give a derogation for neonicotinoids so that their farmers can produce oilseed rape. That is outrageous. Where are the objections to buying Danish bacon? Where are the people kicking off to protect our pig farmers? My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) is absolutely right: when we did the right thing, we were decimated.
I want us to achieve everything that my hon. Friend the Minister talked about. We should have proper food standards and better labelling. The people we should be putting our faith in are the consumers. They do not want hormone beef; they want to know that what they are buying is good, clean and proper, and they are grown up enough to make their own decisions.
There is room for everybody. We produce 61% of food eaten in this country and 75% of that which we are able to grow here. The remainder—more than £47 billion-worth—is all imported. We have the capacity to pay our farmers more, import from international markets without substitution for lower standards, and ensure that we produce the best and healthiest food at a cost-effective price.
The Prime Minister has called on us to find the inner, or thinner, hero inside us and shed those pounds. That is spot on. If we can lower the price of healthy food in this country, we could not only see our nation lose weight but address the need for food banks. With better food prices, innovation can progress in the agricultural sector, and we can have what we always wanted: farmers receiving public money for public goods.
I want the Minister to commit to ensuring that farm incomes grow on the back of the environmental land management scheme, and not be diminished. I want the Bill to allow us to protect the environment and produce food, while ensuring that our food producers’ incomes rise, consumers buy healthier food and the need for food banks goes. These amendments will not achieve those goals or what our great farmers, consumers, constituents and future trading partners want: prosperity and a better diet.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. As colleagues will appreciate, there is still a lot of pressure on this debate, and if those who have already spoken intervene again, somebody else will not get in. In view of that, after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch yn fawr, Madam Deputy Speaker. On your warning, I will keep my comments brief and focused on amendments 16 and 17.
Colleagues will be aware that amendment 16 aims to protect something that, thus far, the Government have shown very little regard for. Specifically, it aims to ensure that imported food must meet UK animal welfare, environmental and public health standards. Bluntly, I struggle to see how Conservative Members can do anything other than support it. We have all seen the horror stories about hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken hitting our supermarket shelves, but those headlines are no longer just desperate attempts by the press to grab our attention. Sadly, without this amendment, that could be the extremely unwelcome reality for us all in the near future.
It is vital that the Government use this pivotal opportunity to commit to greater animal welfare standards. It is clear that there are ways to farm animals ethically. I am proud of farmers locally in Wales and across the UK who are committed to the sustainable, ethical treatment of their live produce.
I want Britain to remain a beacon of high standards in the ethical treatment of animals and environmental protections. The Government talk a good game on climate change, but we are yet to see any solid evidence or change that will have a positive and substantial impact. It cannot be denied that we are in the midst of a climate and ecological emergency. It is imperative that we have a clear roadmap for agriculture to reach net zero, and greater oversight of pesticide use. The Government must commit to an ambitious strategy to achieve that.
When will the Government get a grip, finally take a page out of the fantastic Welsh Labour Government’s book and commit to a consideration of flooding prevention mechanisms in their agricultural policy? In Wales, all new developments are now required to include sustainable urban drainage systems, which are designed to mimic natural drainage by managing surface run-off as close to source as possible. We also need a commitment to active agricultural land management to prevent run-off, which can cause flooding further down in the catchments. Colleagues may be aware that the issue of flooding and surface water is close to my heart, not just because I am the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary water group, but because residents and businesses in Pontypridd saw their livelihoods decimated by the flash flooding earlier this year. The recovery effort still continues, albeit sadly with no support from the Government, despite the Prime Minister’s promises. The Government can take small steps to support flooded communities by taking the lead and encouraging or incentivising farmers to take flooding-prevention steps as part of a robust climate change action plan.
I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept the amendments on a topic that she must receive many messages about. I urge her to spend just 10 minutes looking at my inbox, which receives hundreds of emails every day from concerned constituents worried about their future food standards. Ultimately, we would be doing ourselves and future generations a huge disservice if we did not uphold our stringent food and animal standards or commit to a robust strategy to meet net zero by 2050.
Anthony Mangnall
It is always a pleasure to speak in debates such as this. I thank the Minister for the time she has spent informing Members from all parties about the course of the debate and for her work with many of the farmers in my constituency.
There has been a huge amount of fear-mongering in the House regarding the importing of chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, and it has to stop. We all know that if SPS standards were to be changed, this House would have a say in doing so. That is something about which the Opposition do not seem to be informing the general public. We have heard that on the Government side but not on the Opposition side. I hope that will be reinforced in the closing remarks.
Since the introduction of the Bill and in my time as a Member of Parliament, I have asked for two things. I asked for a commitment on labelling, and the Minister stood at that Dispatch Box and committed to the consultation. I accept that, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said, there are difficulties around that, but we must not see it as an impossibility. There are opportunities for us to create a labelling system that can promote the “buy local” argument throughout the country. I hope we might see from the Opposition the opportunity to develop that labelling system into something that is internationally recognised and copied.
We have also heard ideas about what scrutiny we could apply to trade deals. The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) said that the International Trade Committee did not have enough teeth; given the fact that it is led by her colleague, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), if she feels it does not have enough teeth, we should either find another Chair or elect a new Member for it. The whole point is that the Secretary of State for International Trade has now given Parliament an extra degree of scrutiny.
I personally have asked about the idea that we might look at where we operate the trade commission. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport was kind enough to mention me in his remarks, and although I am not sure it helps my career when he does that, we do need to look at extending that commission. If the Bill goes back to the Lords and then comes back to this House, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and I will be looking keenly at extending the remit and length of that commission’s existence. It is important not only for what we say to our constituents but that the House has something that gives an extra layer of scrutiny.
I will support the Government tonight, but I will be looking to see what comes back from the Lords. I hope that we get some assurances from the Minister on the trade commission.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), although I fear I am about to disagree with some of the points he made.
This evening’s debate presented an opportunity for the Government to reassert parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals and to put into law their rhetorical support for UK agriculture. During the course of this debate, we have seen valid concerns about the importance of maintaining a level playing field for domestic producers and about importers given short shrift. It is disappointing that the Government will not support the measures in Lords amendment 16, which would address those concerns, as well as enhance parliamentary oversight of trade agreements.
I understand that we cannot vote on Lord Curry’s amendment 18 this evening, but the Government should nevertheless ensure that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is made permanent. That would improve the transparency of negotiations, give much-needed reassurances that the interests of food producers will be championed in negotiations, and offer some redress to farmers whose concerns have, I am afraid, often been dismissed as mere protectionism—allegations that are, frankly, an insult to the commitment and professionalism of farmers throughout the UK.
The Government have not sufficiently explained their approach to the sensitive matter of standards in trade negotiations or how they will reconcile different production systems. We have heard mention of measures being introduced in the Trade Bill but we have yet to see them in practice. Against such a confused backdrop, this Bill’s failure to require agricultural imports to meet equivalent domestic standards of production should concern all the political parties. If we fail to ensure a level playing field between domestic production and imports, we run the risk of endangering the viability of many of our producers. We need only think of the experience of the UK pig industry to understand the consequences of allowing imports that are produced to standards that would be illegal for domestic production. The Government have tried to claim that such a requirement is unnecessary, as they have no intention of allowing imports of lower standards to enter the UK, but at the same time we hear Ministers claim that such a requirement would tie the hands of UK negotiators. These are irreconcilable claims.
This Government have long talked up the benefits of taking back control and of how, post-EU, we will be able to set the terms of our trade with the world. Those terms should be quite simple: UK market access for imports should be dependent on meeting equivalent UK food production standards. I fear that this Bill fetters the success and the future of Welsh farming. I urge the Government to reconsider their position on amendment 16, as the Bill in its current form misses a golden opportunity to safeguard the long-term success and viability of our food producers.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I feel like a bit of an interloper in this debate, because many Members have talked about their heritage in farming and agriculture, and the constituencies they represent have vast amounts of farms and fields, but I am a city boy and represent a city seat. I have no farms in my constituency. I have two fields and no sheep. I have two horses, which sit at the side of the beautiful Kings Norton nature reserve. To my shame, I do not even own a pair of wellies.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
As a regional MP from the west midlands, my hon. Friend is always welcome to join us in Shropshire, where we have the best farming in the country.
Gary Sambrook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In fact, my family name comes from Shropshire, so I have a little bit of agricultural heritage.
The reason I am speaking in this debate is that many people across the whole country, in cities and in rural areas, care deeply about standards in food and especially deeply about standards in animal welfare. It makes us proud to be British that we have such high standards, especially towards animals. That is why I was proud to stand on our party’s manifesto, which was incredibly clear in stating:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Indeed, all the EU food safety provisions, including existing import requirements, would be transferred into UK law via the withdrawal agreement Act, as their removal would require new legislation. That is why I am supportive of the Government tonight. I take the Minister and the Bill at their word, because I feel passionately that we are going to deliver on these things.
Time and again, we hear the same old arguments and scaremongering from the Opposition Benches. To me, this boils down to two things that we regularly hear. One is the hatred of Brexit and the resistance to acknowledging that that vote took place. The other thing that worries me is the growing anti-American tone that we hear seeping through from the Labour Benches, and especially from the Benches of the separatists. That really does concern me. We hear it in the arguments about chlorinated chicken and hormone-fed beef all the time, yet those things are already prevented by law from being imported into this country. The Bill does not change that in any way. I can reassure my constituents, who care deeply about these issues, that that will not change.
The article that my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) wrote over the weekend was an excellent way of describing the situation that we are in today. Are we really going to pass a law that would harm many of the world poorest people? That would be the indirect consequence of these Lords amendments. The EU does not have the levels of protectionism that these amendments are suggesting. Are they really saying that EU standards are too low? I will be supporting the Government today and voting against the Lords amendments.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
You might be surprised to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that one third of the land in Sheffield Hallam is agricultural land, and my husband is the trustee of a city farm. Farming in all its forms is of great interest to me.
The Government have insisted that when we leave the EU, our trading standards will be world-leading, world-beating, the best, the greatest, and the most fantastic in the world. In fact, they have started to sound a bit like the President of the US, and they obviously want to make a sweetheart deal with him. Our farmers are not convinced. I have been contacted about the Bill and the amendments under debate by hundreds of constituents, farmers and producers alike, and every one of them is concerned about the future of our trading standards on food, animal welfare and the environment, as well as the impact of that on their farms and what is on their plate.
That is no wonder, because although Ministers talk about high standards, without the amendments nothing will protect British farmers from being undercut on food and animal welfare standards. The rhetoric about protectionism is reckless; we are talking about people’s incomes. The Minister may say that we do not need to worry about food such as chlorinated chicken because the EU withdrawal agreement has carried over existing standards, but my constituents do not trust the Government on that. We have seen what respect the Government have already shown to this issue, and there is nothing to stop bans on such products being overturned through secondary legislation. If the Government want to set minds at rest, why will they not accept amendment 16 to guarantee that those bans will not be lifted without proper scrutiny in Parliament?
In any case, the EU’s import restrictions apply only to products that are prohibited because they breach our standards on food safety, not those on animal welfare and environmental protection. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said when highlighting the issue of sow stalls in California, it is right to ban such things in the UK. That cruel and inhumane method of producing pork should also be banned from all our imports on animal welfare grounds. We need explicit guarantees on animal welfare, but so far we have none.
Given that UK farming accounts for roughly one tenth of our national CO2 emissions, we need a Bill that enshrines action on climate change. Why the Government are so averse to proposing any obligatory measures to meet our net-zero targets is beyond me. We need the Bill to be more robust, to enshrine the commitment of zero-carbon emissions in the sector, and to support British farmers and the health of our people by protecting food and animal welfare standards. Without the proposed amendments, the Bill will fall well short of that.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s opening speech, which I listened to carefully. It did a lot to assuage the concerns of my constituents in Stafford, which is a rural constituency, and of many farmers across the UK. However, I also understand the sentiments of colleagues about the amendments under debate. I sat on the Trade and Agricultural Bill Committees earlier this year, so I had the opportunity thoroughly to question stakeholders and Ministers, as well as to scrutinise the Bill line by line. I feel that the Bill now provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create an effective agricultural scheme that backs British farmers.
I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Keighley (Robbie Moore) when they said that the previous scheme for agriculture, the common agricultural policy, has been a failure. From an agricultural perspective we have seen sluggish improvements to productivity, poor farm incomes, regressive distribution of funding to the largest landowners, ineffectual rules, and a failure to encourage the next generation of farmers. I believe that Staffordshire farmers deserve better, and this Bill will be better.
Early this year I invited the International Trade Secretary to my constituency, and we held a joint roundtable with local farmers, who directly raised their concerns with her about animal welfare standards post Brexit.
I believe that British farmers have some of the highest food standards in the world, which is something that we should be extremely proud of. From my meeting with Staffordshire farmers and local NFU members just last month, I do appreciate that maintaining these high standards comes at a high financial cost for the producer. British farmers must absolutely not be put in a situation where they are having to compete with lower quality food from abroad. I was very pleased that the Government listened to the views of the NFU, myself and other colleagues earlier this year and have now established that independent Trade and Agriculture Commission, which was referenced in Amendment 18.
Matt Rodda
I wish to declare an interest: I have several relatives who are farmers.
I rise to speak in favour of the Lords amendments. I realise that time is pressing, so I will address the needs and concerns of consumers rather than those of farmers, although I acknowledge the importance of the Bill to the farming community. I would like to mention some of the very serious concerns that have been raised by my constituents in both Reading and Woodley and to call on the Government to listen to those concerns, even at this very late stage.
The central point that has been raised with me is that the Bill as it stands will open a backdoor to food that is produced to lower environmental and animal welfare standards. I wish to address both of these related issues in turn. On environmental standards, it is very important to remember that agriculture is responsible for a significant proportion of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, including methane, and that there are also a series of other issues associated with the industry however hard farmers both here and around the world are trying to address them. The same also applies to animal welfare, which has been led by British farming. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said earlier, there are opportunities for us in this country to influence animal welfare standards around the world by asserting our own rights now as an independent trading country.
These amendments would also allow for closer scrutiny of trade deals. Another point that has been made quite eloquently to me by residents in my area is that we should not shy away from having the same approach that legislatures in other parts of the world have to trade deals. As I said earlier, consumers value the hard work and dedication of UK farmers, and they want to see high standards upheld. However, it is important to understand what UK consumers are able to effect and where the Government need to intervene. Consumers do care deeply about British farmers and about maintaining high standards, and they will raise issues with us as elected representatives. However, consumers are struggling to follow a range of complicated pieces of information about food standards already, and they do rely on the Government to intervene in the market and to try to make things clear for them. They rightly believe that the Government should regulate and that Parliament should hold the Executive to account as part of its constitutional role.
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. Maintaining high standards is important to our country. Serious concerns have been raised by consumers, and there is an obvious need to maintain proper regulation. Given all that and the needs of the farming community, I hope the Government will now, even at this very late stage, listen to the concerns that have been raised and think again.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this vital debate, much of which has understandably focused on Lords amendment 16. I am sorry to disappoint the House, but being as unoriginal as I am I, too, will be restricting my remarks to that amendment.
I have the pleasure of representing a constituency in Aberdeenshire, which is, as I am sure the House will agree, home of the best beef, lamb, berries and cereals produced anywhere in the United Kingdom. Of course these Lords amendments have given me pause for thought, just as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) did. I have listened to representations about the Bill—by email, phone, over social media, and in person yesterday at the door of the church—from farmers and food producers in my constituency. I want to put Scottish and specifically north- east farmers first—first in the queue to benefit from the trade deals that we are negotiating right now. In the next 30 years, the supply of food needs to rise by about 50% to meet the needs of a wealthier, growing global population. I do not want anything that would stand in the way of our high-quality, world-leading Scottish products reaching the shelves of consumers around the world.
In attempting to enshrine in law, as this well-meaning amendment would, that food imported to the UK
“be equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations”,
we would put at risk our ability to sell our products overseas and put in serious jeopardy our ability to carry on importing many of the foodstuffs we do at the moment. We already import a large quantity of goods from developing countries. This includes products sold directly to consumers, such as bananas from the Dominican Republic, and goods processed into final products, such as tea from Kenya, coffee from Vietnam and cocoa beans from Ghana. We do all this under existing European Union rules, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) pointed out, we should not even get started on Danish bacon.
None of the transition EU FTAs has exported domestic welfare production standards. This amendment would mean that the existing mandate for our European Union trade deal—a deal we all, goodness me, want to see succeed—would have to be altered. No current imports to the UK are required to meet our domestic production standards. It is precisely our high standards and high quality of produce that make our produce so attractive to the outside world. Because of that and because we believe in high welfare standards, the Government have given their commitment that in negotiating these trade deals, we will not allow our domestic welfare production standards to be in any way diminished. We will protect, defend and enhance our food safety, environmental and animal welfare standards, and we will actively seek to export these world-leading standards and our expertise to new partners around the world.
This country is a world leader on animal welfare and food production standards. We are champions, or at least should be champions, of free trade. These two principles are the foundation of what I believe global Britain seeks to be. These are the pillars of who we are. Therefore, for all these reasons, and because I support Scottish farmers and want to see our produce sold and enjoyed across the world, I cannot support the Lords amendments before us.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
This Bill could well be among the most significant pieces of legislation that we debate in this Parliament. It covers our farming practices, environmental protections and food supply chains. If the food shortages in supermarkets at the beginning of lockdown have taught us anything, it is the importance of food security and traceability. Our constituents know this. Recent polling by Which? shows 95% support for maintaining existing food standards, and over 1 million people have now signed the NFU’s petition—yes, the NFU: that radical and dangerous organisation, according to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin)—calling for food standards to be enshrined in law.
The most frequently raised issue recently by Bath constituents has been the Agriculture Bill. They want reassurances about the quality of the food they eat. They care about animal welfare standards and environmental protections. They want to know that British farmers will not be undercut by cheaper, lower quality products from countries with fewer regulations. Like many others, I have been supporting local businesses during lockdown. We are lucky in Bath to have an excellent supply of locally produced food from Somerset, and it will be British families like these who will be left unsupported.
This pandemic has also underlined the importance of healthy eating and good nutrition for our general health and wellbeing, yet we risk exposing hundreds of thousands of families to low-quality food, undermining the Government’s own obesity strategy. We must be mindful, too, of the agricultural sector’s role in getting to net zero. Lower food standards encourage poor production practices, and the result is massive damage to the environment. Unless these standards are legally enshrined, the risk remains that this Government will compromise on environmental protections and food and welfare standards, as they head out in a desperate search for trade deals after Brexit. Just last week, the US Agriculture Secretary said:
“We absolutely will not agree to policies that restrict our methods of production to any other standards outside of this country”—
the US. How can we ask our constituents to rely on nothing more than ministerial assurances?
The Government argue that enshrining food standards in the Bill would undermine trade negotiations. That is not true. This morning, the Future British Standards Coalition published its interim report, with evidence that it is possible to reject low food standard imports, remain WTO-compliant and still strike trade deals. The Government want Britain to be a global leader in trade. Why not be a leader that encourages trading partners to adopt higher standards? I urge Members across the House to support the Lords amendments, particularly amendment 16.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I come from a farming background. It was all I was ever interested in at school. I grew up on a farm where my dad was a farm worker and I had a passion for dairy cows—Holsteins. When I was thinking of future careers, the only green in my life was the grass that the cows ate in the fields rather than the Benches I now sit on. This is something that goes through my veins. Representing a rural constituency like Moray makes it a hugely important issue for me, both locally and nationally.
I want to say from the outset that this debate is not about chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef, which are banned in this country and will continue to be banned in this country going forward. There have been scare stories in the media and throughout the debate, which I have watched from the office and then, when seats became available, in the Chamber. We have to get past that. This is also about what our Moray, our Scottish and our UK farmers have done for years and through generations in building up their world-leading and respected animal welfare and food safety standards. They have done so much, through generations of farmers, to build up the reputation that we now proudly have as a country.
I know how passionate the Minister is about upholding these standards, as I saw when watching her opening remarks. Indeed, that passion is shared by those right across the Conservative Benches. We were all elected on a manifesto commitment to uphold those standards. I know that every single Conservative Member believes that and continues to believe it, no matter how they vote tonight. For some, it will be delivered through an unamended Bill because, they will rightly say, the Minister has said, and repeated Ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister have said, that this Bill does not reduce animal welfare or food safety standards. Others on the Conservative Benches and around the House will say that it needs to be enshrined in law and put into the Bill. I do not believe that either is wrong. We all want to get to the same destination, but we could potentially take different routes. Some may choose the unamended Bill to uphold animal welfare and food safety standards, and others will choose to amend the Bill, as amendments 16 states, to call for agriculture and food imports to meet domestic standards.
The passion that we all have to meet that ultimate aim is shared; it is just that the route to get to the destination is different. Having thought long and hard about this, I have decided that the best way to do that—the best way to stand up for my Moray farmers, Scottish farmers, and farmers around the country—is to get this measure into the Bill. I agree with and support amendment 16 because I want to make it absolutely crystal clear to farmers up and down the country—to send them the message—that the Government, and I, as the local MP in Moray, have their back and will support them in continuing their efforts to uphold the outstanding standards that they have built up through years and generations.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
In their 2019 manifesto, the Conservatives promised not to compromise on food standards in future trade negotiations, saying:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
They have not put this commitment into law. The Bill does nothing to prevent British farmers from being undercut in post-Brexit trade deals with countries with lower animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards. The Government argue that all current legal protections have been carried over by the EU (Withdrawal) Act as retained EU law, including bans on chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, but this can be overturned in secondary legislation without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.
Our membership of the EU kept our food standards high, but we are currently negotiating with other countries whose standards are substantially lower than those in the UK. These products include chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef from countries such as the US and Australia. Australia still uses farming methods that are currently illegal in the UK. Hormone-injected beef, for example, is currently banned under EU law due to concerns about public health as well as animal welfare, yet the US and Australia are reputed to be pushing for the UK to accept imports of hormone-injected beef. Chlorinated chicken masks salmonella and E. coli, and causes poor animal welfare conditions in barns and abattoirs. Negotiations are left wide open to pressure on Ministers to use their powers to relax standards. Without a clear and unequivocal guarantee in an Act of Parliament, the Tories’ manifesto promise is worthless. The US and other countries have made it clear that they will expect the Government to accept lower-standard foods currently banned in the UK and the EU such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef.
The temporary Trade and Agriculture Commission that the Government have established in response will produce only one advisory report and not a continuous assessment of individual trade deals. Its terms of reference should be widened so that it is able to review all trade deals, in a meaningful way, and its recommendations should be made subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I support Lords amendment 18, which would put the commission on a statutory and permanent basis.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I want to discuss Lords amendment 17. Although I believe it has good intentions, it is ill-thought-through and unnecessary, and would unfairly burden farmers who are already doing fantastic work to reduce carbon emissions.
The amendment would force the Secretary of State to introduce an interim climate change target for 2030, and make the Secretary of State commit to that target through regulations within six months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent. Although I agree that farmers should play their part in tackling climate change, I believe that the amendment is designed as a throwaway political point rather than something necessary.
First, the amendment would set a net zero target for farmers, but it provides little detail on how that could actually be achieved, despite its demand that regulations be introduced within a short 12-month timeframe. How could that be done? As has been highlighted in other debates in the Lords, unless there is a miraculous scientific breakthrough within a year, farmers will have no option but to produce less food in order to meet this new target. I do not understand how limiting the amount of British food on our shelves would be of any benefit, as it would negatively affect both farmers and consumers.
Secondly, the amendment would prevent the Government from focusing on other ways in which we can reach net zero. By having non-sector-specific targets, the Government can reduce our greenhouse gases in ways that are efficient and that mitigate any negative trade-offs. This amendment would unfairly punish farmers by making them reach a net zero target 20 years before other industries, many of which are more polluting than the agricultural sector. I do not understand the logic in that, and I am sure that farmers across the country will see it as deeply unfair, as agriculture is responsible for only 9% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions. It should also be highlighted that the National Farmers Union has its own 2040 net-zero target, so the demand that it should somehow be reached by 2030 is not backed by either scientific evidence or our farmers.
I would like to end by reminding this House that we were the first major economy in the world to establish a net zero carbon target, and we can be proud of that. Let us also not forget that from 2010 to 2019, UK CO2 emissions fell by 29%, while our GDP grew by 18%. Although there is more to do, let us celebrate our achievements and continue to support sensible legislation which will ensure that we remain a world leader in reducing our carbon footprint.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
I have received hundreds of emails from residents in Leicester East who are gravely concerned about the future of food quality and environmental protections after we leave the EU. It is therefore crucial that this Bill includes legally binding guarantees that high UK food standards will not be cut in post-Brexit trade deals, whether with the USA or other countries that produce food to lower standards.
Despite their own 2019 manifesto commitment, the Government have so far refused to do that. The Government have repeatedly said that they will not weaken food standards as part of any trade deal, but they are refusing to make a legal commitment that would guarantee that. They insist that bans on lower-standard foods such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-treated beef have been carried over into UK law by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, but the fact is that those bans can easily be overturned in secondary legislation without proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government know that, and they are already under pressure from new trading partners, including the US, to allow lower-standard imports in trade deals.
It is all very well the Government opposing the lowering of food standards in the realm of hypotheticals, but when faced with a concrete opportunity to enshrine that in law, they refuse to act. As with NHS privatisation, the Government are repeatedly asking the public to blindly trust their promises, despite passing up the opportunity to support legal regulations to achieve their aims, rather than flimsy incentives. Based on the Government’s track record of privatisation and prioritising corporate profit over public health, I do not see why my constituents should believe them on this occasion.
I support amendments 1, 9, 11, 16, 17 and 18, which would strengthen the Bill in crucial areas such as food standards and environmental sustainability. I urge the Government to adopt those reasonable amendments, which are in line with their own stated aims. Otherwise, the Government must make clear today the reason why they want to drive down food standards and not support British farmers. During a climate and ecological emergency, it is imperative that we have a clear road map for agriculture to reach net zero carbon emissions, yet there are no targets in the Bill for the agriculture sector to achieve that. Across the board, this legislation fails to protect our food standards, our environment or the health of residents in Leicester and across the country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the last speaker from the Back Benches, Ruth Cadbury.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Unlike many Members here, I have just one small farm in my constituency, but a large number of constituents have written to me expressing great concern about the implications of the Agriculture Bill, particularly if the Lords amendments are not incorporated. My constituents expect Parliament to scrutinise the detail of all trade deals, but Parliament is yet again to be cut out of full scrutiny and agreement on trade deals—a trend that is becoming something of a habit for this Government.
After listening to some Government Members, I really do wonder about their understanding of the dynamics of trade deals. Many of my constituents fear that the Bill and the Government’s approach to trade will open up our consumers to chlorine-washed chicken, hormone-impregnated beef and so on. The Minister said at the start of the debate that we should not worry about standards falling because British consumers will choose good-quality food, but as consumers we do not see the labels for much of our food, because almost half the food we eat is made up of processed ingredients or is catered and therefore hidden from consumer vision. As many Members have said, cheap imported foods with standards lower than the EU’s threaten the viability of many British farmers.
If the Government actually believed in the climate and environmental emergency that this Parliament declared a year ago, the Bill would set a clearer path for our farmers to reach net zero. Why do the Government not accept Labour’s amendment 17, which would set interim net zero targets for the agricultural sector?
If we do a trade deal with the US that has no conditions on animal welfare, our farmers will be at risk, because they will have to compete with low-cost agricultural mega-corporations, such as those US pork farmers still using sow stalls. To prevent the cruelty of practices such as sow stalls, we need a law which says that, in all trade deals, any imports must meet the same standards of animal welfare that British farmers are required to meet. Britain has historically often led the world on food standards, but sadly, this Bill means that our food quality is at risk, our farmers’ future is at risk, our environment and our climate are at risk, and the welfare of farmed animals are at risk. I support the Lords amendments.
Victoria Prentis
We have had a treat this evening—we have had Cotswold lamb, mince and tatties, Aberdeenshire beef, and berries and all sorts of other things. I, for one, have particularly enjoyed hearing farming voices this evening. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who is basically in favour of the Bill. He was able to explain clearly how it would help the farmers of the future. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), who very much enjoyed growing up with fields green with grass. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Robbie Moore) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who both spoke in quite quiet, but experienced, passionate farming voices about how the trade of the future was going to help others in the industry.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), and we had perhaps the quote of the evening from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who said that farming is not a religion; it is a business. I would like to reassure him that I see a bright future for British farming under our new agricultural policies. Productive, environmentally sustainable food production—that is what we are going to support, and businesses.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), and I am looking forward to a glittering career for him at Harper Adams. I think we will all benefit from what he learns there. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy). I was pleased to speak to him a great deal about gene editing earlier in the year and I am glad that we will be consulting on that. These were experienced farming voices, passionate about trade.
There have been other speeches of note, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Gary Sambrook), who was proud to say that he does not earn a pair of wellies but he cares about standards, and about trade. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), who has served on the Agriculture Committee, and who spoke thoughtfully about the cost of production and the work that she had done to take the Secretary of State for International Trade to her constituency to speak to her farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) is right: the fear-mongering must stop tonight. We are not going to be importing chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-treated beef. That is the law of this land. [Interruption.] There is no question of “Not yet”. This Government are not going to change it under any circumstances. We have said very clearly that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards.
We have a range of tools to protect us. We have the existing regulation. We have parliamentary scrutiny, which I detailed earlier, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which I, for one, think is significant. We have other experts feeding in, including the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which many Members have spoken about. It was designed to be helpful, to feed into the trade negotiations we are conducting at the moment. There is nothing to stop it being stood up again if it was felt that that would be helpful. There is absolutely no need to put this in the Bill. I am very happy to take as an action from tonight that I will discuss this with the Secretary of State for International Trade. Given what she said in her written ministerial statement to the House today, I am not anticipating that she will be surprised by that conversation, but I undertake to conduct it.
I also think that consumer labelling is important, while understanding that, of course, a lot of products are not directly labelled at the point of consumption. I think, however, that our consumers are canny and that they can make many of their own decisions. We also heard one other tool discussed this evening in favour of differing tariffs—my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Norfolk and for The Cotswolds both spoke about that—and that is something that we should perhaps think about in future.
You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that children play mummies and daddies or going to the shops. They tend to ape what the adults around them do. Well, my sisters and I played going to NFU meetings, because that was what the adults around us did. I welcome the work that the NFU has done to get consumers talking about standards, but we do not need primary legislation to have a Trade and Agriculture Commission. Amendment 16 does not enshrine these standards in law; rather, it obliges the Government to impose a wide and, in my view, slightly ill-defined set of conditions on new and roll-over FTAs. And if Labour Members truly are champions of farming, they should not support amendment 11, which bans the use of any pesticide in any field.
This Bill is great. The future of agriculture in this country is great. I commend it to the House.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As Mr Deputy Speaker informed the House earlier, Mr Speaker has given careful consideration to Lords amendment 18, which would establish a Trade and Agriculture Commission. Mr Speaker is satisfied that it would impose a charge on the public revenue which is not authorised by the money resolution passed by this House on 3 February. In accordance with paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 78, Lords amendment 18 is therefore deemed to be disagreed to.
Lords amendment 18 deemed to be disagreed to (Standing Order No. 78(3)).
Lords amendments 2 to 8 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 3 and 4.
Lords amendment 10 agreed to.
Lords amendments 13 to 15 agreed to.
Lords amendments 19 to 46 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendment 30.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18.
That Victoria Prentis, James Morris, Fay Jones, Gary Sambrook, Luke Pollard, Gill Furniss and Deidre Brock be members of the Committee;
That Victoria Prentis be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I ought to have mentioned before the withdrawal of the Committee that in order to observe social distancing the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 and 4 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Electricity)
That the draft Electricity (Risk-Preparedness) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Health Care and Associated Professions)
That the draft European Qualifications (Health and Social Care Professions) (EFTA States) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 17 September, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Debt Management and Relief
That the draft Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 9 September, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Criminal Law
That the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2020, dated 9 September 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10 September, be approved.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Question agreed to.
Committees
Ordered,
Environmental Audit Committee
That Mr Shailesh Vara be discharged from the Environmental Audit Committee and Cherilyn Mackrory be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Ordered,
Petitions Committee
That Steve Double be discharged from the Petitions Committee and Jonathan Gullis be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Queen Mary’s Hospital: Urgent Care Services
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am grateful that Mr Speaker has granted this debate, and to the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), for taking time out of his schedule to respond to it. This issue is of huge concern to my constituents, as I am sure he can understand. More than 300 of them have signed my petition just this past week, and many have been in touch with me to explain how important the issue of urgent care services at Queen Mary’s Hospital is to them.
I have called for this debate and am standing here today because I really value our local hospitals and all the work that the fantastic staff have done during this pandemic to care for us, to endlessly adapt systems and services and to save lives. I take this opportunity to thank the NHS managers, doctors, nurses, cleaners and support staff for all that they do. It is because I, and local residents, value our local hospital so much that I ask the Minister to support the reopening of the urgent treatment centre and the pharmacy for out-patients before the winter and the increasing demand begins. It is really important that it is a walk-in treatment centre that does not require bookings.
Allow me to provide some context for the Minister. In August 1997, Queen Mary’s Hospital, which is in Roehampton, ended its A&E service, and has since had a minor injuries unit, which the trust gave a gold-standard accreditation in November last year. So there is no A&E service in my constituency. The minor injuries unit was upgraded to an urgent treatment centre, with a GP added to the excellent nurse practitioner staff, earlier this year. In a normal year, the centre serves 16,000 to 18,000 people, so it is a vital service in our community.
During the peak of the pandemic, the decision was taken to temporarily close the service because of a lack of space for social distancing and to be able to adhere to Government guidelines, and also to move the staff to other areas that needed them more. The pharmacy for out-patients has only recently been closed, and at very short notice. Of course I understand, as do local residents, that changes had to made and that health services had to adapt. I fully appreciate that our NHS managers had to make some extremely difficult decisions on service provision as they faced the prospect of being overwhelmed, which they are now facing again, with the second wave. The continued closure makes us in Roehampton feel overlooked, and it is putting additional pressures on NHS services at Teddington, the walk-in centre at Kingston, St George’s Hospital A&E and local GP surgeries. I am concerned that this will cause untold long-term damage to the health and wellbeing of our community.
I have been asked, “What about the person with the dislocated shoulder, the chest pain, the allergic reaction?” They all need to be assessed and stabilised urgently, but at the moment they are being turned away. I have met the chief executive of the hospital trust and raised these issues. I asked her to assure me that the centre would be reopened as soon as it was safe to do so, but she has not confirmed when it will reopen, if at all. That is very worrying. I hope to hear from the Minister this evening that he will support the trust in making plans to reopen the walk-in urgent treatment centre.
I would like briefly to explain the impacts that the closure is having on local people. Anyone who goes to where the minor injuries unit used to be is asked to travel far away to the Teddington walk-in centre, to Kingston A&E or to St George’s A&E in Tooting. Those bus journeys can take an hour, which can result in painful journeys or in many people not making the journey, not being seen and not being treated. I am sure the Minister will agree that an hour on public transport is an unacceptably long journey time when there is a really good hospital right there in Roehampton, but it is just not open for walk-in urgent care. One of my constituents wrote to me this week to say:
“I took my elderly father, who is nearly 90 years old, to Queen Mary’s just over a month ago, because he had cut his fingers quite badly and they were bleeding. The kind staff there had helped us when my father had a similar problem last year and they knew how to bandage his fingers because he has very thin skin…Because the Centre was closed, we had to go all the way to Kingston Hospital which was quite stressful. While his treatment there was good, it would have been far easier if we could have gone somewhere more local to him as my father isn’t used to travelling that far.”
Also, some patients are unable to travel or should not travel. An example is patients with diabetic foot ulcers, who should keep their activity to a minimum to allow ulcers to heal. At the same time, if they have an infection, it needs treating immediately as it could deteriorate rapidly leading to the need for amputation. That is one group of patients who are not getting the care they need because the urgent treatment centre and the pharmacy are not open. There is an obvious health risk to people needing to travel further if they are seriously ill.
There is also an increased risk of covid infection through asking people to travel greater distances by public transport during the pandemic, especially when they are unwell or chronically ill. They could have an underlying condition, which might be the reason they are going to the urgent care centre in the first place. That would make them more susceptible to the effects of covid-19. Closing the pharmacy is having the effect of delaying patients receiving treatment, as they are now being referred to their GP by the clinics. If they cannot immediately get an appointment with their GP, this can lead to delays of up to 48 hours before starting their treatment. That is another impact.
There is also a knock-on effect on services in other places. The fact that 16,000 to 18,000 people a year used to be treated at Queen Mary’s is putting pressure on St George’s and Kingston, along with the increasing demand at the moment. GP surgery appointments are already at a premium, and this demand will only worsen as the difficult winter months approach. Even before the pandemic, it was reported that over 11 million patients had to wait more than 21 days for a GP appointment. In my constituency, there are 14 main surgeries and three branch practices. My team has called round all the local GP services. Several are still only doing appointments over Zoom, and in one local medical centre, a member of staff begged for the urgent care centre to reopen due to the pressure its closure is causing for GP surgeries.
Increased demand for overstretched GP surgeries with finite resources ultimately means fewer local people’s conditions or illnesses receiving treatment, and even more concerningly, serious and urgent illnesses such as cancer being missed and going undiagnosed. It is cancer diagnosis that I am particularly concerned about. As the Minister knows, lots of cancers are diagnosed when people present at hospital with a symptom. With the doors of the urgent treatment centre still closed, many cancers that might otherwise have been spotted will have been missed.
Fleur Anderson
Many cancers will be missed if people cannot go to the urgent care centre and are redirected to other facilities, because there is a real concern that they are not making that journey.
According to Breast Cancer Now, the importance of GP referrals and of the NHS breast screening programme to breast cancer survival cannot be underestimated. However, the number of people referred to see a specialist with suspected cancer declined dramatically during the peak of the coronavirus outbreak. In England, between March and July this year, there were 95,000 fewer referrals by a GP for tests.
Prostate cancer is also of real concern. This cancer claims the life of one man every 45 minutes in the UK. Early diagnosis, as I know from my own family, really does save lives. The impact of covid-19 has meant that around 3,500 men in the UK risk being diagnosed with last-stage, incurable prostate cancer. With GP appointments often hard to get, urgent care centres such as the one at Queen Mary’s Hospital are very important in spotting signs of cancer early on. The prolonged closures of urgent care centres are accelerating the crisis in cancer care. Cancer and other serious diseases will not wait for the covid-19 crisis to abate—they will not wait until the winter is over—before taking lives again. We cannot lose sight of this. We cannot risk the lives of local people.
In summary, the urgent treatment centre and pharmacy at Queen Mary’s Hospital is a very valued and valuable local health service with fantastic staff. I understand that it had to close and that difficult decisions had to be made, but for too long, people in Roehampton, Putney and Southfields needing urgent care have been sent away. That is leading to some people going untreated and others suffering on long journeys, and it is adding to the pressure on A&E services at Kingston Hospital and St George’s Hospital in Tooting. It is time to stop sending people with dislocated shoulders, deep cuts, chest pains or severe allergic reactions to places an hour away when we have a great hospital with great urgent care nurses in our own community. We need the out-patient pharmacy to provide medications for treatment as soon as they are needed. There is more demand than ever for a walk-in service at the urgent treatment centre, which used to treat 16,000 to 18,000 people a year. My ask of the Minister is simple: will he do everything in his power to reopen the urgent treatment centre with walk-in capacity and the out-patient pharmacy at Queen Mary’s Hospital before the winter begins?
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) on securing this debate on an issue that is important to her constituents and more widely across south London and on her typically reasonable and measured tone in putting her constituents’ case so clearly and firmly. As she did, I pay tribute to the staff at Queen Mary’s, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and across our entire NHS for the amazing work they do day in, day out, but particularly during this pandemic. Thanks to their dedication and their response to the public health measures and restrictions, which have been difficult for many people, the NHS was not overwhelmed during the first covid wave, and we have put in place measures to prevent that from happening in a second wave.
As the hon. Lady said, coronavirus has brought challenges and forced us all to do things differently to manage the pandemic, protect the NHS and save lives. There is no doubt that it has led to rapid changes in the way that health and care services are delivered, as providers have refocused their efforts on tackling the pandemic, but also on providing services in a safe way for other service users. But it is important that these changes are temporary and that the NHS is working to reopen services as soon as it is safe to do so. She said that she hopes her constituents in Roehampton will not be overlooked in this place and I suspect that, as long as she is a Member of this House, they certainly will not be.
The hon. Lady was right to highlight the importance of local services so local people can access services easily, without transport or other challenges. It is regrettable that the urgent treatment centre at Queen Mary’s Hospital remains closed. I know that that decision was not taken lightly by the trust. It was taken on clinical advice by the trust to protect the safety of patients, staff and the public. I believe it has been closed since 30 March this year. As she succinctly put it, the issue is due to the requirements of social distancing and the critical importance of infection prevention and control. Therefore, given the configuration of the centre, and its walk-in aspect, it could not operate as it did before the pandemic. It is not able easily to segregate patients with respiratory problems, treat them with dedicated staff, or maintain the necessary distancing.
I am conscious that the trust has yet to set out a firm commitment to a reopening date, but I join the hon. Lady in saying that I hope it will set out its future plans as soon as possible. I am conscious that she has met the trust’s chief executive, Jacqueline Totterdell, to discuss these issues and plans for the reopening of the urgent treatment centre. Although that reopening date is still to be confirmed, I understand that the trust and local commissioners are undertaking work to agree a new covid-secure model of care before reopening, which is the right approach.
My offer to the hon. Lady is twofold and I hope it will be helpful. First, I am happy to raise the issue directly with the chief executive of the trust to consider both timescales and a date for the reopening. Secondly, if she feels it would be useful, I am happy to ask my office to get in touch with her and arrange to meet her in a slightly less formal environment than this Chamber, to discuss in more detail the urgent treatment centre and the pharmacy, which I will come to in a moment.
The hon. Lady highlighted not only the urgent treatment centre but its role in helping early diagnosis and treatment of cancers. I completely understand and recognise her concerns about the impact of the pandemic on cancer services and the importance of ensuring that cancers do not go undiagnosed. The NHS is working to restore the full operation of all cancer services, with local delivery plans being delivered by cancer alliances. Systems will be working with GPs and the public locally to increase the number of people coming forward and being referred with suspected cancer to at least pre-pandemic levels—I will come on to the performance of her local trust in a moment.
To support that, systems will help to ensure sufficient diagnostic capacity in covid-19-secure environments, through the use of independent sector facilities and the development of community diagnostic hubs and a rapid diagnostic centre. The hon. Lady is right to highlight that diagnostic capability is a considerable challenge, not least because, to put it perhaps a little bluntly, many diagnostic tests are very close and personal, and the equipment used is intimate in terms of looking inside the human body. The cleaning and infection control measures that are necessary between each patient make it challenging to see as many patients as would have been the case before the pandemic.
The cancer recovery taskforce met in September to review the status of cancer services against recovery metrics and a national recovery plan is being developed for publication shortly. In respect of the hon. Lady’s particular trust—I am afraid that I have only the figures for the overall St George’s trust, which I hope will none the less be useful—referrals in August for cancer treatment, as I understand it, were twice as high as they were in April, so a lot of work is being done to pick that up. On the basis of the latest figures that I have, which I think are for August, the trust saw 87.8% of people within the two-week target and 94.5% of those referred for treatment received that treatment within 31 days. So I put it on the record that, in very difficult circumstances, her trust is doing a very good job to bring those services back into operation.
It is important that we continue to advise people to contact their GP or to seek the help they need about a symptom that could be cancer or that could represent a risk. The hon. Lady is right that it is important that, when people do need help, they are able to access that GP service and get the advice that they need.
I turn to cancer screening, which I know is something that, although the hon. Lady did not mention it specifically, is relevant to that diagnostic capability and capacity. In some areas, providers of screening services did reschedule invitations or appointments to a later date, again to address infection control risks, but cancer screening services as well are now being restored as swiftly as it is safe to do so. I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has responsibility for, among other things, breast cancer screening services, and I think that something like—I may not have the exact figure—80% to 85% of the backlog has now been caught up in recent months. It is important that we sustain that improvement and that the hon. Lady’s constituents see that improvement.
As the country continues to deal with covid, I want to reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to providing and ensuring access to high-quality care that meets the needs of people across England, irrespective of where they live. She is absolutely right that it is vital that her constituents are able to access and get that local medical help when they need it, and that includes the pharmacy that she mentioned. The hospital pharmacy is absolutely vital for people being able to have timely access to the medicines they need and being able to get them on site. Although people using it will have been treated and advised in hospital, they can none the less get very helpful advice from the pharmacy as well, so I share her view about the importance of that. As I have said, I include that in my offer to her—to discuss that with her and with the chief executive. I will endeavour to do that later this week, but I am afraid that, given that I think I am taking through seven statutory instruments in here tomorrow, it may be towards the back end of the week that I am able to do that. However, I will endeavour to do so.
The Government remain committed more broadly to restoring urgent non-covid services in a safe way and supporting NHS capacity to protect against the risk of a further surge in cases and, of course, the increased pressures—the hon. Lady alluded to that as the context for this—on the system during the winter. I reiterate my thanks to our NHS staff, not only for what they have done, but for what I suspect they are going to have to do in the coming months.
The hon. Lady will be aware that we have announced considerable further investment in the NHS: an extra £3 billion in July to help support the NHS, and £450 million of capital funding for urgent and emergency care services and expansions. I recognise that this is not going to her own hospital, but I would just highlight that £2.5 million is going to St George’s. Quite rightly, she will champion Roehampton, but I am sure she will welcome that more broadly as well. However, I recognise her concerns about Roehampton, which is why I am happy to meet her.
I simply reiterate that I share the hon. Lady’s view that, where services for perfectly good and legitimate clinical reasons have been temporarily closed or altered, it is extremely important that they are reopened as soon as trusts are able to do so and, where in the future any changes are proposed, that they are subject to the usual full public consultation, engagement and consideration. I do not want to see temporary measures becoming permanent by default, and she can read that as perhaps an expression of my view on what is happening in Roehampton.
As the hon. Lady knows, the next step is for the local commissioners, together with the trust, to agree the new covid-secure model of care so that the centre can reopen in a way that is safe for patients, staff and the public. I will ensure that I remind them of the need to keep her fully updated, although I suspect they will not need that, because I suspect they know that she has an extremely high level of interest in this on behalf of her constituents.
I hope that I have been able to offer the hon. Lady some reassurances today. I thank her for securing the debate, and I very much look forward to meeting her. I am afraid that, at the moment, it has to be an offer of a meeting either by Zoom or in this place, but I hope that at some point, when we are able to do so safely and without hindering the work of those working in the hospital, I may even be able to visit her hospital with her in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Mark Spencer |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Dawn Butler |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Jeremy Hunt |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Maria Caulfield |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Jonathan Edwards |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Steve Baker |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Graham Stringer |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Dehenna Davison |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Mohammad Yasin |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Lloyd Russell-Moyle |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John McNally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Nadia Whittome |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Dawn Butler |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, WEARING OF FACE COVERINGS IN A RELEVANT PLACE AND ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) REGULATIONS 2020
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, WEARING OF FACE COVERINGS IN A RELEVANT PLACE) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) REGULATIONS 2020
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, WEARING OF FACE COVERINGS IN A RELEVANT PLACE AND ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT) (ENGLAND) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1026).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1028) and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1021).
Rachel Maclean
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. These regulations amend the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) Regulations 2020 and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings on Public Transport) (England) Regulations 2020, henceforth referred to as the face coverings regulations and the public transport regulations respectively.
The public transport regulations came into force on 15 June and made it mandatory for passengers to wear face coverings on board most modes of public transport. Following that, the face coverings regulations came into force on 24 July and made it mandatory for people to wear face coverings in some indoor settings in England, such as shops, supermarkets and indoor transport hubs. Three amendments were made to the face coverings regulations in August, including extending the list of indoor settings where members of the public were required to wear a face covering, to ensure that we were taking the necessary steps to protect public health as lockdown restrictions eased over the summer.
This debate will not focus on the content of the original set of regulations, nor on the three sets of amending regulations previously voted into law. Instead, we will consider the three further amending statutory instruments due to be voted on today, which extend the requirement to wear a face covering to taxis and private hire vehicles and to a wider list of indoor settings; widen the scope to include staff within certain retail and hospitality settings; and implement a more stringent penalty regime.
The rising rates of infection meant that we had to put in place these additional measures to keep staff and members of the public safe, keep sectors of the economy open and avoid the need for a second national lockdown. These amendments are a necessary response to the virus, which is why they were brought into effect under the emergency procedure, which was approved by Parliament so that we are able to act at pace to control the virus and save lives.
It is important that the Committee is able to scrutinise these amending regulations through this debate, which is taking place within the statutory 28 sitting days of the regulations coming into force. I urge the Committee to approve these amending regulations so that we are able to maintain our response to increasing incidence rates and enhance measures to help mitigate the risk of spreading the infection, thereby avoiding a second national lockdown.
People in this country have played, and continue to play, a vital role in helping us in our national effort to beat covid-19. The face coverings regulations give members of the public the confidence to visit public indoor spaces safely, and enhance protections for those working in these settings. However, the number of infections is rising, and we therefore need to take further action to help mitigate the spread of covid-19.
The Prime Minister addressed the House on 22 September to set out the series of additional measures being introduced to help reduce the spread of covid-19, including measures related to the use of face coverings in taxis and private hire vehicles, in hospitality settings and by staff in certain indoor retail and hospitality settings. I will now outline the purpose of the amending instruments to the face coverings regulations and the public transport regulations and then set out the policies and processes underlying their development, implementation, monitoring and review.
SI No. 1021 came into force on 23 September and increased the scope of the public transport regulations, so that members of the public must now wear a face covering in taxis and private hire vehicles. Many taxi and private hire vehicle passengers were already wearing face coverings, and some operators already had a policy of “no covering, no ride” for those who are not exempt.
To offer the greatest protection and additional clarity to members of the public and transport staff, we have introduced this legal requirement for passengers riding in taxis and private hire vehicles, to bring requirements in line with those already in place on the majority of the public transport network. Passengers have been required to wear a face covering on most modes of public transport since 15 June, and we have worked closely with operators in this sector to try to protect staff and passengers using that service.
These new measures make it mandatory for passengers riding in taxis and private hire vehicles to wear face coverings, thus increasing protection for drivers, who are providing a vital role in supporting key workers, transporting vulnerable passengers who are unable to use other public transport, and school children.
SIs Nos. 1026 and 1028 came into force on 24 September and increased the scope of the face coverings regulations. As a result of these amending instruments, members of the public must now wear a face covering when inside certain hospitality premises, such as bars, pubs and restaurants, except when eating or drinking. That means that people must wear a face covering when entering, leaving and moving around inside these premises.
Extending the face coverings regulations to these premises complements other targeted hospitality measures that came into force on 18 and 24 September to reduce the spread of covid-19 and to help keep hospitality venues open. Separate hospitality regulations stipulate that venues cannot accept bookings for a group of more than six persons, that there must be table service only, and that tables must be 2 metres apart or 1 metre plus others interventions, such as screens, with restrictions on opening hours for some businesses. Those measures are not part of this debate.
These amending instruments also extend the requirements to wear a face covering to staff and other workers working in indoor retail, leisure and hospitality settings, when they are open to the public and workers are likely to come into close contact with members of the public. These settings include shops, supermarkets, bars, pubs, restaurants, theatres, cinemas and social clubs. Further information on the settings where they apply will be included in the regulations and guidance published online. This requirement will not supersede any requirement for employees to wear respiratory protective equipment under existing health and safety legislation.
We are grateful for the steps that businesses continue to take, especially during this pandemic, to fulfil their legal obligations to keep staff safe and provide a safe working environment for them. These amending regulations do not negate those efforts or replace those obligations. Instead, extending the face coverings regulations to include staff enhances the protections offered to workers and customers in these settings, where people are more likely to come into close contact with others they do not regularly meet. This is a vital step in trying to minimise the spread of infection and to ensure that we can keep these premises open.
While face coverings are not a substitute for social distancing and hand hygiene, there is some evidence to suggest that, when used correctly, face coverings may have some benefit in reducing the likelihood of asymptomatic people with the infection passing it on to others. Mandating the wearing of face coverings for staff and the public in these premises will help reduce the risk of passing on the infection when in public areas, hence offering greater protection to those visiting these indoor spaces and to workers.
These regulations also make changes to the penalties in place for individuals who breach the rules under the face coverings regulations and the public transport regulations. The penalty for a first offence under the regulations will now be £200, reduced to £100 if paid within 14 days. Subsequent offences in relevant indoor places or on public transport will result in a fixed penalty amount, which doubles from £400 on each occasion, up to a maximum value of £6,400, with no reduction for early payment.
While we have seen the majority of people comply with the rules throughout the pandemic, we know that some continue to break the rules. These amendments will further deter non-compliance and help to tackle those who repeatedly breach the requirements to wear a face covering. It is important that we all continue to play our part in reducing the risk of transmitting the infection as we visit indoor places and take public transport. Furthermore, the police and Transport for London will continue to use their usual four Es approach: explaining, engaging and encouraging, with enforcing only as a last resort.
I want to be absolutely clear that, while we want as many people as possible to wear a face covering, we recognise that some people are not able to wear one, for a variety of reasons. The amending regulations do not remove or make changes to the list of exemptions or reasonable excuses, other than to include an additional exemption under the face coverings regulations for performers acting in the course of their employment.
The principal face coverings regulations and the public transport regulations include a review clause, requiring a review of the need for the requirements, as amended, within six months. There is also a sunset clause in the principal face coverings regulations and the public transport regulations, so that they will expire at the end of 12 months after the day they came into force. These amending regulations do not change the timing of the review and sunset clause. We will continue to monitor the impact and effectiveness of this policy in the weeks and months ahead, and we will develop our approach to enforcement and to communicating the policy as necessary.
We know that some of the rules put in place have become increasingly complex and difficult to enforce. That is why the Prime Minister is currently setting out how the Government will further simplify and standardise local rules by introducing a three-tier system of local covid alert levels in England. That is not the subject of the debate today, nor does it change the legal requirement to wear a face covering, but it should reassure the Committee that the Government continue to work with local leaders to tackle outbreaks with more targeted restrictions that are simple and constructive.
I am grateful to all hon. Members for their continued engagement in this challenging process and in scrutiny of the regulations. We will, of course, reflect on the debate to come. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq.
I thank the Minister for her detailed introduction. As she rightly pointed out, the laws regarding face coverings regulations are becoming increasingly convoluted, with amendment upon amendment. As she also pointed out, we are debating three instruments: one amends the wearing of face coverings in relevant places regulations for the third time, and the other two amend the wearing of face coverings in relevant places and on public transport regulations for the second and third times.
Before I talk about the regulations themselves, I will say a few words about the timing of the debate, because the timeline of these regulations is yet another example of the lack of transparency, strategy and accountability that has been the hallmark of this Government’s approach to the coronavirus restrictions. Hon. Members will be aware that I have consistently raised concerns over the way regulations are introduced; that is the view not just of the Opposition, but of hon. Members across the House and in the other place. These regulations are too important not to be debated and given full and timely parliamentary scrutiny before they become law.
Each of these regulations contains the same phrase at the start:
“the Secretary of State is of the opinion that, by reason of urgency, it is necessary to make this instrument without a draft having been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
I accept that, earlier on, that would have been the case, but that cannot really be said of these regulations. What is the urgency for this set of regulations? They appear to be correcting oversights and omissions in earlier regulations and increasing the level of fines for transgressions. Is the Government’s position that correcting their own mistakes is a good enough reason to override parliamentary scrutiny?
More than 70 health protection statutory instruments have been introduced in this manner since March, including seven on the wearing of face coverings, with no debate and no vote before coming into force. While we have acknowledged on many occasions how, in the early stages, there was a need to act quickly under emergency procedures—that may still be the case at times—more and more of the regulations being introduced do not meet the urgency test and are being introduced as such merely because the Government have slipped into a bad habit.
The Opposition have repeatedly offered to meet at short notice to debate and vote on regulations before they become law, because we believe that scrutiny, debate and challenge in the making of our laws mean that, in the long run, those laws will be more robust and more effective and achieve greater public acceptance if they are subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate before coming into force. That is amply demonstrated today, because the regulations under consideration were laid on 22 and 23 September, just after the previous amendments to both principal regulations were debated in Committee on 21 September. We therefore debated amendments to regulations the day before further amendments to those regulations were made, which is a pretty messy and unsatisfactory way of dealing with things.
In the case of SI No. 1021, on the wearing of face coverings in taxis, it is hard to imagine that, on the Monday evening, the Government were not aware of their plan to lay further legislation the following morning. It is also hard to imagine a more convenient opportunity for the Government to bring draft regulations to the House for debate than when a Committee has been convened to debate regulations for the wearing of face coverings—they could be debated at the same time. Yet, as we know, that did not happen.
Furthermore, there was no mention of any new regulations that were forthcoming. It is a shame that the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, who represented the Government in those debates, is not in the Committee, because I would love to know whether she was aware that those regulations were coming the following day. In the case of SIs Nos. 1026 and 1028, I question whether the Government indeed intended to lay new regulations at all or whether they were laid as a direct result of questions and concerns raised by hon. Members in Committee on 21 September.
I have said before that a central part of controlling the virus is ensuring robust scrutiny of the regulations and their effectiveness. As a part of that, the Government need to have a clear strategy and road map, not to be leaping around from decision to decision. In that context, the laying of three separate statutory instruments on the wearing of face coverings in the space of 24 hours rather suggests that they are lurching from one crisis to the next.
That is not just the Opposition’s view. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said it is
“surprised that the Government is not doing more to coordinate such changes in a more structured way.”
It also pointed out:
“It is not helpful to have the law scattered between so many instruments.”
I agree.
When we first debated the lockdown regulations, I impressed on the Government the importance of the rules remaining clear and consistent as regulations changed over time. It is clear that that has not happened with regulations relating to the wearing of face coverings, from Ministers making contradictory statements at the outset about what should be worn and being unable to answer simple questions about the regulations, to the rules changing six times in two months. Who could blame the public for being confused?
If the Government want people to understand the rules and follow them, we need clear communication from Government and for the rules to make sense. That is particularly so on advice for wearing a face covering in enclosed spaces, given that it has not changed a great deal in that timeframe. I will come to that in more detail as we look at each of the regulations.
As we have heard, SI No. 1021 amends the previous regulations by extending the requirement to wear face coverings on public transport to those travelling in taxis and private hire vehicles. The explanatory memorandum states:
“Emerging data has demonstrated that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers”
are
“more likely to be vulnerable to Covid-19 due to being male (98% of drivers) or from an ethnic minority (53% of drivers).”
It also notes:
“The Office for National Statistics has identified drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles as high-risk…having higher rates of death involving Covid-19 (65.3 per 100,000) than bus and coach drivers (44.2) and van drivers (26.7).”
There is no doubt, therefore, that the regulations are needed. The issue I have is that those figures from the ONS are not new. They were published on 26 June, less than two weeks after the wearing of face coverings on public transport became law on 15 June. Why has it taken three months for these regulations to come forward?
I am sure that the Minister will point to the fact, as the explanatory memorandum does, that taxi drivers and private hire vehicle operators could, in principle, refuse carriage or make the wearing of a face covering a condition of travel. However, I do not think that that is a satisfactory answer, when it is not supported by scientific evidence about the level of risk. Of course, it is also the case that if that was the whole answer, there would be no need to introduce regulations now, as drivers could still refuse carriage. So I must ask whether this was, in fact, an oversight from the first set of regulations.
SI No. 1026 extends the requirement for the public to wear face coverings to theatres, restaurants, bars and public houses, except when seated to eat or drink, meaning that members of the public are therefore required to wear a face covering when entering, leaving and moving around each of these hospitality settings. It also requires employees and other persons providing services in public-facing areas of shops, restaurants and leisure or tourist attractions, such as museums, to wear a face covering, unless they are exempt.
This statutory instrument also amends the fixed penalty notice provisions to double the fixed penalty fines that are payable for any breaches of face coverings requirements, whether in a relevant place or on public transport, meaning that a first offence will now attract a fine of £200, rising to a maximum of £6,400.
I will come back to the issuing of fines later, because I first want to focus on the requirement for the public and workers to wear a face covering in the indoor settings set out on the extended list. As we heard from the Minister, the Prime Minister announced this change in the House of Commons on 22 September, which is a welcome departure from changes being announced by selected leaks to the media. The explanatory memorandum points to advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies that
“there is evidence to recommend the use of cloth masks in certain higher-risk settings as a precautionary measure where masks could be at least partially effective. These settings would be enclosed spaces where social distancing is not possible to maintain consistently, creating a risk of close social contact with multiple parties the person does not usually meet.”
The explanatory memorandum further says:
“Mandating the use of face coverings in additional hospitality settings and extending the requirement to staff and other workers working in customer facing roles, when used alongside other measures, therefore offers a reasonable protective measure to reduce the risk of infection on contamination by a virus”.
As in previous debates regarding the wearing of face coverings, my question is this: given that the Government have been advising the public since 11 May to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces where they might find it difficult to maintain social distancing and might come into contact with people who they would not normally meet, and given that the scientific evidence does not appear to have changed in that time, why was this requirement not extended to staff when hospitality venues first reopened on 4 July, or when a face covering became mandatory in shops and transport hubs on 24 July or in relevant places on 8 August and 22 August?
What are the reasons for not introducing the requirement to wear a face covering more uniformly across indoor settings at the same time? Would that not have reduced confusion over where and when face coverings were required or not required? Was it that scientific advice changed during July, August and September about the places where face coverings could be effective, or was there another reason why those changes were not made at that time?
In the debates about previous regulations on 14 and 21 September, we asked for an explanation as to why the wearing of face coverings regulations did not apply to those who work in shops, restaurants, pubs and other relevant places. From my perspective, I certainly did not get a particularly convincing answer at the time. It is probably overstating things to say that those questions in Delegated Legislation Committees had the effect of changing Government policy within 24 hours; that trick seems to be the preserve of the likes of Marcus Rashford. However, the point is that if we had debated these issues at an early juncture, before they became law, there might have been a different outcome, because these issues might have been picked up earlier and we might have been able to have fewer sets of statutory instruments. That really shows the importance of debate in providing scrutiny and challenge to ensure that laws are effective and robust. As Members of this House and some Members in the other place have rightly said, the delays and the piecemeal introduction of regulations have not only caused confusion over where people should wear face coverings, but cause people to lose trust in the Government’s message.
I also want to ask about the terminology used in regulation 2(4), which states that staff must wear a face covering if they come or are
“likely to come within close contact of any member of the public.”
The explanatory note describes this as being in “close proximity”. Are these effectively the same thing, and is the Minister able to put a figure on that in metres? Are we talking about the 2 metre rule here, 1 metre plus or some other measurement? I would be grateful for some clarity on that.
I also want to ask about the list of places where exemptions no longer apply, contained in schedule 3, added by regulation 2(11). It is a long list, but not comprehensive, so I have a few questions about what is not included.
Paragraph 1 refers to:
“A shop, but not including premises providing legal or financial services.”
What is the reason for not including legal or financial services? They are defined in paragraph 5 of the list:
“Banks, building societies, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs and undertakings which by way of business operate a currency exchange office, transmit money (or any representation of money) by any means or cash cheques which are made payable to customers.”
To me, that seems to be a fairly comprehensive list of places that might provide financial services, but obviously some places are not covered. I will be grateful if the Minister sets out what they are and the reason for their exclusion.
Questions arise about two other premises. First, estate agents do not appear to be in the list; is there a reason for that, or are they included in the definition of a shop? Secondly—a category close to all our hearts—the premises of Members of Parliament are not included. Is there no legal requirement for members of the public to wear face coverings if they enter a Member of Parliament’s constituency office? I appreciate that separate guidance has been issued by the House authorities, but that is only guidance, not the law. Anything the Minister can say on that will be appreciated. Is there a plan to extend the rule to all workplaces? I understand that over the weekend the British Medical Association made that suggestion. It would certainly put an end to the dizzying list of exemptions.
The biggest omission from the list is of course pubs, which leads me on to SI No. 1028. Those regulations were laid on the same day as SI No. 1026, seemingly to correct on omission from that instrument, so that employees in pubs are now also required to wear face coverings. That was clearly an oversight, and a necessary one at that, and it highlights the much wider problem of the worryingly high number of instruments being laid to correct omissions. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has noticed a recent increase in the number of correcting instruments, with several coronavirus instruments having to be revoked or amended immediately after laying due to errors, including SI No. 1028, which was made on the same day to correct the omission in SI No. 1026. In fact, during this Session so far, 8.5% of statutory instruments have had to be corrected or replaced —well above the 5% benchmark that is regarded as acceptable. In the period from July to September, that figure rises to 12.5%. That is an alarmingly high rate, which led the Committee to remind Departments to check all instruments thoroughly before laying them before Parliament. That should not need to be said, but here we are having to say it.
As I said at the start, it is no wonder people are confused when laws are made with mistakes in them and have to be changed rapidly as a result. How is anyone supposed to follow and comply with the rapidly changing coronavirus regulations in such circumstances? We are talking about rules that carry with them significant financial penalties. It is simply not good enough for omitted provisions continually to be slotted in afterwards.
I have a few more questions about the regulations. The explanatory memorandum states:
“The impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is expected to be positive. Requiring staff members and other workers to wear face coverings in public houses may give members of the public confidence to visit these premises which may increase visitors to these settings bringing benefit to the business.”
Of course, we all want our hospitality sector to thrive, but it seems rather odd to debate a measure that might encourage people to return to pubs on the same day that the Prime Minister is closing some down, so I want to press the Minister on that point. Does that statement in the explanatory memorandum mean that the measure was introduced purely for economic reasons, with no health benefit at all? I appreciate that she is not a Health Minister, so she might not be able to answer that, but I point out that the note goes on:
“The policy may also offer added protection to employees working in these settings, in addition to the existing mitigations that have been put in place by businesses already.”
Those protections would still have been available had the regulations been introduced at an earlier date.
Furthermore, the Minister dealing with previous sets of regulations, the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, wrote to me after an earlier debate on face coverings and why the rules requiring the wearing of them were not brought in at the same time as retail establishments reopened. She told me:
“As lockdown restrictions began to ease across the country, we felt it necessary to mandate the use of face covering in some indoor settings such as shops, supermarkets and indoor transport hubs. As shops reopened, we anticipated an increase in footfall and introduced these measures to provide some reassurance to people and help them benefit from some small additional protection that face coverings can offer when it is not always possible to socially distance.”
It seems from the reply that the question of generating confidence for people when they visit shops had already been considered, which is why the original regulations came into force, but why was the issue of staff wearing face coverings not considered at the same time?
I turn to enforcement. As I stated previously, the Opposition support measures against the very few people who frequently and repeatedly break the rules, which are there to protect us all. As we have heard, the SI No. 1026 amends the previous regulations so that the fine imposed for a first offence under the face covering regulations is now set at £200, and continues to double at each subsequent offence to a maximum of £6,400, in line with penalties for other national coronavirus regulations. The explanatory memorandum says
“these amendments will further deter noncompliance and tackle those who repeatedly breach the requirement to wear a face covering”,
but will they? As I said in previous debates, compliance is important, but just setting out a schedule of fines is not enough. We need to understand how realistic it is that the fines will be enforced.
First, will the Minister say why those rules were introduced with such urgency? The penalty already exists; the regulations simply increase the amount an individual has to pay. That suggests there was an urgent need to increase the level of penalty to improve compliance. Is that the case, and can she produce any evidence in support of that? It is not the first time that penalties for non-compliance have been increased without any detail or explanation of why urgent action was required. These are bad habits.
On enforcement of fines for breaching the rule of six the chair of the West Yorkshire Police Federation said that officers simply cannot enforce new restrictions, and the chair of the Police Federation said:
“We just don’t have the resources.”
That was evidenced by the figures, which show that many police forces have not issued fines for breaches of regulations in the first few weeks. Over the weekend, new data showed that there are already significant differences across the numbers of all fines issued by police forces under coronavirus regulations. Up to 21 September, some police forces have issued more than 1,000 fines, whereas others have issued fewer than 100. Of those fines, only 89 have been given out by police for failing to wear a facemask; that was by 11 out of 45 forces in England and Wales.
I am sure that most hon. Members can point to a great number of concerns raised by constituents about people not wearing masks over the past few months. What does the Minister have to say about three quarters of police forces not having issued any fines? We see breaches of the rules every day—not just by the Prime Minister’s father—which rather suggests that there is no capacity to enforce the regulations, which is a dangerous place to be. If people see others getting away with it, they might conclude that they too do not need to comply with the rules.
How the police treat breaches should not be a postcode lottery, and compliance with the law should not depend on where people live. Of course, none of the 89 fines was issued under the regulations that we are debating, as they came into force a few days after the report. Can the Minister give us an update on the number of fines issued under these regulations and all the face covering regulations? Why does she think there is such disparity in enforcement across various police forces? Liberty has said the disparity was inevitable, because the rules had been communicated chaotically. It is hard to disagree with that, but does the Minister concur? Can she outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that impending changes are communicated both to those who have to comply with them and to those who have to enforce them?
A review by the Crown Prosecution Service has so far uncovered 63 unlawful charges under the health protection regulations, and the new figures have unsurprisingly led to further calls for a review of fines being given out. Are the Government also considering that? We also know that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has voiced significant concerns about the fines that have been given out, warning that black, Asian and minority ethnic people are being disproportionately penalised. What steps are the Government taking in respect of that concern?
Let us be clear: we are not criticising the police. We know that they have an incredibly difficult job in this crisis. We know the real pressures they face due to the reduction in numbers they have faced over the past decade. However, they cannot continue to be handed increased responsibilities without sufficient resources to enable them to carry out those duties. Last week, in the debate on the rule of six, I asked whether the Government would set out what additional resources would be available to police to ensure compliance, as the number of enforceable restrictions increases. I am still waiting for an answer. It is simply not good enough. I hope that we shall hear a little more today. We shall not oppose the regulations, but there are many questions that remain unanswered, which I hope the Minister will address.
Rachel Maclean
It is a great pleasure to respond to the questions put to me by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I thank him for his detailed questions and will of course address the points he made.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the urgency with which we brought in the regulations. He will know that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 provides powers for us to make a statutory instrument in exactly these circumstances. We face an unprecedented global health emergency. We must act with speed and we cannot hold up urgent regulations that are needed to save lives. We have been clear at every step that we will consult Parliament and hold votes where possible. In addition, the Government provide regular opportunities to question Government scientific advisors, and Members are given opportunities to access data about their own constituencies. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the Health Secretary has made a commitment that, for significant national measures that affect the whole of England or the UK, we will consult Parliament, where possible, and hold votes.
Justin Madders
I appreciate what the Minister says, and of course I have no difficulty with certain regulations being introduced in this way, but I asked specifically about increasing the level of fines from previous regulations. What was so urgent about that that it needed to be done without following proper parliamentary processes?
Rachel Maclean
I am happy to come on to that. I have listed the hon. Gentleman’s points in the order he put them, and I will come on to it in due course.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the high level of deaths among car, van and taxi drivers. He will know that when we first began to bring in regulations about the transport system and face coverings, we provided guidance to the taxi sector. Many people were of course already wearing face coverings when taking taxis, and many drivers were also doing so. Many operators had a “no face covering, no ride” policy, to keep their passengers safe. Further engagement with the sector made it clear that it was requesting greater certainty. The amending SI has therefore been introduced to create a legal requirement for passengers, in line with the majority of the public transport network.
The hon. Gentleman asked why staff in hospitality settings were not originally included. The rising rate of infection has meant that the Government have had to consider additional measures. All measures are kept under review, as he knows. As for the premises he asks about, I assure him that post offices, banks, building societies, high street solicitors, accountants, credit unions, short-term loan providers, saving clubs and money service businesses are included in the regulations, as are estate agents and letting agents.
The wearing of face masks on the premises of the House of Commons and in the House is not in the scope of this debate. It is a matter for Mr Speaker, who I understand has strongly recommended that we wear face coverings while we are on the estate.
Justin Madders
I think the Minister has misunderstood the scope of my question. It was actually about Members’ constituency offices, which is obviously slightly different from the parliamentary estate.
Rachel Maclean
Forgive me. That is not a matter for this debate, but it may be of interest to each individual Member of Parliament that they are required to follow the covid-secure guidelines within those premises, as are other businesses. That guidance is set out clearly. The hon. Gentleman asked whether it is planned to extend the provisions to other workplaces. Again, that is not in the scope of the debate, so I shall not comment on it now.
Before I go on to talk about fines, I want to make the point that most people are following the rules, and we are extremely grateful. We know that there are very high levels of compliance up and down the country in every constituency. It is obviously a challenge for people to comply with the rules, but we know that they are making those sacrifices to keep their communities safe.
On the enforcement regime, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, we are making the penalty more stringent. Again, we know that most people will comply, but we are seeing a rising rate of infection. It is important that we tackle this now so that we are able to keep the hospitality sector open in places where social distancing might be more difficult in all scenarios. The number of fixed penalty notices does not reflect a lack of enforcement, because the police, as I mentioned, use the four Es approach. A fine will always be a last resort after all other measures have failed.
I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some data on the fines. As of 1 October 2020, officers stopped 159,286 people and prevented 7,526 passengers from boarding public transport services owing to non-compliance with face-covering regulations; 5,677 people have been ejected from services or directed to leave, and 533 fixed penalty notices were reported.
Finally, on the equality impact assessment, the Government have taken steps with every single regulation that has been brought in to ensure that the equality impacts have been considered. With that, Dr Huq, I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this important debate.
The Government have always been clear that their highest priority in managing this national crisis is protecting our public and saving lives. I am satisfied that the requirements imposed by the regulations as amended and the enforcement powers given to the police and Transport for London are necessary, reasonable and proportionate, given the urgent need to minimise the spread of the virus and offer maximum protection to members of the public and staff. Our guidance has consistently set out to the public that to protect themselves they must continue to follow social distancing measures, wash their hands regularly, and adhere to the isolation guidance.
Current Government guidance states that people should also wear a face covering in enclosed public spaces, where social distancing is more difficult to maintain, and where people might come into contact with others they do not normally meet. The debate today has provided an opportunity for us in the Government—
Justin Madders
I do not think the Minister has addressed the question about why an increase in the level of fines had to be introduced in an urgent way. What necessitated such action?
Rachel Maclean
In line with all our policies and decisions, a decision was taken to protect public health and to maintain the balance between protecting public health, allowing enforcement measures to be introduced and allowing some of the hospitality venues and the transport system to stay open. I am grateful for the contributions that have been made during this debate. Parliamentary scrutiny is a vital part of the regulation-making process. I am pleased to have been able to set out the content for these amending regulations to the Committee. I hope the Committee has found the debate informative and that it will join me in supporting the amending regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Cttee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1026).
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Cttee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1028).—(Rachel Maclean.)
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Cttee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1021).—(Rachel Maclean.)
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Exams: Covid-19
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call-list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected.
Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them, and should respect the one-way system around the Chamber. Members should speak only from the horseshoe. Members may speak only if they are on the call lists, and that applies even if debates are undersubscribed; Members may not join the debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for wind-ups. When there are more than 10 speakers, Members in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available.
I also remind hon. Members that there is less expectation for them to stay for the next two speeches once they have spoken. That is to help manage attendance in the Chamber. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech but should be aware that, in doing so, they might prevent Members in the seats in the Public Gallery from moving to seats in the horseshoe—some of that is redundant, because no one is in the Public Gallery at the present time.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 306773 and 320772 relating to exams during Covid-19.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
This debate has been triggered by two petitions: one started by Jakia Ali to review the decision to use previous data to calculate exam grades, which received 148,880 signatures; and Rafia Hussain’s petition to reduce the curriculum content for years 10 and 12 students who will sit exams in 2021, which received 147,099 signatures. The debate is very timely today, in light of the Government’s written statement. In what has been a worrying time for everyone, and in spite of the furore over the summer about the exam results, many students still feel as if they have been abandoned in this crisis.
At the outset, I put on the record my thanks to all the students, parents and teachers who have had to deal with this unprecedented situation. Students have shown a resilience that has surprised many, and dealt with the impact of covid-19 better than the majority of adults I know. Having been a teacher myself, that did not surprise me, but I am proud of them all none the less. From now on, however, we must ensure that our students, our future generations, are supported properly in their efforts.
Since my name was announced as leading on this debate, a number of students have got in touch me with about how the uncertainty is affecting their mental health. The issue has much wider impacts for many of them: it could affect their entire life. Having spoken to the authors of the two petitions, listened to teachers and students and drawn on my own experience as a teacher, I am clear that clarity is paramount for everyone involved.
Today’s announcement from the Government will, I believe, do nothing to allay the fears of most students, parents and teachers. This Government are keen to say that they are “levelling up” the country, but this debacle has shown that they are not interested in helping the most disadvantaged pupils. That is what I find most striking.
All students lost five months of in-school teaching and, as we know, many of them have not had access to the internet or IT. Efforts to address that have not reached everyone. For the five months of missed school, students will now be given three weeks of extra time—I can hear the guffaws of my teacher friends in Wigan from where I am now.
As we face further uncertainty from a second wave of covid, those disadvantages could be further exacerbated. Far from levelling up, this is treading down students who do not have afforded to them all the advantages that the two thirds of the Cabinet who went to private school had.
Unlike the UK Government, the Welsh Government have commissioned an independent review into what happened with exams over the summer, which will look at what improvements can be made for next year. In the summer, when the A-level results came out and students and families were rightly upset, all I could think, as a parent of a child awaiting GCSE results, was, “It didn’t have to be like this.” Where was the debate? Where were the conversations with students, teachers and parents? There was none—or very little. The views of the unions were readily ridiculed and silenced by those who have no idea what it is like to teach in a comprehensive school system.
I would like to thank both of those behind these important petitions, Jakia Ali and Rafia Hussain. The sheer number of signatures on both petitions demonstrates the strength of feeling across the country about this issue. Jakia started her petition in March. It was great to speak to such an eloquent and determined young woman, who was meant to be sitting her GCSEs this summer, like my son. She felt the stress and frustration at first hand, and I can relate to that. Moreover, Jakia had little to focus on when she knew there would be no exams, and she had a long wait until her A-levels. What is notable about her petition is that indeed it was on A-level results day that it gathered momentum: a true reflection of how unhappy young people were. She was worried and concerned about how her results would be calculated and understandably wanted to ensure that she and her friends received grades that reflected their true potential. Is that not what we want for all our children?
When I spoke to Rafia, who is herself a teacher, we found that we had quite a lot in common. Last week, she still felt that the Government were doing nothing. She found it very difficult to engage with her learners through remote learning, and she said that was the experience of many of her fellow teachers. We know that it is not the same as face-to-face learning. She had experience of that, especially with a family member in year 10. The situation had a huge impact on his self-esteem and engagement with the GCSE curriculum.
Rafia set up the petition in frustration in the early hours of the morning so that the Government would hear her call to debate the petition and put into action a plan to reduce the content of GCSEs and A-levels so that students could achieve their full potential in a limited time. The hard fact is, as the National Education Union has stated, that the only route to fairness would be a complete cancellation of exams and use of robustly moderated, externally quality assured teacher judgment. We relied on teacher judgment this year. I found it very difficult listening to my friends in the teaching profession and hearing their concerns, not just in England but in Wales as well. They need to be listened to. This is my plea, and it is the plea of the petitioners: listen to the people at the chalkface. Listen to the teachers, pupils and students at GCSE and A-level. It is very important for them to have their voices heard. That is why I am proud to talk to speak to the petitions, because petitions give people a voice. The Government should do more and should be listening to them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
There is no SNP spokesperson, so I intend to call the two Front-Bench speakers 20 minutes before the end, at 5.40 pm. They will get 10 minutes. There are 10 other speakers, so you can divide that up yourselves.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. Having not done too well in my maths, I am struggling to work out how much time I have got, but in any event I will not take all the allotted time. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who gave a wide-ranging speech and an introduction to this e-petition debate as we rightly discuss covid’s impact on exams.
I want to talk about the cohort who have just been through their GCSEs and A-levels without sitting exams. I also want to look to the future and at the current cohort—what might be the right thing for them in the circumstances? Looking at the current year groups who are about to take their exams, I am very mindful of the written statement from the Department for Education today, which has announced that exams will be put back by three weeks. There is also talk of other changes. Can the Minister tease out a little more information from that written statement? Perhaps we can hear a little more from him about that.
I start by talking about the pupils who have had a miserable time in the last six months of their GCSEs or A-levels. All pupils have been affected, but especially those who were unable to sit the exams that they worked so hard for. I am incredibly sympathetic and empathetic to what they have gone through. With the support of their teachers and loved ones, they had geared themselves up to take their big test—to find that they were unable to do so was heartbreaking for all concerned.
I know there has been a lot of discussion, with the benefit of hindsight, about how things could have been done differently, and I am sure it will come up again. All I would say in that regard is that I am very conscious that decisions were made by the Conservative Government in England, the SNP Government in Scotland, the Labour Government in Wales and the DUP/Sinn Féin Government in Northern Ireland, and they were not that different. Every single Department has had to wrestle with what is right in the circumstances in a fast-changing situation. I am certainly mindful of that, and I am grateful to all the nations’ Departments for what they have done. However, the reality is that some young people have missed out in certain regards.
I want to talk about the importance of exams. For some people, exams are the way they are best able to demonstrate their aptitude and their ability to have absorbed information. Young people who have not been able to sit their exams, which would have perhaps given them better grades than their teacher-assessed grades, have missed out. I stand here as someone who was in that exact situation. I got very poor GCSEs and went to a further education college—not the private, elite education to which the hon. Member for Gower referred, but then I am not in the Cabinet; perhaps there is a correlation there.
I attended a secondary modern school because I failed my 12-plus, and then I went through to a further education college, where my grades were effectively rather lazily based on my GCSEs, the assumption being that I had not been taught anything during the two years of A-levels. It was a surprise to everyone, not least me, when A’s were awarded. I had to start again and reapply to universities that perhaps I should have applied to in the first place. That occurred only because I took my exams. I am not suggesting the teaching quality is as it was decades ago, when I was in that situation, but many young people will have missed out on a great place at university, or somewhere else they want to go, because they did not have the opportunity to take an exam. They might have had the fallback, but—let us be honest—who was going to take that in the circumstances?
I absolutely applaud the determination to have exams back on the timetable for 2021; it is absolutely the right thing for us to do. However, I want to express my concern to the Minister about how much time has now been lost by pupils who will be sitting their GCSE and A-level exams. Arguably, they have missed out more of their content than those who would have sat exams in the year just gone, because by March they have pretty much finished their content for the two years. That cohort have lost a good six-month chunk, and I am very concerned. I would like to see us reflect on whether the syllabus and the content can be changed in order to take that into account.
It is fine to say we are giving an extra three weeks, but that does not correlate with the months that were lost, and I feel that would be right. I understand that geography has been looked at, in terms of field trips not going ahead, as has English literature, in terms of the reading. However, I believe that other subjects have not been looked at. Can the Minister tell us whether that can be done on a subject-by-subject basis and whether a report can be given back after the upcoming half-term has ended? Schools and pupils need that clarity.
The other thing that I ask the Minister to do is to take coursework into account. If we go down the road where schools are not able to hold exams again, which we hope we will not, then we are looking at schools on an individual school-by-school basis. I wonder whether it would be better to have some coursework marked by the exam boards, so that there is some rigour and consistency of standards should we fall back to a place that we do not want to fall back to: having no exams.
I will end there, so that there is time for the Minister to respond to the debate. By and large, however, I welcome the statement by the Government today and I welcome the fact that there is a recommitment to exams. The announcement about the few extra weeks will be very well received, but I ask that we go a bit deeper and look again at the syllabus content, to ensure that those young people who have missed out on quite a large chunk of their A-levels or GCSEs are not disadvantaged when it comes to getting their grades.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
It is a privilege to take part in this important debate, which, if I may say so, has been very ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). It has been triggered by a summer of chaos in our schools and colleges. Hundreds of people in my Slough constituency have signed both the petitions that we are considering today, which shows that there is real concern and anger among the people I represent.
Like every hon. Member here, over the summer I was contacted by parents, teachers and young people themselves about their concerns, and about the confusion and chaos, surrounding this year’s exam results. There were heartbreaking stories of university places being withdrawn and people’s futures being stolen. I think that even the Government’s greatest supporters would acknowledge that things did not go well.
In March, the Education Secretary cancelled exams, saying that this year’s students should not face
“systematic disadvantage as a consequence of these extraordinary circumstances.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 670, c. 1WS.]
In July, the Education Committee sounded the alarm that groups of pupils—especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds or from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds—would be penalised. On 13 August, the number of pupils being awarded A or A* at A-level increased to an all-time high in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with 27.9% of A-level students securing top grades; I congratulate all those students for that.
However, pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds were hit hardest by the algorithm that was used, with Ofqual itself showing that such pupils were most likely to have the grades proposed by their teachers overruled and downgraded, while children from affluent backgrounds were most likely to do well. The same pattern was evident a few days later with the GCSEs. Although Ministers started the summer by saying they wanted to avoid “systematic disadvantage”, by the end of the summer it was plain that Ministers were responsible for the exact opposite, hardwiring disadvantage into the system.
Where was the Prime Minister? Like Macavity, the mystery cat, the Prime Minister is not there. A report by the National Foundation for Educational Research last month revealed that school pupils were on average three months behind where they would normally have been without the lockdown, with more deprived students and schools being worst affected.
I have a rather famous top school near me, down near Slough and Windsor, but why should pupils at that particular college get enhanced opportunity, on top of the huge opportunities that they already have, at the expense of pupils at Wexham School, at Beechwood School, at Ditton Park Academy or other such great schools in Slough? It is especially cruel for those pupils who had worked hard and were on track to do well—simply because they attend a school that historically had struggled they were punished. As the joint general secretary of the National Education Union, Mary Bousted, said:
“Grades were initially awarded, for the vast majority of students, with no reference to, or evidence of, their individual achievements.”
We tell people that their children can do better than they themselves did and we tell the next generation that if they work hard they can get on. If we as a society break that fundamental promise, we risk far more than one summer of chaos; we risk there being a breakdown of trust in our institutions and a generation held back by injustice. We are storing up troubles for decades to come.
The petitioners point to two key areas where we can try to get things right next year: first, to review in forensic detail what went wrong this summer, despite the warnings from education unions, schools and the Education Committee; and secondly, to make plans for, and give much-needed clarity to, those who are taking exams next year. I am glad the Government have addressed the exams timetable for 2021, but since August, the Labour party has been calling for exams to be delayed until June to give pupils more time to catch up on lost teaching time. It is unacceptable that it has taken until today, more than a month after schools returned, for the Government to finally commit to that.
Until now, parents, pupils and schools have been left in the dark regarding the timing of exams, making it more difficult for them to plan for the academic year. Additionally, although a delay to exams is necessary, other measures must be considered by the Government to ensure that exams are fair. Perhaps the Minister can address the following three points. First, what guarantees can he give parents, pupils and teachers in Slough schools that we will not see a 2021 summer of chaos? Secondly, what measures will Ministers put in place to ensure that pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds do not have their dreams stolen by hard-wired injustice? Finally, what can he tell us about thousands of taxpayer pounds going to public relations agency Public First, which was paid by Ofqual in the summer to clear up its PR disaster?
Money was paid out of the public purse to a PR agency run by Rachel Wolf and James Frayne, former special advisers to the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), on a contract awarded without competitive tender. Does the Minister consider that a good use of public money?
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who opened the debate, talked about those who had had a private school education. As someone who had that, I am certainly not going to apologise for going to a school that my parents thought was best for me to attend at the time, when the two state schools nearby were both failing, and one was on the verge of closure. Before other Members chastise me as a Tory toff, they might be interested to note my backstory before they assign that tag to me and make a lazy assumption—
Jonathan Gullis
I will not. Ofqual’s reaction was quite simple. It saw what was coming down the road. How do I know that? Because I am a member of the Select Committee on Education. After taking evidence, we made very clear in our report, published on 11 July, what the situation was: where we had large cohorts, kids would be disadvantaged; where we had disadvantaged children within those large cohorts, who were high achievers but were in low-achieving schools, they would see their grades brought down; and schools for children with special educational needs and disabilities, with small cohorts and variable results year on year, would also see an impact, so Ofqual had notice of what we thought would go wrong. Sadly, it appears that Ofqual chose to not heed the advice of the Education Committee.
What annoyed me even further was that when the chair of Ofqual appeared before the Committee after the A-level and GCSE results fiasco, I asked him whether he had run a dataset after what happened in Scotland on 4 August to see how results would be impacted in this country, and I got dodging and skirting from him. There was no answer to the fact that Ofqual chose at no stage to look at its data analytically enough to determine whether it would see a good outcome. I am led to believe that the algorithm itself was not shown to Ministers for an awfully long time. It certainly was not shared with the Education Committee and was not published, despite numerous people wishing to take part. In fact, an outside agency, the Royal Statistical Society, offered its services to engage with Ofqual and look at the algorithm, but that offer was turned down. Two fellows were blocked from joining the Ofqual technical advisory group of independent experts, even though they wished to advise. Again, Ofqual has answers that it needs to give.
In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, which I am proud to represent, I had emails from young people who had worked tremendously hard and were unable to leave school in the traditional way. When they were unable to have a leavers assembly and to get the recognition that they deserve, I was deeply disappointed.
Jonathan Gullis
I will not, unfortunately. To return to Ofqual, Tim Oates, the director of assessment research and development at Cambridge Assessment, raised issues with the Secretary of State and the Minister, whom, he said, were eager to hear about the problems the organisation uncovered regarding the algorithm. Sadly, when that was raised with Ofqual, it shrugged it off, as if to say, “We’re not interested in hearing from anyone outside.” Ofqual, therefore, has lost the confidence of the education sector.
As a former secondary school teacher in state schools for eight years, across London and in Birmingham, I can only imagine the pain teachers felt when they saw that their hard work ranking students—my partner, who is a head of religious education, worked for eight and a half hours ranking students—was simply ignored because of the size of the cohort. I do not think that is good enough. The lessons must be learned from Germany, where students sat exams and results fell in line with previous years or slightly exceeded them. Exams are an absolute must.
Before I finish, I must say that two young ladies in my constituency would like to know what is expected of them in terms of the curriculum and the exam content they will face, because they feel that while those three weeks are very welcome, six months of face-to-face contact was lost, which was awfully damaging to them. I beg the Minister to ensure that Ofqual does not move to an online model, as it mentioned in the Select Committee, because I believe that will only end in disaster yet again.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I went to a tough south-east London comprehensive, which was big on pastoral care but not so big on academic results. If I had been graded in 2020, I am sure that I would not have been graded my three As by the algorithms and my life would have taken a very different path, so I feel strongly about this issue.
The pandemic has presented schools with a range of complex problems, but schools up and down the country, not least in my constituency, did a brilliant job staying open for the children of key workers and for vulnerable children, providing lessons for home-schooling and preparing for the wider reopening in September. However, the summer exams fiasco, the failure to get an adequate testing system in place and a complete lack of specific guidance for schools have made it apparent that our schools are being let down by the Government.
I recently invited all the headteachers in my constituency to a virtual meeting to discuss the current situation and to listen to their concerns. One of the most pressing issues that they raised was clarity and guidance around how exams will be conducted this academic year. Their demand is completely acceptable. It is staggering that it has taken the Government until today to respond to it, particularly given what happened over the summer.
While today’s announcement of a three-week postponement is necessary, it does not do anything to make up for a term or more of missed classes. It also does not recognise that students have been disrupted by the pandemic to varying degrees. Those impacted the most by coronavirus are at the greatest disadvantage. More must be done to take that into consideration and make this year’s exams fairer.
Pupils set to sit those exams were in the final stages of years 10 and 12 when schools closed in March. As a result, they have missed out on months of face-to-face learning. Additionally, the wide range of safety measures in schools, the risks of periods of self-isolation and other external disruptions are preventing teaching as usual for now. Further, it is possible that the development of the pandemic could prevent many from physically sitting the exams of summer 2021.
In these difficult times, we look to the Government to set a direction and bring a degree of certainty to the uncertain, but it has taken until today to get an answer, and questions and uncertainty remain. This uncertainty does not help anyone. We should not underestimate the impact of lockdown on young people’s mental health. The pandemic has further exacerbated inequalities in society. Schools need to be able to focus on pastoral care and support after many months out of the classroom. A recent survey by the charity Parentkind found that 88% of parents surveyed thought that the lack of clarity about arrangements for exams had negatively affected their child’s mental health or wellbeing.
Several questions are omitted from today’s announcement. How will exams ensure that pupils, who have faced different levels of disruption, will be treated equally? What will the contingency plans be if future lockdowns occur? What information should schools be gathering in case exams are cancelled again and grades have to be estimated?
Serious consideration also has to be given to the impact that self-isolation of pupils and teachers will have, given the issues with the lack of access to tests that schools have told me about. Five education unions, including the National Education Union and the National Association of Head Teachers, have put forward a detailed proposal to help remedy these problems. They suggest mechanisms such as reducing the content in qualifications, or introducing greater optionality by which students could choose to answer questions on, for example, three out of five possible topics. That would help to ensure that the grades received were as fair as possible and recognise the different experiences pupils may have had over the year. The proposal also suggests contingency plans, so that students who were significantly impacted by the pandemic would still be able to receive a fair grade. Suggestions include reserve papers for students unable to sit exams on a particular date, but able to sit them shortly afterwards, and staged assessments before the summer exams, which could then be used if those exams had to be abandoned altogether.
I hope that we can get clarity from the Minister and his Department today, and that, going forward, they will be discussing with schools and unions how best to design the summer exam system. The Government’s approach to negotiations with the unions about the wider reopening of schools was wholly lacking; I hope they do not make the same mistake again when it comes to exams. I do not doubt the scale of this challenge, but given the Department’s recent performance and the lack of urgency with which it has treated this issue, it is more important than ever that the Department engage with schools and unions. By doing so, I believe a fair system could be delivered that would give the young people who have already been impacted so much by this pandemic a fair chance at future attainment, but that requires the Government to listen and to work with all those involved.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and it is of course a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves). As many colleagues have mentioned, the impact of the results scandal is still being felt by young people across the country: students who felt their life chances had been changed through no fault of their own, parents who spent hours on hold waiting to speak to someone in a university admissions office, and teachers who felt ignored by this Government and powerless to help their hard-working students.
Back in August, when the A-level results were published, I received correspondence from many angry constituents who had their results downgraded by the Government-approved algorithm. Barnsley College, which serves my constituency, said that, overall, 63% of pupils were downgraded against teacher predictions. This was in sharp contrast to pupils in more affluent areas and those who were in private education, whose grades were reported to have risen overall—that is the point that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), despite his private education, seems to have missed. Fortunately, the pressure that followed let to a Government U-turn, but young people in Barnsley East and across the country should never have been subjected to such an injustice, which in turn led to so much uncertainty regarding their university places and next steps.
The Government’s mishandling of this was nothing short of disastrous—a fiasco. Young people and their families were put through days of anxiety and uncertainty just because our Prime Minister and his Education Secretary were too stubborn to accept that using their algorithm was unfair and discriminatory. At the time, teachers reported to me that they were left feeling undervalued and ignored after their predicted grades were overruled. I accept that these are unprecedented times, but this should never have been allowed to happen, and I fully support calls for an investigation of what went wrong and how to ensure it is never repeated.
However, any investigation should take place alongside planning for exams in 2021. Our year 11 and year 13 GCSE, BTEC and A-level students face enormous pressure, trying to cram the lost six months of learning into an already crammed curriculum. Unless there is a rethink, they will have to complete up to 18 months of work in nine short months if they are to have any chance of following their desired educational career paths. I fully support the move to get students back into the classroom, but the Government have to acknowledge that this is so different from any other academic year, and our teachers’ calls for a rethink in how exams take place this school year should not be ignored.
As we realised from August’s fiasco, no one is better placed than our teachers on the frontline to judge what will happen if the Government fail to step in and make the required changes, before we hurtle headlong into another educational catastrophe. Pupil attendance is already significantly lower than in previous years, mainly due to bubbles collapsing, pupils isolating, suspected and confirmed covid cases, and rising anxieties and mental health challenges. Teachers are reporting fatigue such as they have never felt before in October, because of the stress of managing their and their pupils’ health and safety, and the added workload. However, one of the most important factors, which the Government appear completely to have overlooked, is the disparity between pupils from affluent areas and their less affluent neighbours.
Young people from more deprived areas are more likely to do worse in the 2021 exams if the Government do not step in with a sustainable, fair plan. As many schools and colleges begin to move back to online learning, it must be acknowledged that that disproportionately affects pupils who may not have the internet at home, who do not have access to a laptop, or who simply have a chaotic home life, so that finding a quiet space to work is almost impossible.
I welcome the Government scheme to provide laptops for disadvantaged children, but it does not go anywhere near far enough to ensure that no student or young person will miss out on vital learning as a result of the crisis. There are many students who are outside the Government eligibility criteria, who will simply fall through the cracks if the scheme is not extended. In July, it was reported that 80% of private schools were offering a full online suite of lessons, in contrast to just 8% of state schools. The outcome of the pandemic cannot be one where the richest survive. Steps must be taken to equalise the life chances of all who are due to take exams next summer. I pay tribute to the hard work of teachers across Barnsley East and the whole UK. These are unprecedented times and they call for unprecedented measures. The Government must listen to the professionals and act quickly to ensure that the life chances of the class of 2021 are not reduced.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to contribute to a debate where we have the wonderful leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who was a teacher and who, Members may not be aware, is also an excellent rugby player. We can all be grateful for that.
It is never easy waiting for exam results, but the young people of Hornsey and Wood Green spent their summer waiting for the results of exams that they never sat, which were determined by algorithms designed by someone who had never seen their work. This has been particularly challenging. Everyone accepts that setting grades was difficult in those unique circumstances, yet the Education Secretary had five months to prepare, and it was not as if warnings were not flagged. As has been mentioned, the report of the Education Committee went into quite a lot of detail:
“Pupils will carry these qualifications with them for their entire lives. Their calculated grades must be accurate. But we have concerns that the system described by Ofqual as the ‘fairest possible in the circumstances’ could be unfair for groups including disadvantaged pupils, BAME pupils, children looked after, and pupils with SEND.”
Never was a truer word spoken, yet all the hard work that Members of the House put into the report appears to have been completely ignored.
While the Prime Minister was holidaying in a wigwam, I joined the local students, in Parliament Square, in their fight for justice. Many I spoke to were distraught, terrified that they had lost their university places through no fault of their own, and unable to believe that they had been given grades lower than they had ever received throughout their education. Ludicrously, some students got a U, as though they had never been there—a U that related to a student at their school from the previous year. My local mental health trust has given me a figure of 20% for the increase in demand for mental health services, which is predominantly going to fall on the shoulders of our young people. Not only are we not prepared at that level; it seems that we are not prepared on the level of education either. We need to begin to predict the dreadful outcomes of covid now, and prepare for the mental health needs of the next generation, because they appear to me like the first world war generation—shellshocked, traumatised and in desperate need of comfort and support.
Eventually, the U-turn came. It was quite exciting watching television every day in the summer holidays, with Ofqual coming out, then the Department, and then Ofqual again. What was finally done was so late, and caused so much unnecessary distress, that, sadly, it seemed to symbolise the way the Government have approached the whole covid crisis. Tragically, many students decided to defer, which means that universities will be in a terrible place in a year’s time. Once again, they will have to turn down certain students. When a large number of students defer their university place for a year, the poor university ends up with a lot of applicants to process. Inevitably, some people will miss out. The endless pattern of incompetence is no way to run the country. Young people deserve to know why they were let down so badly, and 17-year-olds embarking on their final year of A-levels or BTECs need to know that it will not happen again.
I want briefly to comment on today’s announcement, because the Minister is in the Chamber. I shall take no more than 30 seconds, Mr Stringer. Would he please get the poor teachers around the table? They want desperately to discuss the proposals in today’s announcement. He should not just try to impose this from the top, because pupils should be treated fairly. Able pupils in schools should not just reflect the cohort from the year before; they should be taken seriously. The concept of exams needs to make allowance for the fact that some students are so nervous about sitting exams for which they have missed so much preparation that will they drop more difficult subjects that they are capable of doing, thereby missing out on good university places which will go to the same students, as they do every year. Let us try to fight this with a genuine vision of how we can allow students to be socially mobile, and allow those who are able to get places at good universities.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to speak in this timely debate.
One point on which we can all agree is that students have had an incredibly tough time this year. The petitions that we are debating raise several important questions about exams next year. The Government’s announcement today represents, I think it is fair to say, baby steps in the right direction, but we are left asking where are the serious actions that will help to stop a repeat of this summer’s fiasco. So far, the answer is to delay school exams by three weeks next summer, to give students more time to study. If those exams cannot go ahead, plan B is to push the schools to perform “rigorous mock exams” many months earlier to provide more data to determine grades. That is incredibly half-baked. Today, students and teachers have met the measures with, at best, scepticism and, at worst, derision. How can we push back school exams by three weeks to give more time for teaching, then basically bring them forward by five months by formalising mock exams?
Most mocks will take place early next year, and many students and teachers feel that they will have little time to cover this year’s syllabus, making a mockery of the Government’s measures to give more teaching time. I would like the Minister to give a firm commitment that no student will be tested on any subject that they have not learned. That is absolutely vital. I would like the Minister to explain why mocks are being used in this way, because the Government had previously dropped the idea of using them, so it is important that people understand what has changed. I would also like him to explain whether time will be provided to make sure that marking is done after the full exams.
That brings us to the second petition, which asks for the curriculum to be reduced, as teaching time is likely to be lost because of disruption. Students have lost at least five months of in-school teaching, and many of them are right to be concerned that some of this year’s mistakes may be repeated. Where there is increased interruption in teaching, we should give schools and teachers more input into those decisions on which parts of the curriculum should be prioritised. As hon. Members have said, many teachers have said that they were not consulted on today’s announcement, and they want to discuss it. Will the Minister make a commitment today that he will meet them very soon?
There are wider issues at play. Schools are warning that they may grind to a halt without access to covid tests, and without quick turnaround times for results. Many still do not have the resources and funding that they need to provide education from home for those who have to self-isolate. That is all the worse for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Today’s announcement is unbelievably thin. It could have been made weeks ago. Where is the independent assessment of what went wrong? Where is the scenario planning for next year? Saying that it will come later in the autumn is not good enough. The Government have had months to sort this out. What about our most vulnerable children—those who are clinically vulnerable, who are facing a life or death decision about whether they can return to school? When can we expect a comprehensive plan for these various challenges?
Students, parents and teachers are sick of the Government passing the buck and letting civil servants take the hit. Ofqual was not on the ballot paper last December; the Conservative party was. It is this Government who are accountable to the public, both for what went wrong and for how they are going to fix it.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this important debate.
I am proud that around 250 Leicester East residents were among the 300,000-plus people who signed the petition calling on the Government to improve the allocation of grades during the coronavirus pandemic. It is important for us all to keep in mind that pupils will carry these qualifications with them for their entire lives. We cannot allow young people in Leicester East, across Leicester and across the UK to be punished because of circumstances beyond their control, and yet there are widespread concerns that the system described by Ofqual as
“the fairest possible in the circumstances”
could be unfair for groups including disadvantaged pupils, African, Asian and minority ethnic pupils, children who are looked after and, as has been said, children on free school meals and pupils with special educational needs or disabilities. Ofqual must urgently identify whether these groups have been systematically disadvantaged by calculated grades and, if that is the case, Ofqual’s standardisation model must adjust the grades of affected pupils upwards.
Research by the University and College Union found that the grades of pupils from low-income families are more likely to be incorrectly predicted than those of their more affluent peers. High-attaining disadvantaged pupils are even more likely to be underpredicted compared with those from more affluent backgrounds, with Sutton Trust research concluding that the grades of 1,000 high-achieving disadvantaged students are underpredicted per year.
Tragically, racial inequalities exist alongside class discrimination at every stage of the education system. Research by the then Department for Business, Innovation and Skills found that black African and African-Caribbean A-level students had the lowest predicted grade accuracy, with only 39% of predicted grades accurate, while their white counterparts had the highest, at 53%. Amid the coronavirus crisis, it is therefore likely that the cancellation of A-levels will have a disproportionately negative impact on black students. The Government must work urgently with Ofqual to ensure that students are not discriminated against because of their background.
It is crucial that pupils are able to appeal their grades if they believe that bias or discrimination has occurred. Worryingly, research into grade prediction accuracy for university applicants has found that just 16% of applicants receive the grades they are predicted. I am concerned that Ofqual has not given enough thought to how accessible this route is to all pupils without support. Proving bias or discrimination would be an almost impossible threshold for any pupil to evidence. Disadvantaged pupils and those without family resources or wider support risk being shut out of this process. The Government, working with Ofqual, must urgently publish the evidence threshold for proving bias and discrimination and set out what evidence will be required and how they will support students through the appeals process.
Before I finish, I take this opportunity to send my solidarity to year 12 A-level students in Leicester and across the country who have taken strike action over the Government’s failure to provide adequate support to their cohort during the pandemic. Aaisha, one of the strike organisers from Leicester, says the Government have not done enough to support the future of this country. I could not agree more. Two thirds of the current Cabinet were privately educated, and yet they systematically deny working-class young people—especially from African, Asian and minority ethnic communities—the opportunities that they were afforded. The Government must urgently adopt a fairer means of allocating grades, to ensure that no one is unjustly left behind as a result of this pandemic.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Education has changed dramatically since the covid pandemic. I, too, am a former secondary school teacher. I feel deeply concerned about the disruption, challenges and stresses that teaching staff, school leaders and especially our young people had to go through, and that they continue to face. In Bath and across the country, our teachers, school staff and pupils, along with their families and carers, have done a truly amazing job, and I thank them all.
The exam results chaos caused great distress and disruption that could have been completely avoided. The Government, more worried about grade inflation than about fairness, let thousands of young people down. As I said at the time, teachers are far better judges of their pupils’ ability than are algorithms imposed by the Department for Education. Many young people’s aspirations and plans for their future were dashed. Once again, as we have heard already, students from disadvantaged backgrounds were disproportionately affected.
Today, the Government have announced that they will bring back exams in 2021, with a three-week delay. Having engaged this afternoon with school leaders in Bath, whom I trust in everything they say and do, I believe that that is the wrong decision. We have seen that teacher assessment works, and for the next academic year that is clearly the best option.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) did not take any interventions, but I wanted to ask him what lessons we should learn from Germany. I am always interested when people speak with great confidence about other countries without necessarily knowing the details. Germany does not have any national exams. It has a devolved education system. Indeed, many exam grades are awarded through teacher assessment, which proves that teachers know best and we can rely solidly on their assessments of their pupils. I believe we should look at that as the best option for next year, at the least.
Many learners are still catching up. The help announced in June for learners from disadvantaged backgrounds has been delayed, and in some cases is still not in place. The education of young people is constantly in danger of being disrupted. If some members of a group or cohort have to self-isolate because of an outbreak, young learners find themselves back at home. Those who are due to sit the exams next year already worry that the mock exams might end up counting as the actual results. That adds another layer of stress that teachers and pupils do not deserve.
Behind every exam result is a young life, full of promise. We cannot begin to know what toll the A-level and GCSE results fiasco will ultimately take on the self-esteem, mental health, personal development and earning capacity of those who have been impacted. On behalf of the students and teachers of Bath, I call on the Government to bring back teacher assessment for 2021. It is simply not realistic to assume that we can return to business as usual for this academic year.
That is also true of Ofsted inspections. I understand that Ofsted inspections are due to resume in January. Schools are simply not ready for that. Many schools have finely tuned social distancing arrangements in place. The additional presence of inspectors at the school, when they are not normally part of the school community, adds extra worry and anxiety. How should schools plan for that? Is it right that schools should have to have an extra contingency plan in case of unexpected inspections, to add to their already stretched capacity? I hope that the Government are considering that too, and that they will put back Ofsted inspections until at least September 2021.
As cases rises, so too does the risk of local and national lockdowns. Pupils may not have seen the last of home learning. In that eventuality, the Government must support all schools to deliver high quality education to every child in this country. Give schools the space they need, and trust teachers and school leaders to be the best judges of the young people who are their responsibility.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank the 551 petitioners from my constituency who have signed the petitions.
Our young people have shown extraordinary resilience as they have battled the traumas of the past six months, not least when they were presented with a mutant algorithm that downgraded so many of their expectations after the extensive work that they and their teachers had done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) rightly said, it is so important to listen not only to pupils, but to teachers. She is not just an excellent rugby player; given the way she tackled the debate, the Minister should surely step out of the way and listen to what she had to say.
Sadly, the upheaval continues for too many young people as infection rates soar. After securing a place at the university of their choice, they now find themselves locked down, isolated and not knowing what comes next. Young people really need a clear plan to see them through this year securely, and the Government need to come up with that plan now. One thing that this summer has done is to shine a spotlight on our whole education system. The inequality has been exposed. Pupils who took the BTEC line of assessment had such a delay in their results coming out—that was a real inequality for them. What happened this summer also demonstrated that reliance on a single form of assessment—the exam—at such a time has created significant risk. When the Minister knew about the inequality that was coming through, as my parliamentary question exposed, why did he still go ahead and publish those results, and not hold off and put the corrections in the system? That could have removed a lot of the trauma and stress that our young people had to experience this summer.
The catch-up support that the Government promised—the covid catch-up programme and the national tutoring programme—has not arrived, partly because they are trying to procure a national contract with some private organisations. We know how well that has gone with testing. Local authorities have the relationships and the means to deliver this, and they know the needs of local schools. I suggest to the Minister that he moves that support to local authorities, as York is requesting—the excellence of York’s education system is well known—so that they can deliver it to schools. That would be a first step forward. Today’s announcement that six months’ catch-up can be achieved by having a three-week extension to exams is just unreal.
Further episodes of isolation are continuing as we speak. This morning I was told that a constituent who is due to sit exams this week has had to self-isolate for the second time this term, resulting in three weeks of absence in this half-term alone. How can she be fairly assessed against her peers, who have perhaps been in school the whole time? The same applies to pupils who have been shielding at home because they are extremely clinically vulnerable.
Today in York, 50 more pupils from just one secondary school have been sent home to self-isolate. We know that this year will be a very disrupted one, but the scenario planning that we would expect to have had from the Government by now has not been forthcoming. The Government really need to recognise the reality of the situation. I trust that the Minister will let us know exactly when we will hear what the future holds for young people. We cannot get to the end of the year and have some young people self-isolating when exams are due. Young people who are already stressed today will be even more stressed by that point in the calendar, so we need to build flexibility into the system now.
I support the call from the trade unions and others to have a broader choice of questions in exam papers so that young people have options as to which ones they answer, because we will not get all the content into this year. I would be interested in the Minister’s views on that. We should also have a broader assessment process that is properly moderated and planned for—not like it was last year—to ensure it can accommodate people.
If we are honest, we will acknowledge that exams are a crude assessment tool. I am glad to hear about the experiences of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for whom exams were the solution that allowed him to show his academic prowess. However, we know that that is certainly not the case for other people. How can we really assess an individual’s whole learning journey in a few hours? Different people respond in different ways to assessment, and I believe that we need to see how young people can thrive through the assessment process and show off their capabilities, not least because exams are currently the only tool on which their future depends.
The acquisition of knowledge is so important. Understanding how to navigate ourselves through this complex world with the necessary skills to chart our course and to accomplish our goal is the value of education. However, if we never get to enjoy the journey, mature as a person, and gain confidence and the application of the tools required, what has been achieved through our education?
A hybrid assessment tool of moderated assessment, project work, problem-solving challenges, assignment and exams would stretch pupils further and assess their broad range of skills, without benefiting only those who succeed at exams. At the moment, recovery curricula are being put in place in some schools, but that is not universal. Will the Minister say whether more attention will be paid to that? I welcome how some schools—I believe even Eton is doing this—are putting things like farming and art into the curriculum, yet so many of our state schools do not have that opportunity. If that benefits some kids, it should benefit all kids. That is what we should look at.
While mastering data management and league tables might be important to Government, our young people’s mental health is suffering more stress than ever before. We have heard that throughout this debate. If we are serious about developing confident and well-rounded young people, building an economy fit for the future, improving productivity and being world leaders again, we should equip our young people with a curriculum that helps all of them to soar and not to stumble.
Knowledge is one thing, but skills to know how to research and critically appraise information are of far greater value. We should therefore redress the assessment system, because before an exam paper, some people thrive and some people dive. Education must therefore be about stretching and challenging young minds and providing young people with the opportunity to show off their gifts and talents to shape our future.
Let us not crush this opportunity with an exam, particularly when there are so many unknowns in the equation. Let us reward our young people with the right assessment tool so that they can have confidence in their learning now, and in the assessment to come at the end of the year.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this debate. This issue has affected thousands of our constituents, and I thank the more than 1,000 of my constituents who supported both petitions. I also thank the teachers, the other workers in the school system and everyone who has played a part in keeping our young people safe as they returned to school.
That happened despite the Government—despite their failure to prepare over the summer and despite warnings from education unions, parents and Members of Parliament across different parties. The fiasco over the summer demonstrated a level of incompetence that frankly beggars belief. I hope that the Minister, with his colleagues, will ensure that lessons are learned from what happened and went wrong. It is not enough just to blame the institutions—Ofqual and others—and not to take responsibility. If politicians are going to blame such institutions, they ought to ensure that Ministers are responsible. Ultimately, what happens is down to ministerial responsibility.
Teachers, students and their families have faced nothing but anxiety all the way through to the exam period and then through the summer. The Education Secretary had his head buried in the sand. The reactive, make-it-up-as-you-go-along approach to handling the crisis over the summer—along with others—has damaged young people’s future and left many parents wondering what will happen to their children.
In my constituency, where 55% of children live below the poverty line, although the Government promised that young people would be given laptops and support, many have not received the help they need. Up and down the country, many young people who suffer disabilities have not had the help that they desperately need, and that is no different in constituencies such as mine. It is important for the Minister to address the question of getting the help and the kit that young people need but have not received. I would be grateful if he provided some facts about how many young people are still to receive that. The reports are that, in constituencies such as mine, they do not have the laptops and are not getting the internet access that they need and that would make a big difference.
Findings from the FFT Education Data Lab show that kids from disadvantaged schools are now 22% behind those from advantaged schools, and there is a big differential in the impact, with ethnic minority young people significantly worse off. Those in the SEND category need much more help. I hope the Minister will address that point.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the issue of school results being based on results from previous years, which is a massive problem. I have come across a number of cases in my constituency. In one, a student received three unclassified grades when he was predicted two As and a B. That was to do nothing to do with him; it was the algorithm making judgments based on past exam results. There is an inherent problem with that and there must be an inquiry into what went wrong.
It is scandalous that the Government chose a system that discriminated between private schools and state schools, against minority ethnic groups and, ultimately, between social classes. That is shocking. Nobody ever thought that could happen in this day and age. We must learn the lessons from what went wrong. I hope the Minister will not only give us assurances but demonstrate precisely how he will ensure that that does not happen again.
The National Foundation for Educational Research found that, while the average learning loss was three months for all pupils, it was four months for children from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. We have seen the differential impact on different groups, with poorer families made worse off by the both the economic crisis and the health pandemic and its impact. We have seen the differential impact on BAME communities and, as others have said, on those with disabilities, particularly children. We need special initiatives from the Government to support the groups that have been hit very hard. Whatever our analysis of what happened over the summer, that is surely something we can all agree on. We need to ensure that young people are not condemned by what has happened in the pandemic and that their future is protected. What happened this year was avoidable and lessons could have been learned. Action could have been taken faster.
My final point is about test and trace. We need to ensure that it is working properly. I have reports from schools in my constituency of whole year groups being sent home because test and trace is not adequate. That cannot be good for ensuring that young people get the education they deserve and need. The Government need to get a grip on that, otherwise it will get worse and become an even bigger problem during the exam period.
I will conclude, because I am conscious that the Front-Bench speakers need to come in, but I hope that the Minister will have clear answers and give assurances to our constituents that lessons will be learned and that there will be an inquiry into what went wrong, so that we have a proper line of sight on that. The Government can then be held to account properly, to ensure that the young people with exams coming up next year get a better outcome.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on securing this important debate. We have had some really important contributions from Members. My hon. Friend gave an excellent speech, grounded in the realities faced by pupils and teachers, and called on the Government to listen to their voices. She rightly said that clarity is paramount for everybody involved.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Hew Merriman) called on the Government to consider looking at coursework marked by exam boards. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke eloquently on the confusion and chaos that the Government have presided over this year and the heartbreaking stories of university places being withdrawn. He also set out how students from disadvantaged backgrounds were most likely to be adversely affected and how Ministers were responsible for hard-baking disadvantage into the system. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) spoke passionately about the injustice visited on her constituents as a result of the Government’s discriminatory actions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) expressed her concerns about the impact that Government actions would have on students’ subject choices.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) paid tribute to pupils who have shown extraordinary resilience this year, and she spoke of the injustice visited on BTEC students, who had to face such long delays before receiving their results. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) set out quite clearly that the Government’s incompetence over the summer beggars belief, and that they should learn from their mistakes. She also spoke eloquently about the disadvantage that children in her constituency face.
The petitions that we have been debating today each received almost 150,000 signatures, so it is clear that these issues are of immense public interest. The Government have presided over a summer of chaos, incompetence and confusion, and their failure to effectively manage the exams and assessments processes for summer 2020 caused enormous anxiety for many children and young people, as well as their families and teachers.
There were problems from the beginning, with the way in which the Government decided that pupils’ grades would be calculated. According to Ofqual, Ministers were repeatedly warned about this issue. At a meeting of the Education Committee in September, 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 estimated grades in a way that would be fair for all of this year’s students. She went on to say that
“Everyone, throughout the process, was aware of the risks”,
and referred to a paper of the general public sector ministerial implementation group on 1 May, which highlighted the risk of widespread dissatisfaction with the grades awarded among individual students, schools and colleges, and the risk to public confidence. She also said that Ofqual briefed No.10 on 7 August and held regular meetings throughout this period with the Minister for School Standards.
After days of confusion following the A-level results on 13 August, when nearly 40% of students’ centre-assessed grades were adjusted downwards, the Secretary of State finally listened to young people, their parents, their teachers and the Labour party, and allowed centre-assessed grades to be used.
Labour tried through an Opposition day debate and a vote on the Floor of the House to get the Government to be open and transparent about what Ministers knew, when they knew it and what they did about it when they were warned of the difficulties. Full disclosure of this information by the Government would at least have enabled students, their families and their teachers to see what went wrong and why. Although Conservative MPs voted the motion down, the Government’s chaotic handling of the exams process really dented confidence in our examination system.
There are now questions about what happens next summer and beyond. Petition 320772 called on the Government to reduce curriculum content for year 10 and 12 students who will sit exams next year. It argued that the loss of classroom-based learning cannot be effectively compensated for by the provision of remote learning activities, and that reducing the content will give students the opportunity to sit their exams equitably. In August, Labour called for A-level and GCSE exams in 2021 to be pushed back to June, to give pupils a better chance to catch up on lost teaching time. On 1 September, the Secretary of State indicated that the Government would indeed implement a delay to exams. Then there was a long period of silence from the Department.
What were the Government doing when they should have been providing much-needed clarity to teachers and students about assessment for 2021? The silence lasted for five and a half weeks, until just two days ago, on 10 October, when press reports suggested that the Secretary of State was expected to announce a three-week delay in the start of next summer’s exams, alongside a requirement for schools to hold mock exams in controlled conditions earlier in the year, with exam-style invigilating, marking and grading. According to those reports, the mock grades could then be used to assess results in regions or centres where pupils’ exam preparations had been severely disrupted by coronavirus outbreaks, or in the event of their being unable to sit exams in the summer.
The Government’s announcement today about the exams for next summer, along with those press reports, raise a number of questions. Can the Minister say why speculative reports about next year’s exams appeared in the press before an official announcement was made? Why has it taken the Government almost half of the first school term to come up with this statement? Can the Minister elaborate on reports in the press referring to tensions between the Department and Ofqual? Will he also set out the full range of options for next summer’s exams presented to the Department by Ofqual?
The Government have also announced that they will engage widely with the sector over the next six weeks to identify any risks to exams at national, local and individual student level, and to consider measures needed to address any potential disruption. That is really quite remarkable. What have the Government been doing, and why have they not been doing this already? Students and teachers really cannot wait any longer for the clarity that they need, yet today, as the leaves outside are turning golden brown, the Government are telling them that more detail will be published later in the autumn. Precisely when during this season does the Minister have in mind?
The incompetence of the Government is breathtaking. We need a Government who are able to plan effectively for next year. We do not know how much more school-based teaching time may be lost. However, we know it is likely that any such loss will be different for different schools and cohorts of pupils. A group of headteachers who wrote to me last week highlighted that very point, and said that:
“Substantial adjustments need to be made at subject level that will ensure those in areas of the country that have been most badly affected by the virus are not further disadvantaged by an assessment process that assumes that problems experienced have been spread equally”.
What plans do the Government have to address the matter? As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves) has pointed out, five education unions have come up with a proposal for awarding GCSE, AS and A-level grades in 2021. Together, the ASCL, the National Association of Head Teachers, the NASUWT, the National Education Union and the National Governance Association have set out recommendations that include commissioning an independent review of what happened this year to learn from when planning what to do next year, and publishing contingency plans as soon as possible to outline how students who are unable to sit exams in the summer, or whose education is significantly disrupted, will nevertheless receive robust, reliable grades next year. What assessment have the Government made of the unions’ recommendations?
Today’s announcement could have been made weeks ago. The consultation with the sector that the Government now say they will carry out over the next six weeks, to consider measures needed to address any potential disruption of learning, should have happened already. The fact that the Government say that they will publish more detail in the autumn will not give students and teachers reassurance. It will make them anxious at having to wait even longer for answers from the Government.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Minister, we have marginally more time than we expected. I would ask you to ensure that there are two or three minutes left at the end for winding-up remarks.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I certainly will, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and to respond to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). I congratulate her on securing the debate, and on the way she introduced it.
Coronavirus has been causing huge disruption to young people and their families, schools and the wider teaching community. The Government have always made the education of young people a priority and, as we all continue to adapt and to progress through the pandemic, we are determined to make sure that, when the time comes, young people are able to take the next step in their lives with the skills and qualifications that they need. At the same time, we must do whatever we can to reduce the pressure on all those studying at school or college during an incredibly stressful time. As many Members have said in the debate, too much teaching time has been lost in the past few months. We are determined that we cannot risk any child’s education being put on hold. Today’s announcement of a three-week delay is only one component, designed to increase teacher time and help students to catch up. The changes proposed by Ofqual to the assessment process, and the £1 billion catch-up fund, are also part of that process.
I stress that I understand clearly that the grading situation in summer 2020 caused great stress and uncertainty. The Education Secretary and I both understand the distress that it caused young people and their parents. We 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 outbreak. We were in uncharted territory in devising an alternative system. The overriding aim was to ensure that all students received just recognition of their efforts and that they would be able to progress to the next stage of their lives in the knowledge that their qualifications would have the same value as in previous years.
We worked closely with the independent qualifications regulator, Ofqual, as it developed a process for arriving at calculated grades through a standardisation model, but it became clear that the model was throwing up far too many inconsistent and unfair outcomes for students that might not have reflected their hard work or ability. It was not reasonable to expect all those to be dealt with through an appeals system. The outcomes also severely undermined public confidence in the system, so Ofqual and the Government took immediate action. We announced on 17 August the decision to revert to centre assessment grades for all students, or the calculated grade if this was higher. That was the best outcome in the difficult circumstances we were in, and the fairest for students and their families. GCSE results were recalculated on that basis and returned to schools on time and within 48 hours of that decision being made. A-level results were also recalculated and reissued.
Stephanie Peacock
The Minister said that students should receive the fairest grade, but 63% of pupils in Barnsley had their grades downgraded, compared with 40% nationally, while many private school pupils’ grades went up. He says the Government acted quickly, but they saw this happen in Scotland and did not anticipate it happening here; they did not take action and waited days. This is genuinely affecting the future of many hundreds of thousands of young people. We need to make sure it does not happen again.
Nick Gibb
That is why the decision was taken on 17 August to revert to whichever was highest of calculated grades or centre assessment grades. It is also one reason why we determined that exams will go ahead this year, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, they are the fairest system of assessing pupils’ ability and the work they have done in the two years of their course. Our priority now is to ensure that next year’s exams proceed fairly and efficiently and that students gain the qualifications they deserve. That is the view of the teacher and headteacher unions, including, I say to the hon. Member for Gower, the NEU, as expressed in its letter to the Department on 2 October, which said:
“The government is right, in our view, to pursue a ‘Plan A’ which would enable all students to sit exams in summer 2021. Students in Year 11 and 13 are already more than halfway through their courses, and must be enabled to complete those courses…As these qualifications are mainly designed to be assessed by final examination, it is right that these exams should go ahead if possible.”
Rushanara Ali
Will the Minister explain the contingency plans in the event that testing and tracing is not as effective as it needs to be and exams are disrupted? What is plan B?
Nick Gibb
We are working with Ofqual on viable assessment options based on a number of different scenarios, and we will share further details of those in good time. We asked Ofqual to support the Government in developing these arrangements, engaging closely with schools, colleges, teachers, exam boards, unions and universities. The planning and discussions are ongoing, and once we reach a conclusion, we will publish the results.
The hon. Lady also raised issues about remote education. The vast majority of children are back in school, but if face-to-face education is disrupted, we have made 250,000 laptops available, building on the more than 220,000 laptops already delivered to those in need. We have also made resources available to deliver online education and we are funding the Oak National Academy, which provides hundreds of online lessons for schools, as well as webinars and guidance for teachers on how to deliver remote education in the most effective way.
Catherine West
The Minister is being extremely generous with his time. Does he accept that it is particularly difficult for many students on reduced incomes at further education colleges to pay for internet access or devices? It is hard to write an essay on a mobile phone. What does he propose to do in those cases?
Nick Gibb
As the Secretary of State said today, there is flexibility in the bursaries available to be used for those for those purposes.
We have been working continuously with the exams regulator, Ofqual, the exam boards and groups representing teachers, schools and colleges on the best approach to exams and assessments in 2021, and we will continue to work together to ensure that exams take place next year. However, we recognise that students continue to experience disruption to their education because of covid-19, and we need to take account of that, which we are doing. In July, Ofqual consulted on a range of possible adaptations to GCSE, AS-level and A-level exams and assessments next year on a subject by subject basis, with the overriding priority of ensuring that the exams and assessments are fair. In particular, the consultation proposed a range of ways to free up additional teaching time, including the possibility of a slight delay to the exams timetable, which we have now announced, and to accommodate any public health requirements next year.
On 3 August, Ofqual published its decisions on the changes proposed in the consultation, which include changes to assessments in some subjects: for example, removing the requirement to record the spoken language assessment in GCSE English language, and allowing GCSE students to observe practical science work rather than undertake it. In some subjects with a high volume of content, such as GCSE history, ancient history and English literature, Ofqual has confirmed that exam boards should change how they assess students next year by allowing a choice of topics in the exams. Those changes will reduce pressure on teachers and students in the next academic year; individually, some may appear modest, but we believe they will have a significant impact when combined across subjects, and with the three-week delay and the £1 billion catch-up fund.
As it was this year, the most important principle is that students due to sit exams and assessments next summer should be enabled to progress successfully to the next stage of education or employment. Each of the elements of content that forms the foundation for GCSE, AS-level and A-level qualifications is important, and while the Government were clear that the content of GCSEs and A-levels will not be changed in 2021, allowing a choice of topics in certain subjects with a high volume of content will release teaching time, and support students and their schools or colleges. As the Education Secretary has confirmed, there will be no further subject-level changes to exams and assessments this year. That confirmation gives teachers, school leaders and pupils clarity on what will be assessed in the exams next summer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle was right to raise the issue of lost teaching time, and we recognise that students, including those who will sit exams next year, will have experienced disruption. That is why we have the £1 billion catch-up fund, as well as the tuition fund for 16 to 19-year-olds, from which up to £96 million will be allocated for disadvantaged students. To conclude, our approach next year will ensure that young people can prepare for exams with confidence and receive the extra teaching time and support that students need to enable them to do their best in their exams, so that they can progress on to the next stage of their education.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his response, and say for the sake of correctness that I took my comments from an immediate email that was received from the NEU this afternoon.
To point out a couple of things, I know that the petitioners, Jakia Ali and Rafia Hussain, will be very pleased that we have discussed this today and that they have seen some action, although maybe not exactly what they wanted. I also say to the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) that I am sure my son would also have done better if he had sat the exams—it is matter of learning style, I think—and exams are important, but we have to remember that we are in a pandemic. It is important that we have a contingency, and the feeling behind this petition was not to have a go at the private education system, but to call for transparency and equality across all education. That did not happen this summer, and we and the Government have to ensure that it does not happen again; also, the buck stops with the Government, not with Ofqual.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 306773 and 320772 relating to exams during Covid-19.
China’s Policy on its Uyghur Population
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 300146 relating to China’s policy on its Uyghur population.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. This e-petition was started by Zayd Amjad. It asks that the Government impose sanctions on China over its treatment of Uyghur Muslims. Uyghurs are a Turkic ethnic group native to Xinjiang, China. They are reported to be subject to mass detention, surveillance, restriction of religious and cultural identities, as well as other gross human rights abuses. Over 1 million Uyghurs have been forced into re-education camps.
In the international community, awareness has been growing of the treatment of Uyghur people, and I know that it is a cause of concern for many on both sides of the House. We have already had debates in this House on the UK’s response to China’s treatment of its Uyghur population, notably an Adjournment debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and a Westminster Hall debate led by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I also understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) has written this weekend to the Foreign Secretary expressing her views. I thank all of them for bringing this important subject to the House’s attention.
The strength of feeling in favour of upholding of human rights across the world has been shown by the nearly 150,000 signatures on the petition. At the most recent UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, the UK led on a formal joint statement setting out concern about the situations in Hong Kong and Xinjiang, with the support of 27 international partners. The petitioners argue that despite public pressure from the UN and growing public awareness, nothing substantial or concrete has been done to resolve the crisis and help the Uyghur people. The petition therefore argues that the use of Magnitsky sanctions is the most appropriate course of action.
Reports suggest that the Chinese Government are deliberately creating living conditions calculated to bring an end to the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. They include imposing measures intended to prevent births, and causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group. The suffering that the Uyghur Muslims have undergone, and sadly continue to undergo, is nothing short of horrifying. The Uyghur people who have escaped to Turkey have given interviews detailing the fear that they lived in in China; they tell of families torn apart, torture in camps, invasive surveillance, and forced and sometimes unknown sterilisation. Detainees in Xinjiang re-education camps have reported beatings, electric shocks and sleep and food deprivation. Reports of women who have faced forced sterilisation and abortions are alarmingly widespread.
The campaign against the Uyghurs is total. Many are forced into factory labour and transported to factories for up to a year before being allowed to return to their families. According to a report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Uyghurs are working in factories,
“Under conditions that strongly suggest forced labour”.
Conservative estimates suggest that more than 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang to work in factories from 2017 to 2019. One factory is given as a case study in the report. It is
“equipped with watchtowers, barbed-wire fences and police guard boxes.”
The image is dystopian, yet all too familiar for students of modern history. Reports of the sites, discipline and workers’ days read more like a prison than a place of work. They are constantly monitored and threatened with longer stints in factories if they do not comply.
The surveillance is total. China already takes its infamous mass surveillance to another level when policing its Uyghur population. Movement is restricted and phones and behaviours monitored in minute detail. Uyghurs living in China have no privacy. They are even required to submit biometric data to the police. Social media activity, travel and even which door they use to enter their house are all tracked by the police. Identification cards must be swiped in schools, banks and parks. No movement goes untracked.
The Chinese Government have justified the existence of camps and surveillance as a part of measures designed to prevent religious extremism, but it is not just religious extremism that the Chinese Government target; it is any practising of Islam at all. The events in Xinjiang are a threat to religious freedom throughout the world. Mosques have been destroyed, and halal and Ramadan banned. The signs of religious radicalism laid out include common behaviour among devout Uyghur such as the wearing of long beards, the study of Arabic and praying outside mosques. Even those who give up alcohol or cigarettes have been branded extremists and are noted by the authorities. Uyghur Muslims do not have the right to their religion, to their bodies, or to freedom of expression. The system is policed through directives given to officials in Xinjiang. The directives do not mention judicial procedures, but call for the detention of anyone who displays so-called “symptoms” of radicalism or anti-Government views. The international community should be gravely concerned.
The petition calls for action and asks the Government to take any necessary steps to stop such breaches of human rights. It specifically calls for the use of Magnitsky sanctions, named after the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was arrested and charged after uncovering Russian tax officials had defrauded Hermitage Capital, a company he was advising. In jail, Mr Magnitsky was refused medical treatment, and there is evidence he was beaten. Sadly, he sadly died in police custody in 2009. Since that time, his former employer, Bill Browder, has campaigned for the implementation of Magnitsky sanctions across the world. He argues that individual sanctions act as a more effective deterrent than broad-based sanctions, which often have the most impact on the poorest in society, not on privileged Government officials.
Notably, the first Magnitsky sanctions were enacted by the United States in 2012. Congress passed the world’s first Magnitsky Act after efforts by the late Senator John McCain. The Act imposed sanctions on a list of Russian officials who were believed to be responsible for serious human rights violations, freezing any US assets that they held and banning them from entry into the United States. The UK implemented its version just this year. It applies to human rights violators around the world. Our laws allow sanctions such as banning travel to the UK and the freezing of assets of listed individuals.
The Magnitsky sanctions are effective because sterling is a valuable global currency to hold. By having their assets frozen in Britain, sanctioned individuals are unable to have assets or continue to do their business. The sanctions also come with the stigma of no longer being allowed to enter the country or to own residences. The addition of names to the list of sanctioned individuals is in the power of the Foreign Secretary. Those who can be sanctioned include people who act on behalf of a state to violate other human rights, such as the right not to be subject to torture, the right to be free from slavery or forced labour and, above all, the right to life. The Government have already used such powers to sanction the killers of the Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in the Saudi embassy in Istanbul. Also sanctioned were Russian officials who were allegedly involved in the mistreatment of Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow jail.
Crucially, we have sanctioned organisations that are involved in forced labour in North Korea. Given the evidence that the Uyghur population are being used for forced labour in Xinjiang, I see no reason why similar sanctions should not be taken out on organisations that benefit from this labour. In fact, our American allies have already implemented sanctions on Chinese Government agencies and senior officials who run companies and farms in Xinjiang province. The suffering of the Uyghur Muslims is rightly receiving international attention.
As the petition mentions, the UN has already made statements regarding the treatment of the Uyghur people. The UN statement demanded that the Chinese Government comply with international obligations to respect human rights and freedom of religion. It also called for China to allow UN human rights monitors access to detention centres in order to ensure that human rights standards are being met. Outside Europe, countries also publicly opposed China’s policy in Xinjiang. Malaysia declined to deport Uyghur asylum seekers back to China in 2019, and Turkey’s Foreign Minister condemned China for its treatment of Muslims in Xinjiang.
Despite the announcements by the UN and the British Government’s expressed outrage at China’s policies in Xinjiang, nothing is changing. The British Government therefore need to realise that more must be done. In response to the petition, they have said:
“We have grave concerns about the gross human rights abuses being perpetrated in Xinjiang.”
Although I am pleased to see the Foreign Secretary speak out against human rights abuses, now is the time for action. Although I understand that imposing sanctions on individuals is a difficult process, the petitioners and I ask that it is expediated as a matter of urgency.
Along with other countries at the UN, the UK has condemned China’s actions, yet Uyghur Muslims in China continue to face persecution. The next steps therefore must be taken to oppose China’s treatment of Uyghurs. The Government have said that they
“will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to change their approach in Xinjiang and respect international human rights norms,”
but they are not speculating about future sanction designations. Their argument for this is that it
“may reduce the impact of those future designations.”
Concern over the treatment of Uyghur Muslims is widespread in Britain. The Muslim Council of Britain has urged the Government to take strong action. In a letter to the Foreign Secretary, it voices its fears that, without tangible actions, the abuses will not stop and more lives will be lost.
Our country takes pride in its commitment to uphold human rights and to fight for equality. To that end, the Government should aim not only to confront China over its treatment of the Uyghurs, but to encourage others to do the same. To do nothing in the face of such human rights abuses is to allow the continuing suffering of many. We have an abundance of evidence in the form of leaked documents, satellite imagery and the harrowing testimony of victims. We cannot continue to listen to the mounting evidence and do nothing substantial with it.
The petition urges the Government not just to speculate on the sanctions, but to act. As I mentioned, America has already taken that step, and we should be looking to do the same. Sanctions are stronger when more people enforce them. It is our duty to protect those whose human rights are being violated. China is undeniably an economic powerhouse, but we cannot let its strength in world economics shield it so as to allow atrocities and human rights violations.
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Before we move on, I point out that one speaker, the hon. Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), has withdrawn and, as a result, we have been able to insert between the hon. Members for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) and for Henley (John Howell) the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). She and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) will of course realise that they may not speak from where they are sitting at the moment. One seat is available on the horseshoe, if either of them wants it, although the hon. Member for Isle of Wight might need to smarten up before he takes his seat there.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I hope that I am suitably smart to continue—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am glad. That is very kind of you, Mr Gray.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on a powerful speech to begin this brilliant debate. It is important that he laid out many of the issues before us, and he did so with great power and oratory. I commend him for that. This is not an issue that should in any way divide those of us who are present today, I hope, but rather it will unite us, in the best traditions of this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) asked to be recommended to the debate, although he was unable to join it. I said I would do so, if you do not mind him being on the record, Mr Gray. It is by the by, because he will not be coming to speak—you do not need to worry about that.
The key thing to say is that the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—now formed of 18 countries, from east to west around the world, on the left and on the right—helped to sponsor Adrian Zenz’s first report on the Uyghurs. I am not saying that people were not aware of the issue, but the report has reignited it with some of his findings. The findings come from official Chinese documents that relate directly to individual officials—I will come back to that, in response to the point made by the hon. Member for Islwyn about Magnitsky sanctions, because there are individuals party to this named in the papers by the Chinese Government.
Adrian Zenz made the point clearly that at least 1 million Uyghurs—up to nearly 3 million—have been detained in Xinjiang in the re-education camps. I will not go into the details about the camps, because the hon. Gentleman made those clear, but detainees reported often being subject to forced labour, political indoctrination and torture. Almost 400 internment camps have been built, with dozens more still under development and yet to be built.
We all saw the film that was shown to the Chinese ambassador on “The Andrew Marr Show”. The ambassador preferred not to recognise anything said to him, but the reality is that those things were redolent of a time that we thought had gone—treatment of human beings that, looking back in history, we thought we had finally banished, but not so. The hon. Member for Islwyn made all those points about the treatment of the Uyghurs, the torture, and the forced sterilisation of Uyghur women, which was exposed in those documents and is a shocking tale, and the preferment of non-ethnically Uyghur in the Uyghur territories. All are a terrible indictment.
I want to raise something else, because the long hand of those involved in such repression reaches out way beyond China now. About 5,000 Uyghurs live in Australia, most of them former refugees and their families. They told a parliamentary inquiry about frequent intimidation and harassment, such as WeeChat calls from family members back in China that were held in the presence of Chinese law-enforcement people, warning Uyghurs in Australia not to speak unfavourably about the Chinese Government lest something happen to those family members.
One Uyghur received a message from the Chinese Ministry of Public Security after attending a Tiananmen Square memorial, warning that his actions would have an impact on his family. The wife of the president of the Uyghur Association of Victoria said:
“I have left my homeland but I continue to live in fear. If I speak out for my people inside my homeland, I am afraid of retaliation on my family left behind. If I don’t speak out, I feel guilty of keeping the freedom and democracy all just for myself in a free country.”
That is shocking. We know beyond doubt that what is being done to the Uighur population in Xinjiang province is, in my view, a form of genocide. It is a deliberate attempt to eradicate a whole ethnic group.
They are not alone. Only a week ago I held a debate about similar things that are happening to Tibetans. During that debate, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) told me that in Inner Mongolia we are beginning to see the start of exactly the same process. This is not a one-off; it is policy that comes straight down from the Chinese Communist party and the Government. It is their way of supressing any potential angry rows, debates or pressure, and it is appalling.
We know about all this stuff. I mentioned the birth suppression and the way in which population growth rates have fallen by 84% in the two largest Uyghur prefectures between 2015 and 2018, and it declined further in 2019. Such activities could meet the term genocide—I believe that they do. We accept religious freedoms and freedom of speech, which are normal here, but now alien in China.
If one adds those factors to the way that China is behaving in Hong Kong—with the arrest of peaceful protestors, their movement back to China for an unfair hearing and the likelihood of their never being seen again—its threats towards Taiwan, its involvement in taking over the South China sea, against the UN’s own statements about its lack of any historic presence in the area, and its clashes with the Indian army on the border with India, then we are beginning to see a pattern of arrogant and determined behaviour by a Government who care nothing about the reaction of the international community.
What can we do? The hon. Member for Islwyn touched on the Magnitsky amendments that we have made that apply to officials. The Minister knows that I think there is now enough evidence from Xinjiang and the official documents to move on many of those officials. I accept that they are not the top people, but that will send a strong signal to the Government that we, and the rest of the free world, will no longer tolerate it.
That gives us all that we need to start. The House of Lords has added new clause 68 to the Trade Bill. I publicise that here because it is important. I hope and believe that we will support the new clause when the Bill returns to the Commons. The clause makes it clear that we cannot trade with counties that are guilty of genocide. Our High Court will make the decision about whether there is enough evidence. We will no longer have to worry about going to the UN to watch the Chinese and their allies block that; that will allow us to do it independently. Under the charter we have a responsibility to act as a nation.
Mr Gray, I will stop now as I know that other Members wish to speak. There are a huge number of areas in which we can act, not just in Magnitsky. We can implement sanctions and mount evidence suggesting violations specified by the global human rights sanctions regulations. We can ensure that we implement sanctions against officials who are responsible in other areas, such as Tibet and even Hong Kong. We need to act in line with the petition, which has given us clear evidence that the British public have formed their own opinion. If we are not careful, we will be running behind them, rather than leading them. Our purpose, I believe, is to call this out and no longer accept it. As the hon. Member for Islwyn said, no matter how much trade is worth to us, it is not worth that for the loss of those lives.
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. We have 45 minutes until I call the two Front Benchers. Without applying a formal time limit, there are 13 speakers, which means about four or five minutes each, if that is at all possible and as a courtesy to one another. I call Shabana Mahmood.
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. It is almost a month since I secured an Adjournment debate on the plight of the Uyghur people. I had hoped that we would see more progress since that debate on 9 September. I had hoped that we would see the imposition of so-called Magnitsky sanctions against key individuals from the Chinese Communist party, but sadly we are no further on, and the plight of the Uyghur people, against whom, I am quite clear, the Chinese Communist party is perpetrating genocide, becomes ever more desperate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) have both given a huge amount of detail about what the Uyghurs are suffering as a result of the actions of the Chinese Government. They have detailed issues around forced sterilisations, the drop in the birth rate—a drop of almost a third in Xinjiang province—mass detentions, slave labour, and the destruction of culture and heritage. Families are being torn asunder, and we all wonder, as we look on in horror, how much more the Uyghurs will endure as the world simply watches, impotent and unable to act.
I have pressed the Minister before on his rationale for not pursuing Magnitsky sanctions. When I questioned him in September, he told me that I was right to press him on this point. I believe that I am right to do so. Members who make similar arguments about Magnitsky sanctions are right to do so too. It is completely unclear why the Government are still dragging their feet. The case for the imposition of sanctions against individuals, about whom we have clear evidence, has been made. What is the roadblock? I would like the Minister to explain what the roadblock is, because we deserve to know. Too many Members across the House have been pressing him on this point, and have got very little out of the Government.
Since that Adjournment debate in September, the Government have moved with lightning speed on the imposition of Magnitsky-style sanctions against individuals connected to the regime in Belarus and the rigged re-election of President Alexander Lukashenko. It was announced that sanctions were being drawn up on 24 September, and they were imposed on 29 September. It took merely days. I contrast that with what is happening to the Uyghur people, and the actions that the Government are still considering against key individuals in the Chinese Government. We have many years-worth of evidence, and months and months of review from our Government, but still no action.
We have heard that the Americans have taken action and imposed sanctions against key individuals in the regime. What is the reason for the UK not following suit? The legal tests have been met, but perhaps there are political tests—and ever-shifting political tests—that have not been met. If that is the case, that is a low moment for our Government. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has said, no amount of trade can wipe out the actions of a regime that is committed, in the case of the Uyghur population, to genocide.
I echo the remarks that have been made about the amendment tabled by Lord Alton in the Lords to the Trade Bill. I hope that when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House of Commons, Labour spokespeople will support that amendment, and I hope that the shadow Minister will enlighten us on that today. I hope that the amendment receives cross-party support, because it is an important step and is one of the legal innovations that I told the Minister we must consider, given that we all know that the United Nations is a bit of a busted flush on the issue. The Chinese, with their veto in the Security Council and the buying up of influence we have seen in the last few years, will be able to ensure that any UN process is frustrated and even prevented from getting off the ground.
We therefore need more innovative and legal approaches, and empowering our own High Court to nullify trade agreements with regimes where the trade partner is, with good evidence, believed to have perpetrated a genocide, would be an important step forward. It would be a way for our country, with our long commitment to the rule of law and to calling out egregious human rights abuses, wherever they occur in the world, to make a real contribution.
I therefore hope that approach has support across the House. I will certainly seek to support it. I hope that the Government can bring forward such measures. If there are concerns that such mechanisms may be used in vexatious ways before our High Court, may I say to the Minister that we can come up with thresholds and tests that must be met before the High Court could make such a declaration? It is, however, an important thing for us to consider. It is an important step for us to take, and I hope it will happen.
Finally, I have a couple of quick remarks about UK supply chains in relation to Chinese production of personal protective equipment and, in particular, ventilators procured by our Government for use during the pandemic. There is a clear, real risk that personal protective equipment and ventilators that have ended up in use in our health system in the last few months, procured at great cost in the middle of an international emergency, may well have come about as a result of forced labour of the Uyghur people. If that is the case, that is an unconscionable breach.
We must do much more as a country to ensure that forced labour, slave labour and the labour of the Uyghur people is not found in either the clothes we wear and the technology we use or the kit that our national health service uses. Allowing for the international emergency, there are many more questions for the Government to answer about the checks that took place to ensure that Uyghur labour was not being used for the procurement of things now in our health service. I hope that the Minister can enlighten us today.
In my view, all legal tests have been met for our Government to act. It is time for the Minister to stop repeating the words he has given to all of us before and lay out some practical action, because the time has long passed for us to act against the Chinese Government.
James Gray (in the Chair)
That was seven minutes. It should be four or five minutes, if at all possible.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow such eminent speakers. I agree with so many of the points made that I will skip to others, which have not. We do not seek to hold China to either a standard that we would not hold ourselves to, or indeed one that China has not already agreed to. China has already agreed and signed the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, the UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women, the UN convention on the rights of the child, the slavery convention 1926 and the international covenant on civil and political rights. Perhaps most importantly, it was China or, rather, a Chinese diplomat who drafted the individual rights into the UN declaration. P.C. Chang, then a representative of the Chinese Government, held the pen and wrote into international law the principles of individual rights that we value so highly today.
These are not western values; they are universal values that China has agreed to, that the Chinese state has accepted and pledged to obey, and which it is now violating among one of the ethnic minority populations within its borders. This is not something to which we can look idly by and pretend is not happening, because this is not just about the torture, murder and forced sterilisation of Uyghur Muslims—it is of course about that. It is also not just about the violation of freedom of faith and the repression of the Islamic community in western China—and, by the way, the repression of the Christian community across China. It is also—fundamentally for this House—about the liberty of the British people, whom we are here to represent. Our ability to represent and to defend the rights and interests of the people of these islands is contingent on the rights and liberties of other people being respected. We cannot trade and travel freely and fairly if the people of those countries are not free to enjoy the liberties that we think matter.
Anyone who does not think that that is true should ask the family of Michael Kovrig, a Canadian diplomat who worked for the International Crisis Group who was arrested and has been detained for two years by the Chinese Government. The Chinese state—this communist state—is violating the rights of not only Chinese citizens, but all citizens, which is why it is right that this House speak out.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I thank all those who signed the petition to bring this matter to the Chamber this evening.
I do not know whether it is a formally declarable interest or not, but I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Uyghurs. My co-chair, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), would be here, but she is shielding. It is worth reflecting that this is another instance demonstrating that the current procedures for participation in House business perhaps require another visit. In fact, the same is true of the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who takes a close personal interest in these matters.
As the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) observed, I first held a debate on the treatment of the Uyghur Muslim population in Xinjiang province in this Chamber on 29 January last year. It is gratifying to see the number of people attending the debate today, which is an indication of the attention that has come to the issue and that interest in it has grown.
I was particularly struck in June when Jewish News ran a front-page story with the headline “Chilling echoes”. On 1 October, it ran an editorial revisiting the issue:
“When Jewish News ran a front page earlier this year with the headline ‘Chilling echoes’—in reference to the abuse of the Uyghurs and parallels with the Shoah—we didn’t do so lightly. Any hint of a parallel with the darkest chapter in human history is something we’d always caution against. But the discovery of tonnes of hair taken from members of the minority community in China invoked emotions we as Jews simply could not ignore.”
I quote that because the question of genocide, and the evidence required to establish genocide, is now perhaps at the centre of this issue and our examination of it. As others said, this time, nobody can say that they were not told, that they did not know. There is a growing body of evidence that what is being done in Xinjiang province to the Uyghur Muslim population bears all the characteristics of a genocide, and that there is a requirement for it to be called out politically, and acted on legally, as a genocide.
The hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling referenced the UN convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Article 2 outlines the basis on which genocide is to be established legally—that it is
“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”,
although that should not be treated as an exhaustive list. That is to say, to meet the legal definition of genocide, the atrocities committed against the Uyghurs need to be committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group. Consider what has come into the public domain in recent months in that regard. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute published “Uyghurs for sale: ‘Re-education’, forced labour and surveillance beyond Xinjiang.” We have the report prepared for the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China by Adrian Zenz, “Sterilizations, IUDs, and Mandatory Birth Control”. We have further Australian Strategic Policy Institute reports: “Cultural Erasure: Tracing the destruction of Uyghur and Islamic spaces in Xinjiang” and “Exploring Xinjiang’s detention system”.
Surely, now, on the basis of that evidence gathered by campaign groups around the world, there needs to be a formal mission to China headed up by the United Nations to gather the evidence in a systematic manner, in order to move forward in a legal, not just a political, way. That is the opportunity that we have as a member of the United Nations Security Council, and I urge the Minister today to make every progress in that regard.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
In debates such as this, it is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who rightly quoted a newspaper on what the Jewish community has said. My speech is about genocide and why the Government are not calling it what it is.
We often stand in Westminster Hall or the other Chamber and say, “Never again”, but the truth is we continue to have to say it. We have seen many other genocides, but, with reference specifically to the Uyghurs, mounting evidence has shifted international attention on to Xinjiang. The Chinese Government admitted to the existence of the camp only when it was discovered. They sought to justify it under the pretext of national security, vocational training and re-education. The reality of those so-called vocational training and education centres is far more sinister. The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China has stated:
“A body of mounting evidence now exists, alleging mass incarceration, indoctrination, extrajudicial detention, invasive surveillance, forced labor”.
The testimony of witnesses and survivors is even more disturbing. We have learned that Uyghur women have been subjected to forced contraception, abortion and sterilisation, including forced removal of their wombs. There are also reports detailing that horrific abuses have been uncovered, such as Muslims being forced to drink alcohol, eat pork and convert from the religion of their choice, yet despite the intelligence and testimonies, and the fact that China is hiding its actions in plain sight, our Government fall short of acknowledging that acts of genocide are taking place.
Recent reports and analysis of satellite images reveal that the Chinese Government continue to construct new internment camps, displaying an unwavering desire to continue their campaign of genocide against the Uyghur people. It is clear that the Government’s stance is not working. The co-founder of the Coalition for Genocide Response points out that if a state does not make a formal determination of genocide, it will be less likely to fulfil its duty to prevent or stop the genocide. The Government must, in the interim, be able to make the determination to respond accordingly to atrocities. Much has been said about the Magnitsky amendments and I will push the Minister to respond. What is stopping us applying those measures, which should be imposed on those involved in human rights abuses in Xinjiang?
Alarmingly, as China asserts its dominance among global economies, it has been accused of benefiting from the fruits of the forced labour of the Uyghur people. A coalition of up to 180 human rights organisations has said:
“Virtually the entire apparel industry is tainted by forced Uighur…labour”.
Alongside imposing sanctions, the Government must go further and seek out brands based here in the UK that are profiteering from the exploitation of the Uyghur people. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) referred to medical equipment in that context. The Government should remind brands of their ethical responsibility and impose corporate accountability on them. Their supply chains are propping up China’s genocide against the Uyghur.
Unless China is forced to act by unflinching political, commercial and legal action from the Government, nothing will change. Indeed, China is a signatory to the 1948 universal declaration of human rights, and it must be reminded of its obligations. We have witnessed time and again the direction that the road of religious and ethnic hatred takes us in. Our inaction also means that we all know how it ends—with the deaths of countless innocent men, women and children.
How many more times are we going to have debates where right hon. and hon. Members pledge “never again”? In my lifetime, we have witnessed genocide in Rwanda and said, “Never again.” We left UN peacekeepers unsupported, despite their concerns that there would be war crimes in Srebrenica, and afterwards we again said, “Never again.” We saw acts of genocide against the Yazidis in Syria, we debated that genocide in its aftermath, and we said again, “Never again.” In Myanmar, we have seen acts of genocide against the Rohingya population, leaving the survivors stateless, and once more we said, “Never again.” At some point, we need to stop saying, “Never again.” We need to learn from history, identify these things when we see them happening and—crucially—we must act.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
As a British Muslim, I know that Islam is based on ideals of peace, equality, loyalty, justice and, most importantly, submission to the will of Allah. This is also true for Uyghur Muslims; they are no exception. Yet despite their peaceful characteristics, hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs find themselves suffering cultural and religious annihilation at the hands of the Chinese Communist party, and among their number are also Kazakhs, Kyrgyz, Christians and adherents of Falun Gong.
Sadly, there is a growing mountain of evidence to support claims that the Chinese Communist party is seriously violating the human rights of these people. As the United Kingdom, it is our moral duty to verify and document these human rights violations. As we have heard, up to 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other Turkic Muslims have been rounded up and put in re-education camps, where they are subject to political indoctrination, forced sterilisation and torture. Such extermination goes well beyond the Uyghur people. The CCP is intent on destroying non-Han Chinese cultural identity and history. Revered religious sites and mosques have been demolished, under supposed mosque rectification campaigns, while others with distinctive architectural features, such as minarets and domes, have been moved, as part of a campaign to Sinocise Islam.
According to CNN, since 2018, over 100 Uyghur cemeteries have been destroyed and relocated, including one that was transformed into a car park. Indeed, in response to a written question that I submitted to the Minister who is here today, he said that British diplomats themselves had verified in person much of this destruction.
We know that the Uyghur language is being banned in Xinjiang schools and that practising Islam is discouraged, shall we say, because it is seen as a sign of extremism. UNESCO has called this process “strategic cultural cleansing”. The cultural genocide is nothing other than an attempt to remove the Uyghurs and further cement Han Chinese supremacy. In 2018, an official in Xinjiang said on state media that the aim of these policies was to
“break their lineage, break their roots, break their connections and break their origins”.
If that is not bad enough, there is a further point that I believe it is our duty to bring to the public’s attention and it is nothing other than the evil of slavery. These re-education camps conceal slavery, and slavery has seeped into almost every part of the Chinese economy. In addition to the exports that China sends to the United Kingdom and our allies around the world, in July, as we have heard, the United States seized a shipment of 13 tons of human hair products coming from China, allegedly from Xinjiang camps.
Slavery and forced labour in any capacity are repugnant to us all. The idea that, unwittingly, citizens of this country—in Wakefield and elsewhere—are purchasing Chinese goods and thereby becoming a partner of this evil industry must be rooted out and we must take a stronger view on it. So, the Magnitsky-style sanctions are a step in the right direction and should be used against those involved in the imprisonment and enslavement of Uyghurs, Kazakhs and other minorities. However, we must go further and do our utmost to prevent the supply chain that we are involved in from having any link to the abhorrent practice of slavery.
It pains me that most Muslim-majority countries around the world have stayed largely silent. As a Muslim, that is a cause of great upset and regret. If it is left to us, Britain must become the champion and defender of liberty, freedom, tolerance and pluralism for peoples around the world, and must stand up against tyranny, oppression and persecution wherever they are found, whether in China or in Muslim-majority countries.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. Several Members wish to speak. They have three minutes each. I call Siobhain McDonagh.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Gray. I defer to the great knowledge of Members in this room. My own interest and involvement in the plight of the Uyghurs come from watching the Andrew Marr interview with the Chinese ambassador in July. The flagrant denial of oppression in Xinjiang was almost as terrifying as the images and videos that accompanied the interview on screen: row after row of men blindfolded with their heads shaven, waiting to be loaded on to trains. The images were so shocking that they play on one’s mind for days and weeks, and even now. The similarities, as so many have said, between that video and historic footage of Nazi concentration camps are truly chilling. All of us rightly remember and reflect on the sickening and frightening ways in which humans treat one another, and we pledge that it must never happen again. Now that the world is presented with such overwhelming evidence of gross human rights abuses, nobody can turn a blind eye.
Some 141 parliamentarians, including some Members in this debate, joined me in publicly expressing absolute condemnation of such oppression in an open letter to the ambassador after his interview. More than a month on, we have still not received a reply. In the meantime, shocking testimony and frightening reports have filled our in-boxes and our screens, each more terrifying than the last. There are accusations of torture, the forced abortion of babies, the sterilisation of women and the removal of their wombs. A genocide of the Uyghurs is happening before our eyes.
The Minister knows how important the word “genocide” is in international law. He might even be under strict instructions not to use that word here today, but he will know how unlikely it is that the world will arrive at a definition, given the countries that sit in the United Nations and the veto that they hold. A cowardly country could hide behind the linguistic excuse. Shame on us if we choose that path, because the Chinese Government’s actions must be stated as what they are: a systematic and calculated programme of ethnic cleansing against the Uyghur people.
An independent tribunal is under way, chaired by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC. Government endorsement of the findings, whatever they may be, is surely the moral and necessary action to take. Organising and leading an international tribunal would be even stronger. No one could leave this debate anything other than horrified at the situation in Xinjiang. Condemning the world’s next superpower is easy. Taking action is much harder. If we look on, history will condemn our unforgivable cowardice and ask why those in power did not act. This is a heavy burden for the Minister, but he is the person in the chair in a position of influence. Warm words are simply not enough because this time no one can say that they did not know.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on securing the debate.
The fight to prevent genocide is a subject close to my heart, as it is to all Members in this debate and many others across the House. I have vivid memories of observing as a teenager what happened during the Bosnian and Rwandan genocides. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have campaigned on the genocide committed by the Myanmar Government against the Rohingya people. Many other examples that we have all witnessed in the past echo what has been happening recently.
We have seen in recent years that despite our proud record as a country in standing up against human rights violations, systematic discrimination, ethnic cleansing and genocide, our Government have been found wanting. We have seen that from the failure of the British Government, with the international community, to act in relation to what was happening with the Rohingya Muslims. I draw that parallel because it is vital that we learn the lessons of our recent history. Many of us warned our Government to act: not to remove sanctions against the Myanmar Government prematurely as they made the transition towards democracy, even when the US was not doing it.
This time, we see the US taking a leadership role and our Government dithering once again. I hope the Minister will step up and, if he is being prevented from speaking out against what looks like another genocide, talk to his boss and ask him to take genocide much more seriously. There is no more serious issue than what is happening in Myanmar, as well as in China with the Uyghur population.
I am incredibly grateful to right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for debating this issue because despite all our efforts, we failed to get accountability and action to prevent the exodus, punishment and persecution of hundreds of thousands of Rohingya Muslims. We ultimately saw a million forced out of their country in 2017, and we saw the plight of that group, yet even today—again, there is a parallel—our Government fail to support the actions of the Government of Gambia, who are leading an International Court of Justice case on that issue. I hope that as we move forward, we will learn those lessons and ensure that in relation to China, our Government show the courage of their convictions and take action to prevent another genocide.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. We have three minutes in which to cover a huge amount, so I will just say that I agree with literally everything I have heard so far. I think it is wonderful how this place comes together to represent what I think is, as we are seeing, the enormous, heartfelt, emotional view of our constituents and the country as a whole.
Today, in addition to continuing to make the case that we must call this a genocide and that we must get on with Magnitsky sanctions, I want to focus on the fact that we all have power because we are all consumers. As has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), there are issues with the procurement of PPE and ventilators, but the apparel industry is also well-trodden ground. It is estimated that one in five cotton garments from anywhere in the world has touched this supply chain, and when this has been looked into by the Associated Press, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and others including the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, some of the names of the list of companies are shocking.
I will name and shame a few: they are public services, people will love me for it, and I will not be able to do more because I am going to run out of time. I ask anyone who might be listening to please look on my Twitter feed. Those companies include Amazon, Calvin Klein, Esprit, Fila and Gap. They include H&M—I was really sad to read that—and Ikea. Who does not have Ikea in their homes? They also include Nike, Polo Ralph Lauren, Puma, Skechers, Tommy Hilfiger, Uniqlo, Victoria’s Secret and Zara, and that is not the full list.
In addition to the apparel industry, we know that there is movement of workers from these internment camps to factories across China that, in turn, touch the supply chains of other types of companies. Those include Amazon, Apple, BMW, Dell, Gap, Jaguar Land Rover, Mercedes-Benz, Microsoft, Nintendo and Nokia, and the list goes on. I want these companies to take up what I am saying, and take issue with what is happening. This was raised with Adidas and Lacoste, and to their credit they have now agreed to cut ties with the implicated suppliers and contractors as a result of that public pressure. I hope that has added to the public pressure on those other companies.
As I say, people need to look up the full list. They have power as consumers; we have power in this place as well, and the Government have power. I believe the Government should now be looking at those international supply chains. We are doing it with forests; we can do it with human rights. I ask the Minister whether he will agree to meet with me at some other time so that we can discuss this further, because I think this might be one of the ways in which every single person can act quickly.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I would like to say how much I welcome the British Government’s refocusing on human rights. I hope the Minister will take back to the Secretary of State my congratulations to him on the work that he has been doing at the United Nations on this issue.
I am a trustee of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. That might not sound particularly relevant to the debate, but the trust concentrates on genocides and other similar activities that have occurred since the second world war and that continue today. It is an organisation that goes out of its way to ensure that the “never again” message is heard very loudly.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members have asked for Magnitsky sanctions to be imposed on China. I know a bit about Magnitsky sanctions, because I spoke about this issue in January 2019 at the Council of Europe, on a motion raised by Lord Donald Anderson—a socialist motion that was put forward on which we could all agree. There was nothing that separated us on this issue.
The thing about Magnitsky sanctions is that they need to identify people. We cannot use them just to attack a country; we have to use them to attack an individual group of people. Can the Minister tell us how close we are to having identified people in China on whom we can impose the Magnitsky sanctions, so that we can get this thing moving?
As somebody else has already said, it is not just a case of doing the Magnitsky sanctions and then forgetting about it. We also need to do as much as we can in other areas. That is difficult for us to do as the UK; we need to have the co-operation of other countries. Clearly, the opponents of our actions against China have also got their acts together—we saw Belarus, Iran and Zimbabwe among the group that is leading on this. The action that we take with other countries can be far more powerful than if we try to do it alone.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
As right hon. and hon. Members have described, what is happening to the Uyghur people in Xinjiang is absolutely abhorrent and cannot be ignored. The Global Human Rights Sanctions Regulations 2020 give us a means
“to deter, and provide accountability for,”
the kinds of activities that China is carrying out. The regulations say that people have the right
“not to be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,”
and that they have the right
“to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour”.
Given the clear abuses being carried out by China against the Uyghurs, which have been described by right hon. and hon. Members, I urge Ministers to consider how the regulations can be used to help bring an end to this situation. The Magnitsky-style sanctions would honour the request of the petition and show the UK’s commitment to protecting global human rights.
Of course, we MPs and the Government are facing an enormous challenge right now, and many of our constituents expect us to be focused on that challenge. I wanted to attend the debate and speak briefly, because history is watching us. What is happening in Xinjiang is of historic significance. We have seen the power of the modern state wielded against its own people before, with the result being millions killed in factories of death. People who hesitate to make that comparison should remember that that stain on human history began with the erosion of rights, mass detention and forced labour. We are now seeing the power of the modern state supercharged in the digital age and the age of surveillance.
We must be honest with ourselves: there are no simple solutions to what we are discussing, and we are not in a position to rescue the situation alone, just as we were not able to do so in world war two. We will need to work with others. Even then, the task is incredibly daunting. However, I want China to know that we are watching—this House is watching, and the world is watching. History has shown us that simply disapproving from afar is not enough to stop regimes of this nature. We must find further ways to act. We must stand up, and we must be counted.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I promise to keep my jacket on for the whole sitting, Mr Gray.
I am going to mention three things briefly, slightly echoing other Members: first, consistency; secondly, forced labour; and thirdly, China’s surveillance state. Before I begin, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on the work that IPAC has been doing to bring all these things to light. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) on her work. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, will lead an inquiry on the Uyghurs, and I look forward to participating in that.
Consistency is important. We lack capacity to change China’s policy, but recognition of what is happening is important in its own right. Not to recognise it and avoid it, and avoid discussing it, puts us in moral jeopardy. Recognising that something is happening—it may be an obvious statement—is the first step in actually being able to do something. That brings me on to forced labour. We can all be outraged, but outrage—there is an awful lot of it in Parliament, especially on foreign affairs questions—does not necessarily produce anything. What could produce something is some kind of work on forced labour. Freedom from oppression should be one of our new foreign policy goals.
I would love to know what the Government are doing on the issue of forced labour. Are they preparing a report on the issue of supply chains and forced labour? If not, why can we not do so? One hundred or 200 Members of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) said, could highlight western firms that profited from forced labour, and we could write to all those people. I know of Huawei, as I have said, but there are many others, as she pointed out. If wrote to all those people and said, “Do you really want your customers to wear the product of slave labour?”, we would not necessarily need Government to act, because we could act ourselves. I wonder whether that is something that collectively we could do.
Finally, on China’s surveillance state, there are two models for the 21st century for humanity: first, there is the western liberal model, however tarnished and however much Google and Facebook try to privatise all our personal information. That is still the great hope for humanity: government under law; politicians under law; with people at least nominally sovereign, and hopefully supreme over them. The alternative is the model that we see in the new authoritarian states, primarily Russia, but also China, of a surveillance system that is made much more powerful by big data, artificial intelligence and politicians who want to engineer dissent out of humanity. That is what we are seeing in China—we are seeing the sharp edge of that not only in Tibet but in Xinjiang province, so there is much to play for in the 21st century.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank the Petitions Committee for securing this vital debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for making such a powerful and passionate speech to introduce the debate, and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who made compelling contributions, both passionate and forensic. Members across the House have shown today that there is no doubt about the strength of feeling in Parliament.
The plight of the Uyghur people is a scar on the conscience of the world—of that there can be no doubt—and the fact that the Chinese Government continue to act with impunity leaves us all with a sense of burning injustice. It is vital and urgent that the international community comes together to speak with one voice, and to say loud and clear to Beijing, “We will not stand idly by while Uyghur people are imprisoned in these so-called re-education camps. We will not look the other way in response to reports of the forced sterilisation of Uyghur women. We will not react with indifference to any efforts to destroy the Uyghur language, culture and way of life.”
It is equally vital and urgent that the UK Government take a leadership role in convening and co-ordinating the international response. Our greatness as a country is based on our resolute and unshakeable commitment to human rights and the rule of law. The British people know that if our country is to be a force for good in the world, those values must be applied universally. Regrettably, attempts to show leadership on this issue are handicapped by the fact that, for several years now, the approach of successive Conservative Governments to China has been naive and complacent.
In 2015, David Cameron and George Osborne announced a new golden era in Sino-British relations. The premise was simple. The UK would open its markets and infrastructure to China and in return Beijing would reciprocate, while integrating with the rules-based international order.
Fast forward five years and where do we stand? We are still running a £19 billion trade deficit with China, and the Chinese Government have dealt a hammer blow to democracy in Hong Kong, committed egregious human rights abuses in Xinjiang and Tibet, and stepped up their military activities in the South China sea. The fact of the matter is that the golden era strategy has been an unmitigated failure. Successive Conservative Governments have rolled out the red carpet for Beijing in the hope of reciprocity and constructive engagement, but the past five years have seen the emergence of a China that increasingly pursues policies that undermine international norms and violate what should be international and universal values.
We have deep respect for China’s history, culture and civilisation, and we fully acknowledge and recognise its great power status. The relationship between the peoples of the UK and China is deep, of long standing and valued by both. There is a pressing need to improve mutual understanding and friendly co-operation, but the Chinese leadership must understand that their breaching of international law and violation of human rights benefits no one, least of all themselves. China is deeply integrated into the global economy, and it needs globalisation to work for its people, just as much as we do. But if it continues to pursue zero-sum policies that place dominance ahead of consensus and crushing one’s critics ahead of compromise, the international community will have no choice but to toughen its stance by exerting further political, diplomatic and economic pressure on Beijing.
Against that backdrop, we call on the UK Government to commit to a fundamental strategic reset in Sino-British relations. We must seek constructive engagement based on mutual respect, but respect is a two-way street. The leadership of the Communist party of China respects strength and unity, and it is contemptuous of weakness and division. We must find ways to co-operate with the Chinese Government on crucial global issues such as climate change and pandemics, while also challenging them when they undermine international law.
To achieve that, the following needs to happen. First, we must rebuild our strategic independence. Successive Conservative Governments have left our country over-reliant on supply chains that originate in China and open to hostile takeovers by Chinese state-backed enterprises and investment vehicles. The UK is now dependent on China for 57 categories of goods that relate to our critical national infrastructure. This over-reliance on China dramatically diminishes our ability to stand up for our interests and project our values. There needs to be a far more joined-up approach across Whitehall on these issues.
Secondly, the UK Government need to build an alliance of democracies to champion co-operation based on shared values and promoting human rights. Successive Conservative Governments since 2016 have shown that they are adept at burning bridges. This Government must now show that they know how to rebuild trust with our European allies while engaging more effectively with democratic governments, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.
I turn to the mass atrocities that are taking place in Xinjiang. We urge the Government to take the following actions. First, it is imperative that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is given full and unfettered access to Xinjiang and the Uyghur people who are being detained there, so that the true scale and nature of the crimes can be established and documented. For that to be possible, far more intense and co-ordinated pressure must be applied, and we therefore urge the UK Government to publicly oppose China’s election to the UN Human Rights Council in the forthcoming elections, and to hold firm to that position until such time as Beijing provides the High Commissioner with access to Xinjiang.
Secondly, the Government must deploy Magnitsky sanctions against senior CCP officials who are responsible for human rights abuses in Xinjiang. The Minister will say that that is under review and should not be rushed but, frankly, that is not good enough. MPs have been expressing concerns about the plight of the Uyghur since 2017, and the Magnitsky legislation was passed in 2018. I therefore encourage the Minister to provide some clarity: what is the real cause of this mysterious delay, and can the Opposition be of any assistance in removing the roadblock, whatever it is, so that the Government can get on with taking long-overdue action?
Thirdly, the Government should explore additional legal avenues for challenging what is happening in Xinjiang, including an assessment of whether China’s actions constitute a violation of the 1984 convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to which China is a state party. The Government must consider infringement procedures if such a determination is made.
Fourthly, the Government must publicly support the UN International Law Commission’s draft convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, which would close an important gap in international law.
Fifthly, as many hon. Members have raised today, the Government must mobilise action across Whitehall to ensure that British businesses conduct thorough due diligence of supply chains, such that British companies withdraw without delay from any and all supply chains that potentially involve forced labour or other human rights abuses. I trust that the Minister will give careful consideration to those recommendations, in terms of both the fundamental reset that is required, and the specific issues with Xinjiang province.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for this debate, to the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) for introducing it and to all colleagues for their contributions. There is, rightly, deep public concern about the issue, so I am also grateful to the 146,000 members of the public who signed the petition and enabled this debate to take place. We have heard the strength of feeling in the House about Xinjiang, and I will respond to as many as possible of the points that have been made.
I assure the House that we closely and constantly monitor the situation in Xinjiang. As we have heard and read, and as we acknowledge, there have been harrowing reports and evidence of gross human rights violations. Analysis of satellite images suggests that the Chinese authorities continue to construct internment camps and demolish mosques and other religious sites. Those are systematic restrictions on Uyghur culture and religion. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about the extensive and invasive surveillance operation that targets minorities. We have also seen credible evidence of forced labour —that was raised by most Members this afternoon—and the Chinese Government’s own figures show a dramatic decrease in population growth in Xinjiang over the past three years.
I will now set out the Government’s position on global human rights sanctions. On 6 July, as right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, we established the global human rights sanctions regime. In a statement to Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out the full scope of the UK’s new global human rights sanctions regime. He was clear, and I reiterate this today, that it is not appropriate to speculate on future designations under that regime. As I have said before and as the Foreign Secretary made clear, to do so could reduce the impact of such designations. However, I make it absolutely clear that that is under constant review.
On 9 September, during an Adjournment debate on Xinjiang, I stated that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is carefully considering further designations under the sanctions regime. We will keep all the evidence and the potential listings under close review. Our position on that remains unchanged.
Let me be clear that we are committed to responding robustly to all human rights violations in Xinjiang. We have played a leading role within the international community to hold China to account. We have led two joint statements at the UN in the past year, including a statement at the UN Human Rights Council in June that was supported by 28 countries. Last week, on 6 October, 39 countries joined our statement at the UN third committee in New York, expressing deep concern at the situation not just in Xinjiang, but in Tibet and Hong Kong. We believe this growing caucus reflects our diplomatic leadership, including the personal involvement of our Foreign Secretary.
Outside the UN, we have lobbied around the world to raise awareness of the issue and underlined the critical need for an international response. We have supported that by funding third-party research to increase the evidence base and international awareness, and by sharing our analysis of the situation on the ground, although Members will appreciate that getting access to Xinjiang is incredibly difficult. On 25 September, the UK dedicated its entire national statement at the UN Human Rights Council to human rights violations in China. That is only the second time the UK has dedicated its national statement to a single country, the first being about Russia in 2018 following the poisonings in Salisbury.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised our serious concerns about Xinjiang directly with his Chinese counterpart on a number of occasions, most recently on 28 July, and I have raised them directly with the Chinese ambassador in recent months. We continue to raise awareness of the human rights violations in Xinjiang with UK businesses. We impress upon them the need to act in line with the expectations set out in the UK national action plan on business and human rights. That means conducting due diligence to make sure that they are not contributing to any human rights violations, including the use of forced labour in their supply chains.
Several right hon. and hon. Members have raised the question of genocide. The term genocide has a specific definition in international law, and it is the long-standing policy of the UK Government that any judgment as to whether war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide have occurred is a matter for judicial decision.
In the time I have left, I will turn to remarks and comments made by right hon. and hon. Members. The hon. Member for Islwyn introduced the debate in his typically eloquent style, raising many of the concerns that we all share about the plight of the Uyghur people. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on the work he does with IPAC and his persistent championing of this cause.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) was absolutely right to raise the points that she did, but I politely suggest that it is not correct to say that we are no further on. Our actions at the UN last week, alongside 38 other countries, are an example of that. She raised the issue of forced labour, as did most Members. The reports are credible. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute report, which the FCO part-funded, estimated that 80,000 Uyghurs were transferred out of Xinjiang to work.
We are committed to eradicating modern slavery and forced labour. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 made the UK the first country to require businesses to report how they identify and address modern slavery risks in their operations and supply chains, as hon. Members have mentioned. Businesses with an annual turnover of more than £36 million are required to publish an annual modern slavery statement, and we are developing a registry of modern slavery statements.
Nigel Adams
I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention, but there is a slight risk that I will not have time to cover all the contributions made by other hon. Members.
Nigel Adams
It is absolutely the case that companies need to abide by the law. More can be done in this area, and we are developing further measures. The Home Office announced on 22 September a series of new measures to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act. These measures require legislative change, which will be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
There were some excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat)—the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee—for Henley (John Howell), for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), for Isle of Wight and for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan), and from the hon. Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali). The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) referred eloquently to genocide. Again, any judgment as to whether war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide have occurred has to be a judicial matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred to strategic cultural cleansing. The freedom to practise, change or share one’s faith or beliefs without discrimination or violent opposition is a human right that all people should be able to enjoy. He was also right to highlight the lack of condemnation from predominantly Muslim countries of the oppression of the Uyghurs. I am sure that his powerful voice will have been heard today.
Rushanara Ali
The Minister mentions genocide. A clear-cut International Court of Justice case is currently ongoing, but the UK Government refuse to back it. What test has to be passed before our Government—a penholder in the UN on Burma—are likely to act? That is the problem: constant excuses.
Nigel Adams
I know how powerfully the hon. Lady feels about this issue, but, as I say, there is a specific definition in international law, and any decision has to be judicial. I am sure that this will come up in the future, and I am more than happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss it.
The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) asked whether we would publicly oppose China’s election to the United Nations Human Rights Council this week. He will be aware that we never comment on voting in UN elections, which are conducted by secret ballot. The UK has been absolutely clear with China about our grave concerns in relation to Xinjiang. As I said, on 6 October we joined 38 other countries to call on China to allow immediate and unfettered access for independent UN observers.
I know that I have to give the hon. Member for Islwyn a couple of minutes, so I will wrap up. I reiterate that we cannot speculate on future designations under our sanctions regime. China must immediately end extrajudicial detention in Xinjiang and uphold the principles of freedom of religion or belief, freedom of speech and freedom of association for every single one of its citizens. As the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary have made clear, we want a positive relationship with China, but we will always act to uphold our values, our interests and our national security. We are crystal clear with China when we disagree with its approach.
Chris Evans
This is one of the rare occasions when I am proud to be a Member of this House. Today, I feel as though we have spoken with one voice—a powerful and passionate voice. I hope it is heard when the Minister is dealing with his international counterparts. However powerful China is, or thinks it is, we in this House will not accept any reason for undermining someone’s human rights, because if one person’s human rights are denied, everybody’s human rights are denied.
The Minister and I have known each other for a long time now—10 years, I think—and I know that he will stand up. I know that in the international community he has to work within the international framework, but I hope that if he finds businesses engaging in modern slavery, repressing people’s rights or committing any other human rights abuses, he will let them know that they will feel the full might of the Government.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust. This year, the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day, which was on 27 January, is about shining a light in the darkness. With this debate and those that preceded it, I really hope that we have shone a light on human rights abuses. We say to any country, however powerful, that we will not take that. The Minister can go away from this debate knowing that whatever sanctions he wishes to impose, he will have the full support of the House.
Written Statements
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Job Support Scheme and Local Restrictions Support Grant
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Following my announcement on Friday 9 October that I am expanding the job support scheme (JSS), and increasing the generosity and frequency of local restrictions support grants, I am pleased to share more detail of these schemes and how this Government are supporting and protecting jobs and livelihoods.
The JSS is being expanded to provide temporary, localised support to businesses across the UK whose premises are legally required to close as a direct result of coronavirus restrictions set by one or more of the four Governments of the UK.
This expansion of the JSS will help businesses through the period they are affected by these restrictions, supporting the wage costs of employees in eligible premises who have been instructed to cease work and comply with this instruction. This scheme will enable those premises to reopen as quickly as possible when they can. It will help protect employee incomes, limit unemployment and maintain employer-employee matches.
This is part of the job support scheme, available to employers from 1 November 2020 for six months, with the scheme reviewed in January. Further guidance will be published in the coming weeks. Employers will be able to make a claim in arrears on a monthly basis online through www.gov.uk from early December 2020.
The coronavirus job retention scheme (CJRS) remains in place until 31 October, and flexibility in the system means if an employer is required to close in October, eligible employees can be furloughed until 31 October. The new job support scheme is available from 1 November, with payments from early December. Eligible employees whose employers use the expanded JSS will continue to be paid by their employer throughout this period. Neither the employer nor the employee needs to have previously used the CJRS to be eligible for the expanded JSS.
In line with the rules for the JSS already announced: all employers with a UK bank account and a UK PAYE scheme registered on or before 23 September can claim the scheme. Only employees that are on their employer’s payroll by 23 September are eligible. This means a real time information (RTI) submission notifying payment of that employee to HMRC must have been made on or before this date. This scheme will cover businesses that, as a result of restrictions set by one or more of the four Governments in the UK, are legally required to close their premises. This includes businesses told to provide only delivery and/or collection services from their premises. This scheme is open to employers across the UK, and we look forward to working constructively with the devolved administrations to ensure it operates effectively in all four nations.
The scheme will pay a grant to the employer calculated based on the number of eligible employees who cannot work at the relevant premises—which has been required to close by Government. Employers will only be able to use the scheme for employees who have been instructed to cease work—paid or unpaid for that employer.
Eligible employees cannot work for a minimum of seven consecutive (or calendar) days. An employee can return at a later date. Claims must not overlap and must be made monthly in arrears. These payments will be taxable, and employers will be required to cover employer NICS and automatic enrolment pension contributions in full, where applicable, but are not required to make further contribution to wage costs. However, employers can top up employee pay if they wish.
In line with JSS payments for hours not worked, the grant per eligible employee available from the UK Government is two-thirds of their normal pay up to a limit of £2,100 per month. Further detail on how normal pay is calculated will be set out in guidance. If an employer is closed by Government regulations then they can claim under the applicable rules. When that changes and they are able to reopen they can claim under the wider JSS for firms facing reduced demand under the criteria we outlined in September. Employers will be able to claim the job retention bonus for employees provided they are eligible. JSS grants can be used by employers to pay an employee's wages and help meet the JRB minimum income threshold.
The employer must use the scheme to cover their employees’ wages and pay relevant payroll taxes. The whole of the grant must be used to meet employee costs. The grant will not cover class 1 employer NICs or pension contributions, although these contributions will remain payable by the employer. Payments will be made in arrears, reimbursing the employer for the Government’s contribution.
On 9 September, the Government announced the local restrictions support grant scheme. This scheme provided businesses which are forced to close for three weeks or more due to a nationally imposed local lockdown in England with grants of up to £1,500 per three-week closure period.
The Government are now making this scheme more generous so that businesses receive up to £3,000 per month, and are eligible for payment sooner, after only two weeks of closure rather than three. The Government are also extending the scheme to include businesses which have been required to close on a national rather than a local basis, or which have not been legally able to reopen since the first lockdown in March.
Businesses will receive the following:
For properties with a rateable value of £15,000 or under, grants to be £1,334 per month, or £667 per two weeks;
For properties with a rateable value of between £15,000 and £51,000 grants to be £2,000 per month, or £1,000 per two weeks;
For properties with a rateable value of £51,000 or over grants to be £3,000 per month, or £1,500 per two weeks;
Local Authorities will continue to receive 5% of the funding which they received for the local restrictions support grant scheme as a discretionary fund, which the Government will encourage them to use to support business that have been legally mandated to close by the Government but are outside of the business rates system.
Grants will be administered by local authorities, and eligible businesses will probably need to provide their details to their local authority to access this support.
[HCWS503]
Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (European Electronic Communications C
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I am today laying legislation in Parliament which implements the European electronic communications code directive.
The importance of electronic communications has been underlined during the covid-19 pandemic. The UK’s networks are ensuring the connectivity which has underpinned the way society is responding to covid-19.
We are confident that the positive changes implemented during the pandemic will outlast the pandemic itself. For example, it has clearly demonstrated that technology enables many businesses to be agile, allowing many people to work from home. Technology has also played a critical role in continued learning, and has played a more important role than ever in keeping people in touch with friends, family and others in their communities.
The increased reliance on and use of digital infrastructure brings new expectations around these services, and the infrastructure must keep up with growing levels of demand. Combined with future expectations around new technologies and services including 5G, building future-proofed networks will be essential to our future economy. This is why we are committed to delivering nationwide gigabit-capable connectivity, and the Budget 2020 committed £5 billion investment in gigabit-capable broadband rollout in the hardest-to-reach areas of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The transposition of the European electronic communications code into UK law will help ensure that both the Government and Ofcom have the tools required to deliver these ambitions.
The directive revises the EU telecoms regulatory framework which has underpinned UK telecoms law since 2003. The UK played a leading role in the negotiations for the European electronic communications code prior to its exit from the EU, and in the development of the directives which preceded it, which largely reflect UK best practice. And our commitments in the European Union withdrawal agreement require transposition of European Union law until the end of the transition period.
The core objectives of the directive are to drive investment in future-proofed networks and communications services through sustainable competition; support efficient and effective use of radio spectrum; and provide a high level of consumer protection. Therefore, the changes introduced in the directive include new measures that are important to delivery of our digital ambitions. Transposing these changes into UK law will ensure Ofcom’s powers remain operable and reflect recent technological innovation. Some measures are being given effect through alternative legislation, such as the requirements for the security of networks and services.
The changes we are making as part of this SI are a crucial milestone towards our delivery of our digital ambitions. These changes will facilitate a pro-investment regulatory environment, supporting gigabit-capable rollout across the UK.
I therefore lay this instrument in the House today.
[HCWS500]
Schools: Summer 2021 Exam Series
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
This Government have always made the education of young people a priority. We are determined to make sure that when the time comes, young people are able to take the next step in their lives with the knowledge and qualifications they need. We want to build on the remarkable efforts of teachers, students and parents across the country as children return to school—and education—through these challenging times. We must continue to do all we can to minimise the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on all those who are studying at school or college.
I know that students due to sit exams next summer have experienced considerable disruption to their education, our £1 billion covid-19 catch-up package will help to tackle the impact of lost teaching time. It is right that our approach to exams and assessments in 2021 also reflects these students’ experience.
Today I can confirm that GCSE, AS and A level exams in 2021 will go ahead, with most exams moved back three weeks next year to give students more time to prepare and a chance to catch up on education lost due to covid-19. We know that exams are the fairest way of measuring a student’s abilities and accomplishments, including the most disadvantaged. We want to give our young people the opportunity next summer to demonstrate what they know and can do.
The main exam series will start on 7 June and end on 2 July. One maths and one English GCSE exam will take place before the May half-term, giving any Year 11 pupils who need to self-isolate during the exam period the best possible chance of still sitting a paper in each of these core subjects. Some A and AS levels with typically very small numbers of students entering will also be scheduled in the days just before half term. It is expected that for the majority of vocational and technical qualifications that are taken alongside or instead of GCSEs, AS or A levels, awarding organisations will look to align timetables with 2021 exams.
Results days for AS, A levels and GCSEs will fall on Tuesday 24 August and Friday 27 August respectively, with students taking vocational and technical qualifications needed for progression to further or higher education receiving their results no later than their peers.
I am also confirming today the subject-level changes to exams and assessments outlined in the public consultation carried out earlier this year by the exams’ regulator, Ofqual. These changes to exams and assessments next year will support teachers and students by freeing up valuable teaching time. Ofqual has also consulted on how assessments of vocational and technical qualifications will be adapted to free up teaching time and respond to any future public health measures.
Schools and colleges have shown exams can be held, even in areas of local restriction, in the autumn exam series which is currently taking place. Exams next year will be supported by contingencies for all scenarios. Today I have written to Ofqual to ask the regulator to support Government in developing these arrangements, engaging closely with the school and further education leaders, teachers, exam boards, unions and the higher education sector. The results of this planning and ongoing discussions with the sector will be published later in the autumn.
I am grateful for the commitment and willingness that has been shown by groups across the sector in enabling and delivering this additional teaching time next year, helping to ensure that young people have the best opportunity to succeed. Our approach will support students to prepare for exams with confidence and ensure they have the best chance of receiving the qualifications they deserve.
[HCWS501]
Local Government Reorganisation
(3 years, 6 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)
Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Somerset
On Friday, I issued invitations under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to principal councils in Cumbria, North Yorkshire, and Somerset, including associated existing unitary councils, to submit proposals for moving to unitary local government in those areas. This is the first step in the statutory process under the 2007 Act for establishing unitary councils in response to locally led proposals from one or more existing councils in the area concerned.
Councils in these areas have requested such invitations and have been developing ideas about restructuring local government in their areas for some time. It is right that they should now have the opportunity to take their local discussions to a conclusion, and if they wish, make proposals for unitary reform. Under the statute such locally led proposals, subject to consultation and parliamentary approval, can be implemented if I consider this appropriate.
There is thus no question of any top-down imposition of Government solutions. We are clear that any reform of an area’s local government, where there is strong local support for the principle of a unitary structure, is most effectively achieved through locally-led proposals put forward by those who best know the area.
It is now for the councils in each of the three areas to make, if they wish, their unitary proposals, either individually or jointly with other councils in the area. The invitations provide that if a council is responding it must submit by 9 November 2020 at least an outline proposal, and if a full proposal has not been submitted by then, the full proposal must be submitted as soon as practical thereafter and by no later than 9 December 2020.
I will carefully consider any proposals I receive, assessing them on the basis of the long-standing criteria for establishing unitary councils, namely that if a unitary proposal is to be implemented it must be likely to improve local government in the area, command a good deal of local support overall across the area, and lead to unitary councils covering a credible geography.
While traditionally various population ranges for unitary councils, such as 300,000 to 600,000 populations, have been referred to, regard must be had to the particular circumstances of a proposed unitary council; including issues of local identity, local geography, delivery of public services and economies of scale when assessing population size.
I recognise that when making proposals councils may request that the May 2021 local elections in the area are postponed. Such postponement of local elections where unitarisation is under consideration is precedented, and I will carefully consider any such request.
With these invitations councils in the three areas now have an opportunity to move forward with reforms which can open the way to significant benefits for local people and businesses, delivering service improvements, facilitating economic growth, and contributing to the levelling up of opportunity and prosperity across the country.
Broader policy on local government reorganisation
The Government are also reaffirming their policy position on the issue of local government reorganisation; this broadly reflects that outlined in the written ministerial statement made by my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire) in July 2019.
Locally-led changes to the structure of local government, whether in the form of unitarisation or district mergers, can be an appropriate means of improving local service delivery, saving taxpayers’ money and improving local accountability. However, restructuring is only one of the different ways that councils can streamline and make savings. Joint working with other councils and partners can take a variety of forms ranging from adopting joint plans, setting up joint committees, sharing back-office services or special purpose vehicles to promote regeneration. Such joint working may extend across county boundaries. Indeed, councils’ general power of competence under the Localism Act 2011 makes it easier for councils to get on with sharing services.
The Government will not impose top-down restructuring of local government and will continue to follow a locally-led approach for unitarisation where councils can develop proposals which have strong local support. This has been the Government’s consistent approach since 2010, when top-down restructuring was stopped through the Local Government Act 2010.
When considering reform, those in an area will know what is best—the very essence of localism to which the Government remain committed. However, the pandemic has rightly necessitated resources across Whitehall and in local government being reallocated to tackling covid-19 and on economic recovery, and this must be Whitehall’s and town halls’ No. 1 priority at present.
[HCWS502]
UK-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement: Transparency and Scrutiny
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
I am setting out transparency and scrutiny arrangements for international trade deals starting with the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement (UK-Japan CEPA) which will be signed shortly.
At the outset of negotiations, the Government published their objectives for this agreement, along with a scoping assessment. During the consultation period, we have discussed progress with trusted advisers across industry, including with stakeholders in farming. This sector has been involved throughout, to ensure that nothing we agree undermines our farmers’ ability to compete internationally while producing food at a high standard. The Government have also established a Trade and Agriculture Commission to advise on future trade policy. This will look at policy for our trade agreements and our work to improve the world’s trade rules, making sure they work for British business and consumers.
We will share future trade agreements with the International Trade Committee in the House of Commons and the International Agreements Sub-Committee in the House of Lords, in advance of being laid in Parliament through the process set out under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG). Today we are doing this for the UK-Japan CEPA.
We will always endeavour to make sure the Committees have at least ten sitting days to read through these on a confidential basis, as we are doing for this deal. We are also sharing a full impact assessment which covers the economic impacts along with the social, environmental, and animal welfare aspects of the deal. This impact assessment has been independently scrutinised by the Regulatory Policy Committee.
At the end of negotiations, this Government are committed to ensuring the final agreement text, alongside an explanatory memorandum, is laid in Parliament under the CRaG scrutiny procedure for 21 sitting days. This will ensure the House has sufficient time to scrutinise the detail of any deal.
This overall approach goes well beyond many comparable parliamentary democracies. Parliament has been provided with the information it needs to provide effective scrutiny at all stages of the negotiations. We are also working constructively with the Select Committees referred to above, who may choose to produce independent reports on the agreement.
Widespread prior consultation and the publication of detailed impact assessments and objectives up front, allows informed debate at the start of the negotiations. Extensive stakeholder engagement on the detail of the negotiations as they proceed, and confidential briefing of relevant committees, means we have taken best practice at every stage from comparable democratic systems. Combined with the confidential sharing of text at the end of negotiations, this is a best in class approach to transparency and openness to scrutiny by Parliament and other stakeholders, compared with such countries.
For example, before any of our negotiations with the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand commenced, this Government led a comprehensive public consultation or call for input. Like Canadian, Australian and New Zealand systems, we have kept Parliament updated on negotiations as they progress, including close engagement with relevant Select Committees.
These arrangements are appropriate to the UK’s constitutional make-up and separation of powers. Ultimately, if Parliament is not content with a trade deal, it can raise concerns by resolving against ratification and delay any implementing legislation indefinitely.
This Government are committed to ensuring that no trade deal undermines key industries or lowers standards for consumers. We are concluding free trade agreements that benefit all parts of the UK, by creating opportunities for our world-leading industries and maintaining high standards, while increasing choice for consumers.
[HCWS499]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Introduction: Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? And I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Covid-19: Over-60s
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bryan of Partick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the advice by the World Health Organization that people over 60 should be treated as vulnerable to COVID-19, what plans they have to support people in this age group during the COVID-19 pandemic who must work because they do not have access to a pension.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, people over 60 are not automatically considered to be either clinically vulnerable or clinically extremely vulnerable, as those categories are based on specific clinical circumstances. Employers have a duty of care towards their workers and should ensure that appropriate steps are taken to mitigate health and safety risks in the workplace. For those who are unemployed, we have announced a comprehensive jobs package to build on the existing Jobcentre Plus support.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware that healthy life expectancy for women in Glasgow is 58 years and six months, but many women in poor health have to continue to work because they still have years to wait for their state pension? Some 80% of key workers in education, health and social care are women, and these occupational groups are among those at the highest risk of Covid-19. Approximately 32% of these women are over 60. Can the Minister explain why the Government cannot give them early access to their state pension?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
First, I want to say how we value the work that front-line workers do and how much of a debt we owe to them. The Government are not considering granting early access to the state pension; I am unable to say more than that.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
Will the Minister agree with me that women over 60 who work in care homes have to make impossible decisions between a job and their health, and will she further agree with me that they have made great sacrifices over the last few months to protect the people they care for? Will she commit now to ensure all care homes are Covid-safe by improving the health and safety regime and ensuring that employers follow the guidance?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am pleased to be able to confirm to the noble Baroness and indeed to the whole House that, since late March, the Health and Safety Executive has had an extra £14 million in its budget. It has carried out a programme of interventions to check how businesses are implementing measures to reduce the transmission of Covid. Concerns are acted on quickly, and the HSE decides on what kind of enforcement there has to be.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister redouble efforts with colleagues to correct the pension injustice done to the WASPI women, which has been exacerbated by the Covid issues of this year, and ensure fair transitional arrangements for all women born in the 1950s who are affected by these pension changes?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s concern. However, both the High Court and the Court of Appeal have supported the actions of the DWP and, because that is being appealed, we are not able to comment on ongoing litigation.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, could my noble friend the Minister clarify the position for workers living with someone who is shielding or clinically extremely vulnerable? Do they now need to go back to work?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Shielding was paused on 1 August in England, and clinically vulnerable and extremely vulnerable people are now required to follow the same local and national arrangements as the rest of the population. This means somebody living with someone who is clinically extremely vulnerable is able to attend work as normal if they are unable to work from home.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, at the heart of this Question is how to protect the most vulnerable. At the start of the pandemic, my husband received a letter telling him to shield because of his vulnerability and, as the noble Baroness said, in August he got another letter saying that he no longer needed to shield. Given that virus cases are now doubling every day, what consideration is being given to whether such letters will be sent out again, on what criteria and in which tiers of risk?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The answer to the noble Baroness’s question needs to come from the Department of Health and Social Care. I will talk to my colleague and ensure that a letter is written to the noble Baroness with the answers to her questions.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am glad my noble friend agrees that people in their early or mid-60s are fit and healthy, and most are able to work. However, some are genuinely unable to do so. In light of the near 20-year differential in healthy life expectancy across the UK and looming rises in unemployment, might the Government consider a bit more flexibility in the state pension and allowing early access, perhaps on health grounds?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
It will come as no surprise to my noble friend that the Government at this point have no plans to review early access to state pensions, as I have already said. Where people have health conditions and are in receipt of universal credit, however, depending on the circumstances, they may be able to receive an additional amount.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, this Question is particularly pertinent to freelancers and people in the creative industries. In fact, the Musicians’ Union told me this morning that it has around 10,000 members who fall into this category. Given that it is very difficult for people of this age to retrain, and when they do retrain it is difficult for them to get jobs against 20 year-olds and 30 year-olds, what would the Minister suggest these people do when they are in financial extremis?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My understanding is that if somebody’s job has gone—and I take what the noble Lord says about the creative industries—they can apply for universal credit. They will get the support of a work coach, who will help them in the next phase of their journey, in working out what work they could do and what transferable skills they have, and then turning every stone to make sure that they secure alternative employment.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, just as unemployment started to rise, the Government decided to reinstate conditionality and sanctions. From what the Minister has just said, is she really saying that if somebody who is clinically extremely vulnerable—on grounds of either age or condition—or who lives with someone like that, refuses to take a job, because they think they would put themselves or their partner at risk, the Government would sanction them and take away some of their benefits? Is she really saying that?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I respond by saying to the noble Baroness that the work coaches are exercising caution and compassion when considering sanctions. Only if there is no good reason for somebody to turn down an opportunity will sanctions be applied.
Lord Balfe (Con)
The Question actually refers to
“the advice by the World Health Organization that people over 60 should be treated as vulnerable to COVID-19”.
Some 24.1% of the British population is aged over 60—most of this House is aged around 70. The average age of Covid deaths is 82. Does the Minister agree that the WHO brings itself into disrepute somewhat if it starts categorising a quarter of the population as vulnerable? Would the Minister confirm that the many over-60s who are working hard to get this country back on its feet also deserve a bit of praise?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord that it is patronising and not a good thing to be judging people aged over 60, because of their ability to work or otherwise. Noble Lords in this House—I include myself in that—would say that they work very hard and make a great contribution to the country. We owe a huge debt to the over-60 generation, but I am afraid I am not going to comment on what the World Health Organization says people should do.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first ask for clarification of whether the World Health Organization report is based solely on age and does not take potential physical condition into account. Secondly, what steps are the Government taking to prevent long-term unemployment among older workers as a result of Covid-19?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
On the noble Lord’s first point, I will need to write to him and clarify that answer. Secondly, the Government have recently announced their plan for jobs, doubling the number of work coaches and putting £150 million into the flexible support fund. The Government are also offering people all manner of support services. We are not writing anybody off and we are going to turn every stone to get people back to work.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
LGBT International Rights
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking (1) to support, and (2) to enhance, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans rights internationally.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare my interest as a patron of the Terrence Higgins Trust.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is a strong supporter of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans rights internationally through our overseas network, at the UN and through our co-chairmanship of the Equal Rights Coalition. During the recent UN General Assembly, I announced further UK support to help Commonwealth Governments and civil society to repeal outdated, discriminatory laws. Today, I can announce a further £800,000 of funding to support the work of the Commonwealth Equality Network.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My noble friend will know that, in many countries, the Covid-19 emergency has been used by Governments to curtail human rights, with LGBT people very much in the firing line in places such as Uganda and Turkey. Some, particularly in those countries where homosexuality is criminalised, have been jailed under the guise of enforcing Covid legislation. However, is my noble friend aware that the pandemic risks the progress that has been made internationally in tackling HIV, with a rise in new infections of up to 60% and possibly half a million extra deaths from AIDS predicted this year as a result of disruption to antiviral therapy services—with tragic consequences for those who are most marginalised and at risk? Will she commit to the protection of LGBT people as a core component of the Government’s international response to Covid, including preventing HIV transmission and ensuring that new vaccines and treatments are available to and affordable for all?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we are clear that states must not use Covid-19 as a cover for repressive action, including discrimination against LGBT citizens. Like my noble friend, I am concerned about the impact Covid is having on HIV care and prevention, and we are taking steps to action this. The global fund, to which the UK is the second-largest donor, is reallocating up to $1 billion to continue prevention and treatment services. The UK is fully committed to equitable global access to safe and effective Covid-19 vaccines.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. As chair of the Government’s international LGBT conference, which regrettably had to be postponed, may I ask my noble friend to update the House on what is happening with this important event, which offers the opportunity to demonstrate to the world the Government’s commitment to the promotion of LGBT rights? Will she also say something about the opportunity to announce a funding commitment for the groups all around the world that fight hard to promote LGBT rights and which rely on support from the UK and other Governments?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we are looking forward to hosting the international conference. As my noble friend said, our ambitious plans, sadly, had to be postponed. We are looking at alternative options that will ensure that the event achieves all we want it to and is safe for our delegates; we hope to make an announcement on that shortly. We have a strong record on funding and supporting LGBT rights programmes, and that will continue.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB) [V]
My Lords, the UK is rightly proud of its record on both LGBTI rights and inclusion and the global power and influence of the FCDO. In order that we can strengthen our position on the global stage, will the Minister seek advice from countries with legislation that is more progressive than our own—including Ireland, Denmark, Malta and Portugal—so that we can be world-beating once again?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the UK is recognised as one of the most progressive countries on LGBT rights and has one of the world’s strongest legislative frameworks to prevent and tackle discrimination. We are fully committed to the principle of non-discrimination on any grounds, including on the basis of sexual orientation and/or gender identity.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that on 27 September, an open letter was released urging the Polish Government to end discrimination against sexual minorities. It was sent by envoys from 50 countries, including the UK, the US, Israel, India and Poland’s EU partners. Many towns in Poland have declared themselves free from LGBT ideology. It is commendable that our ambassador signed the letter, but is that sufficient? Are there any plans for this message to be delivered to the Polish Government at ministerial level?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, our embassy in Warsaw works actively on this agenda with both civil society and the Polish Government, in close co-operation with our diplomatic partners. The noble Lord pointed to the letter that the UK ambassador recently signed. Earlier this year, the embassy hosted an expert round table with Polish businesses and LGBT groups. We fly the rainbow flag annually, and our embassy in Warsaw will continue to work on this important agenda and support the groups that are fighting for equal rights in Poland.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, statistically, LGBT citizens of the United Kingdom enjoy greater rights than many people around the world, but citizens of our overseas territories do not. They often find themselves in legal limbo, whereby they cannot appeal to their Government or ours. What are the Government doing to close that legal loophole for citizens in our overseas territories?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, the British Overseas Territories are separate and largely self-governing jurisdictions with their own democratically elected representatives. That said, we are seeing progress. I was delighted to see the Government of the Cayman Islands introduce civil partnerships legislation recently. We have seen good progress on that and I hope that other OTs will follow.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Theresa May’s apology at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London in 2018 marked a turning point, placing the responsibility for laws that outlaw homosexuality at our door. I welcome the fact that the Government are topping up the fund, but how much progress has been made on decriminalisation in Commonwealth countries and are other countries contributing to the fund to ensure that we make more rapid progress?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we have seen good progress over the past two years. Our UK-funded Equality & Justice Alliance has helped to promote the full social, economic and political participation of all, has helped to support the creation and strengthening of movements for change and has delivered a series of dialogues across the Commonwealth. We hope to see further progress in Commonwealth countries.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, trans rights in international competitive sport is a sensitive and important issue. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that leaving it to international sports federations and not enshrining it in domestic legislation is the only fair and sensitive way to address this incredibly difficult and sensitive issue, given that the current guidelines allow successfully transitioned athletes to compete internationally, subject to limiting testosterone levels as a metric in women’s competition categories?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
I agree with my noble friend: it is right that sports bodies have the discretion to set their own rules on these issues.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton, I have issues with the regime in Poland. I welcome the Minister’s recent answer, but can I press her slightly further to confirm whether the UK Government, with allies, are exploring any further steps to support the LGBT population of Poland?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we are working closely with allies to support the LGBT community in Poland. Recently, we have seen concerning reports of local councils and regional administrations in Poland making themselves free of LGBT ideology. We are also working with all our allies to make it clear that we oppose all forms of discrimination and are committed to protecting and promoting the rights and freedoms of LGBT people in Poland.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, every country is on a journey in recognising LGBTQ rights. Indeed, over the past decade my party—particularly under the leadership of the right honourable David Cameron—and I have learned much and made huge strides. Will my noble friend accept, therefore, that we must always work with local campaigners to ensure that changes in other countries are both indigenous and long term? Will she join me in congratulating Pakistan on its achievements on transgender rights, including the appointment of a transgender rights adviser—Aisha Mughal, who last year became the first transgender person to represent their country at the UN—to its Ministry of Human Rights?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I will happily join my noble friend in praising the right honourable David Cameron; I know that introducing marriage for same-sex couples was one of his proudest achievements. I agree that we must always work with local campaigners to ensure that the changes we see and the progress we make are sustainable. I also join my noble friend in welcoming this and congratulating Pakistan; it is important that we see transgender representation at all levels.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Government can now do independent trade deals, but as we know, some countries have capital punishment for LGBT people. What approach will the Government take to doing trade deals with countries that kill people just because of who they love?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and oppose any discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. We will continue to work with countries to remove the death penalty.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, should we not pay tribute to organisations such as the Human Dignity Trust and the Commonwealth Lawyers Association, whose work helps LGBT people in Commonwealth countries to gain their basic rights through their courts, most recently in Belize and Botswana? At the same time, should we not continue to deplore the oppression and suffering that remain the lot of gay friends and colleagues in most parts of the Commonwealth, in open defiance of that organisation’s charter?
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, of course we fully support the Commonwealth charter and we are working closely to make sure that we are seeing progress in this area. I join my noble friend in paying tribute to the brave organisations that are working across the world. These are exactly the kind of organisations that we are supporting through the Commonwealth Equality Network. They work tirelessly to protect the rights of fellow citizens and ensure that LGBT people can live free from discrimination and violence.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the next Question.
Protecting Civilians in Armed Conflict
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans for the implementation of the proposals set out in their paper UK Approach to Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, published on 27 August.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the paper provides an update on the UK’s approach to the protection of civilians, highlighting the work being done across the UK Government over the past 10 years to move this important agenda forward. The United Kingdom is already implementing the work we have set out and we will continue to do so, be that through the UN Security Council and other multilateral fora or, indeed, by championing agendas such as the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, the specific inclusion of children in the strategy for the first time is most welcome. What measures are the Government now taking to fulfil the commitment in the strategy to improve accountability for violations of children’s rights in conflict?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend has raised an important point. As she will know from her own time as Minister of State at the Foreign Office, the annual report on Children and Armed Conflict from the UN Secretary-General has highlighted more than 25,000 UN-verified grave violations against children. I am therefore proud of the fact that the UK is the largest single financial contributor to the Office of the UN Special Representative, SRSG Virginia Gamba, who I have worked with very closely. I can assure my noble friend that we continue to work on this as a key priority in protecting civilians in armed conflict.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the report states that the United Kingdom will tackle the climate of impunity around conflict-related sexual violence. Can the Minister confirm that this will include the prosecution of perpetrators and the provision of safe abortion services for victims in conflict zones, whatever the national law in that country stipulates?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. On her second point about sexual and reproductive health and support for women, particularly in conflict zones, the United Kingdom has been very clear indeed. When the latest PSVI resolution was passed, I made it very clear in support of the resolution that the absence of that element was a major omission from the resolution. Nevertheless, let me assure her that whether it is within the conflict zone itself or through the international courts, we shall ensure that the perpetrators of sexual violence are held to account.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con) [V]
My Lords, a key factor in the victimisation of civilians in conflict is often the ethno-religious facets of war. The report rightly emphasises the importance of local NGOs and community groups. How can the FCDO do more to support these groups in the de-escalation of ethno-religious tensions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble friend raises a very important point. As he will know, we have stepped up our advocacy on important issues of freedom of religion or belief. I believe very passionately that the engagement of civil society and that of faith and belief groups is an essential component to ensuring that civilians are protected effectively. That does not just mean within countries, but internationally.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, In Nagorno-Karabakh, despite a temporary ceasefire, this NATO country is involved a deadly proxy war with civilians, including children, continuing to be targeted with heavy artillery. How can we implement the recommendations in Part 1 of the report concerning impunity and justice so that those who are in breach of international humanitarian law and continue to commit war crimes and other crimes against humanity are brought to justice?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first and foremost, let me assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it clear that we continue to support the work of the Minsk Group. He and the Canadian Minister for Foreign Affairs, François-Philippe Champagne, issued a joint statement on 6 October calling for an immediate ceasefire and a return to the negotiating table. That must be the first step so that, as the noble Lord has rightly articulated, we can then move forward to holding the perpetrators of crimes fully to account.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, how will the Government hold to account those who are responsible for the use of explosive weapons in populated areas which devastate the lives of all civilians, but particularly those of children and the elderly? What actions are they planning to take to prevent the use of these weapons?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the important point raised by the noble Baroness, the UK is working closely with other states, including the Red Cross movement, to promote compliance with international humanitarian law. We will continue to work with partners and call on all states and non-state actors engaged in armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law and to act in accordance with their obligations under it.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, 50% of the funding of the former DfID was targeted towards fragile and conflict-afflicted states. Will the new FCDO continue with that funding?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the integration of the two departments is a major step towards ensuring that our diplomacy and development objectives are fully aligned. We continue to remain committed to ensuring that resolving conflict and a commitment to peace will be the major objectives of the new FCDO.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, the paper rightly stresses the importance of effective and independent monitoring and reporting for accountability. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether it is still the Government’s policy to establish an independent international mechanism to investigate alleged crimes of sexual violence in conflict and what concrete progress has been made in the past two years on this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, while paying tribute to the work of my noble friend, let me assure her that within the context of the PSVI which I lead on for the Prime Minister, it is about strengthening justice for the survivors of sexual violence in conflict and to hold the perpetrators to account. We are seeing progress. In a survivor-centred approach, we have recently seen progress through the appointment of survivor champions. The PSVI conference, which unfortunately had to be postponed, was also focused on bringing together the expertise and insight needed to ensure that we have a centre of excellence where all the best practices can be brought together.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may pick up on the call by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for specific action in relation to this policy report. Yemen is still the biggest humanitarian crisis we face, with women and children suffering in particular because of the collapse of the health system. What are we doing to ensure that we are able to respond to the crisis in infrastructure and make sure that people have access to healthcare?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord rightly points out the situation in Yemen, which is dire. The most vulnerable communities are unable to access healthcare There are issues around epidemics, including cholera, which continue to persist. That is why it is important, as my right honourable friend has said, that there has to be a political settlement within the parties in Yemen as well as with the countries supporting it. I can assure the noble Lord that that is exactly the objective we are working towards.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, this policy paper is silent on the need for additional protection for civilian interpreters working in conflict zones. Although the Minister told the House as recently as June that the UK would pursue this issue with the UN Security Council, does he accept that the Geneva conventions are currently inadequate to protect civilian interpreters? Can he report on any progress to date towards a Security Council resolution?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s second point, I have recently discussed with the team in New York how to look at this issue, in particular during our presidency of the Security Council. Let me assure her that since she first raised this issue and continues to do so, it has remained very much on my agenda. Interpreters play an essential and vital role. They are regarded as civilians and the UK recognises their invaluable contribution, as the recent support for Afghani translators has demonstrated.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, it is impossible to meet children who have been involved in conflict or extreme violence without seeing the deep trauma in their eyes and actions. The Secretary-General’s special representative on children and conflict has given a high priority in discussions to psychological support for traumatised children from around the world who have experienced that violence. Are the UK Government involved in discussions with her to make progress on that agenda?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the short answer is yes. We are looking at all elements of supporting the most vulnerable communities. As my noble friend did, the noble Lord rightly raises the important issue of children who are directly impacted, not just by the conflict itself but in their life chances thereafter. I assure him that, as we work closely with Virginia Gamba and fund her office, we will continue to prioritise this issue.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, following the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, and the Minister’s Answer, can he confirm the UK’s continued commitment to the principle that international humanitarian law trumps national law in situations of armed conflict, and that this applies to abortion, if sought and recommended when a woman has been raped?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom remains committed to obligations of international humanitarian law and, as I said earlier, we call on other countries to respect their obligations to it. When we have differed on this issue, even from our strongest allies and at the top table—the UN Security Council—we have made known our difference and the importance of standing up for the sexual and reproductive health of all women, everywhere.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now move to the next Question.
Amazon
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Leigh of Hurley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are planning to take (1) to protect third party sellers from the dominance of Amazon, and (2) to ensure that Amazon does not benefit from passing on the costs of the Digital Services Tax to sellers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that digital markets work for all—businesses, consumers and society as a whole. Promoting dynamic and competitive digital markets will be key to maintaining a world-leading digital economy in the UK. That is why we accepted the six strategic recommendations of the Furman review and established the digital markets task force to advise on the potential design and implementation of pro-competitive measures in digital platform markets.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I appreciate that the DST was always intended as a stopgap while the OECD comes up with a more global solution, possibly imminently. But it was brought in with the background of Amazon paying just £4.6 million in corporation tax in 2017. The DST does not achieve its objective of yielding more revenue from the likes of Amazon, as it is simply passed on to its suppliers in the marketplace, which have to absorb this tax in their margin. Would the Minister be prepared to set up a meeting with me, some interested parties and HM Treasury to consider this much more carefully?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government expect the digital services tax to raise about £2 billion over the next five years, which will go some way to addressing the issues that my noble friend raises, but I am delighted to commit to meeting him and other interested parties.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in spite of what the Minister said, many are concerned about the abuse of market power by Amazon. If the Prime Minister wants to “build back better”, we need a commission that recognises and promotes good company behaviour and standards, in the same way that the Low Pay Commission does for pay. A good place to start would be the increasingly popular environmental, social and governance investing and reporting framework. Will the Government set up such an organisation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point, but I remind him that the Government have established a number of groups and reviews, starting with the Furman review, which reported in March 2019, and most recently the digital markets task force. One of the recommendations we have accepted is the development of a code of conduct, just as the noble Lord suggests.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the chief executive of the CMA described the market position of some of the major US online platforms as “unassailable”. The Government are clearly going to give in to the US on food standards in any trade deal; will they do the same with the digital sales tax and competition regulation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government remain determined to create the most innovative pro-growth economy that we can. That is dependent on effective competitions in all markets, particularly digital markets, so that is where our focus remains.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to hear the replies of my noble friend, and that the Government now recognise that the likes of Amazon and Google are not our friends. They are entities that we need to extend ourselves to control to make sure that we create, in this country, an environment that is supportive for our own businesses. In that context, does she recognise how important it is for HMRC to ensure that all entities pay a proper level of tax? Failure to do so, as has been the case with VAT for many years, leads to great suffering by UK businesses.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I know that my colleagues in HMRC spend every day trying to make sure that businesses pay a proper level of tax, but I hope that my noble friend agrees that that is one side of the equation. The other is to promote pro-competitive policies, on which we are also working hard.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that last week the United States Congress published a 449-page report, after reviewing millions of documents and taking testimony from hundreds of witnesses, including Amazon’s CEO. The report concluded that
“the totality of the evidence produced during this investigation demonstrates the pressing need for legislative action and reform.”
Does she agree with or dispute the findings of the report? How soon will the Government introduce their own draft reforms to stop these predatory and harmful treatments of third-party sellers and consumers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I cannot claim to have read every page of the US report, but I have looked at the headlines. There is a great deal of overlap with the principles that we have already accepted, both on anti-trust measures and on data interoperability and portability. Where the report differs, if I have understood correctly, is in its promotion of structural separations within the industry.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Government recently said that they could scrap the digital services tax to facilitate a trade agreement with the United States. Is that still our negotiating position? Can the Minister tell us whether the Government support the challenge that India and South Africa are making to the WTO moratorium on customs duties on goods transmitted electronically?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are keen to have a free trade agreement with the US that strengthens our economic relationship with our largest bilateral trading partner. Once a global digital solution is in place, we will remove the DST. I will write to the noble Lord on the second part of his question.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, the digital services tax is a mouse of a measure compared with the huge profits made by this American big tech monster. Should the Government not co-operate very closely with the European Union, which is devising an international tax with much greater teeth, so that big tech companies pay their fair share of tax?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government are working closely at an international level with the OECD and the G20. We were pleased to see the publication of the OECD inclusive framework on the tax challenges of digitalisation of the economy, which has come out today. Good progress is being made on those negotiations, and once we reach common ground we can remove the DST.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
The people pay for the information superhighway and the roads that Amazon and others are using to profiteer during this crisis. Does the Minister agree that people would be dismayed should Amazon be allowed drones in this country if it was not taxed at least as much as each of us is whenever we take a flight?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right that the people of this country want a fair system. That is why we are pushing very hard on competition legislation, but this is also where we have great evidence of success in our technology industry, with more tech unicorns in this country than any other European nation.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I confess that I buy things from Amazon, but I hate doing so because it is singlehandedly destroying the United Kingdom high street. Will my noble friend the Minister make strong representations to the Treasury that the trivial amount of business rates paid by Amazon is an absolute disgrace? Its giant warehouses are rated like an empty farmer’s barn, rather than the ruthless mega retail operations they are. Its failure to pay business rates is a greater scandal than its failure to pay corporation tax.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government and the Treasury absolutely recognise the importance of our high streets. That is why the Treasury announced a fundamental review of the business rates system earlier this year.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, has the Minister read the report by the TUC and the GMB this morning on Amazon’s dire employment practices? In this Covid period, Amazon has received a lot of government and public sector contracts. Why are the Government not using their leverage over those contracts to ensure that Amazon improves its employment conditions?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We are working across the piece to protect jobs in all parts of the economy and to clamp down on any abuses that we are aware of.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme: BAME Communities
Lord Woolley of Woodford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the end of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, what assessment they have made of its impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, people from a minority ethnic background can be more vulnerable to unemployment than those from a white background, although rates vary considerably by ethnicity. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and other government support schemes have helped protect against rising unemployment during the pandemic. So far, the scheme has helped 1.2 million employers across the UK furlough 9.6 million jobs, protecting people’s livelihoods.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
My Lords, in August, the Government were made acutely aware that a disproportionately high number of black, Asian and minority ethnic workers have been furloughed or made redundant. With the main job retention scheme coming to a close, we can now expect another spike in BAME redundancies. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government undertook a BAME impact assessment before making these changes? Also, despite repeated calls, including a petition signed by 140,000 people, why do we still do not have a Covid-19 race equality strategy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, when designing the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and its next steps, the Government undertook an analysis of how the policies were likely to affect individuals sharing protected characteristics, in line with our public sector equality duties. Of course, the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme comes to an end at the end of October. It is being replaced by the Job Support Scheme, which will continue to support jobs during the pandemic.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Covid has entrenched existing inequalities. The Government’s review, The Time for Talking Is Over. Now Is the Time to Act: Race in the Workplace, makes a number of specific recommendations: first, that there should be legislation to make large companies publish ethnicity data; and, secondly, that the public sector should use its procurement powers to drive change. That was three years ago. When will the time to act be? Will the Government implement these two recommendations? If they do not, we are wasting millions of pounds on these schemes.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have taken a number of measures to support employment for people from minority-ethnic backgrounds, partly as a result of the race disparity audit and the work done by the noble Lord who asked the Private Notice Question. The Government are taking things further, with the Commission for Racial Equality. Employment is one of the aspects being looked at by the commission, and it is due to report by the end of this year.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
My Lords, there is overwhelming evidence that black and minority-ethnic communities have borne the brunt of this pandemic, facing a disproportionate fatality rate and now being hit harder by job losses. Do not take my word for it; the analysis is confirmed in research published by the House of Commons Library, which found that in areas of the economy that had been shut down there were an above average number of BAME workers. I press the Minister on the Question put by my noble friend Lord Woolley. A petition signed by 140,000 people is calling for a proper Covid race equality strategy. On the new job support scheme which will replace the support currently in place at the end of October, has there been an impact assessment of whether it will be effective?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government take the issue extremely seriously. A number of different factors feed into this. On the vulnerability of people from black and minority-ethnic communities to the virus itself, work was done by Public Health England and there is follow-up work being undertaken, including asking every NHS trust to undertake risk assessments and then take action to mitigate those risks. On the equality impact assessment, an assessment was done under the Government’s public sector equality duty of both the CJRS and its successor schemes.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are using lockdown to fight Covid, but lockdown itself costs lives, costs jobs and denies futures. Those damaged most by lockdown are the poor, who include so many among the BAME communities: it is the poor who pay so much of the price. Does my noble friend accept that there is at least a case—one that some of us feel is increasingly persuasive—that we cannot simply carry on with the endless cycle of lockdown after lockdown, which effectively does far too much of the disease’s dirty work for it by putting the poor in BAME and other communities at greatest risk?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, of course the Government want to move forward from that approach. That is why we have invested so much in the development of vaccines and why we are working on improving test and trace. The reality is that there are health costs to lockdowns as well as economic costs, but at the same time there are economic costs if we do not get the virus under control. People do not have the confidence to go out and participate in our economy. We are seeking to find the right balance between those, at all times, in our response.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the ethnic-minority groups fared much worse as a result of the 2008 recession than the white majority, exacerbating pre-existing inequalities, with higher unemployment, lower earnings, lower self-employment rates and higher housing costs. The consequences were far-reaching and long-lasting. Can the Minister inform us about the Public Health England report in June which found that the highest coronavirus diagnosis rates were among people from black and Asian ethnic groups, who are twice as likely to die from Covid-19 than white people? More than a month after PHE’s first report and outcomes, the Government have announced research funding for projects. Can the Minister tell us the progress and findings of these projects to explain the situation? Does she also agree that mass testing would greatly help the situation?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord, who has raised the question of mass testing a number of times in this Chamber. The Government are working as hard as they can to make progress. As for the report by Public Health England, there was follow-up work to be done—that is still being done, but it did not stop up from taking action immediately. For example, all health trusts were asked to undertake the risk assessments that I referred to earlier, and to put in place steps and processes to mitigate the risk to staff in those trusts, which was identified as one of the factors that could cause higher mortality rates among those communities.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, throughout the pandemic, black, Asian and minority-ethnic people have died at a higher rate. The Institute for Public Policy Research has suggested that by June, 13% of BAME workers had lost their jobs, compared with 5% of the overall population. What structures, if any, have Ministers put in place to address the specific challenges faced by BAME communities? With the second wave upon us, it is vital that the Government show that they are learning from previous mistakes.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there are two things I have referred to that help answer the noble Lord’s question. The first is the assessment of our policy approaches under the public sector equality duty. The second is the commission that will report by the end of this year on a range of issues, including health, but also employment and how to take things forward. The Government’s response to Covid, particularly in terms of peoples livelihoods, is unprecedented. We have committed to keeping support in place for the duration of the pandemic, adapting it to respond to where we are in our medical response.
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, the pandemic has adversely affected the health of the BAME community and caused financial hardship. I have been informed by the Runnymede Trust that only about 44% of the BAME community was aware of the measure to allow those out of work due to the crisis to claim universal credit. Furthermore, only one-third of the BAME community had heard of the arrangements making statutory sick pay available from the first day of self-isolation. Does my noble friend agree that more should be done to publicise these benefits, such as liaison with local authorities and community groups?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, that is one of the lessons that we have learned in our response to the pandemic so far. As we have had to work with local authorities to impose further local measures, we have seen that local authorities often know their population and community better and have better routes to outreach. We have also given them funding to reach those who have not necessarily heard of the support so far.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as we mark Black History Month 2020, can the Minister detail what specific discussions the Government have had with the devolved Administrations to address the economic and financial problems facing BAME communities within those devolved regions, which have impacted on those communities throughout the United Kingdom?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords have noted, it is often those in BAME communities who are most vulnerable to unemployment, or to seeing a loss or change to their income during the pandemic. That is why the Government have had continued engagement with the devolved Administrations. Last Friday, the Government confirmed that they are uplifting the guaranteed funding to the devolved Administrations by at least £1.3 billion to £14 billion. That includes £2.4 billion for the Northern Ireland Executive on top of the spring 2020 Budget funding.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, as we have already heard, there is now mounting evidence that some communities within the ethnic-minority population are being hit harder by the economic crisis resulting from the pandemic. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to better assess how different groups are being affected by the pandemic and put mechanisms in place to channel support to those most in need? Can she please tell the House whether they are doing this as a matter of urgency, and whether they are urging employers to do the same?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it is because the Government completely understand that some of the most vulnerable in our society might be hit hardest by this pandemic in terms of both their health outcomes and their livelihood that we have put unprecedented support into supporting people’s livelihoods. We are continuing the job support scheme and we said on Friday how that will help to support those in businesses that may need to close down as a consequence of further restrictions imposed to help get the virus under control.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the Minister’s replies I hear no hint of any new action to tackle this great injustice. Do the Government not accept that this is disappointing, given that Covid strikes hardest where inequalities are greatest, that one of the greatest drivers of inequalities is rising unemployment and that the BAME community has suffered most of all from this?
Baroness Penn (Con)
Well, what I am trying to say to noble Lords is that the Government have been aware of this fact since the beginning of the crisis and it has informed our response so far—so, instead of trying to retrofit our response in the light of this information, it has driven our response. The noble Lord said that the Government are not taking any new action in response to this. New action was announced on Friday and I am updating the House on it today. The Equality and Human Rights Commission will report by the end of the year on employment, which is one of the themes it is looking at.
Trade Bill
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the bill be reported from the Grand Committee in respect of proceedings up to and including Thursday 8 October 2020; and that the order of commitment of 8 September 2020 be discharged and the remainder of the bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the two Motions standing in my name give effect to a decision taken last week to move the Trade Bill into the Chamber tomorrow and on Thursday for the remainder of its Committee stage. As a result, the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill’s Second Reading debate will need to move into Grand Committee tomorrow. This will mean that more time can be spent on the Trade Bill, which has made relatively slow progress in Grand Committee. Those noble Lords who signed up to speak on those Bills were notified over the weekend, and I am grateful to the other members of the usual channels for the constructive nature of the discussions we had on Friday. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Chief Whip for tabling these Motions, which we undoubtedly support. In fact, we welcome the proper time to discuss the Trade Bill that this allows, prior to Report. However, it raises the question of the seriousness with which our amendments are then considered by the House of Commons. On another Bill, the all-important Agriculture Bill, we see that our so-called Curry amendment has effectively been deemed to need a money resolution. However, it was the Government, not the Speaker, who
“considers it probable that the … cost to public expenditure would be significant (and would go beyond what could be met under existing authorisation … by the Secretary of State).”
That statement by the Government begs two questions. First, what is the limit? Secondly, what is the Government’s estimate of the cost of Amendment 18? The result of this estimation—the figures which we have not seen—effectively denies the House of Commons the chance to consider amendments sent by your Lordships’ House, whether it is the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Curry, the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Grantchester or any amendment that will emerge on the Trade Bill.
Certainly, should key amendments passed by your Lordships’ House be set aside, perhaps a bit peremptorily without proper consideration, the Government should not be surprised if the proponents of those amendments use ping-pong to find a way of ensuring that the issues are properly debated in the other place.
So we welcome this Motion on the Trade Bill but, looking forward, we need to be clear that devices will not be used to set aside amendments, should they be passed by your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
I say to the Chief Whip that those of us who have been working on the Trade Bill have found the painfully slow pace of progress extremely difficult to deal with, as we have gone on well beyond the number of days in Committee that we expected. So it is really important for the House to grasp how significant this change is because, even if we are going to have two further days in Committee, we really do need to make progress on this Bill, not least for all the institutions that will be set up as a consequence of it.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I remind noble Lords that, if they wish to intervene, they should follow the usual channels and let the clerk know.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I think I was in touch with one of the clerks, but I do not know whether I was in touch with the right clerk. It may help my noble friend if I indicate—I know he follows these matters very closely—that I have two amendments specifically on this point. I am proposing a new international trade commission, following on from the work of our government adviser Henry Dimbleby and the fact that a shadow trade commission is already meeting. So it will be extremely important that we have clarification on what budget has been allocated to the existing trade and agriculture commission before we reach the time when Amendments 54 and 55 will be discussed.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their questions and points. They are important. First, I am grateful for the support for the Motion that is being debated. I do slightly question the relevance of the noble Baroness’s points. However, she was very kind and gave me warning that she would make them, so I feel it would be churlish to go on too much about that and I will reply to her. The point about the reasons that the House of Commons uses, which of course are not uncommon, is that they are entirely a matter for the House of Commons. Not only that, but I shall quote Erskine May on when reasons are given for Lords amendments being disagreed by the Commons:
“When Lords amendments are disagreed to by the Commons, and the amendments are in breach of the Commons’ privileges, the disagreement is made on the ground of privilege alone”—
so they do not go any further than that. This decision is made by the Speaker, and the Speaker’s decisions on the attribution of privilege to Lords amendments are normally accepted without comment by the House of Commons. So, in summary, it is the Speaker who decides on privilege, as he does on money Bills.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh’s points are obviously relevant questions, the answers to which I do not have now—I came prepared to talk about exchanging the Trade Bill for the social security Bill—but I take on board what she has asked and I am sure that the Minister will as well.
The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, about the Trade Bill were well made. We all know that it has gone slower than we anticipated. At the moment, after four days we are now at the target for day two. However, having had discussions with the usual channels to enable us to swap the Bill into the Chamber, I can say that all sides of the House have committed to finishing the Bill on Thursday. My noble friend, among others, has helped in that by regrouping amendments, and the Opposition have withdrawn some, so I feel confident that, with the good will on all sides that is evident, we will finish on Thursday as we anticipate.
Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the bill be referred to a Grand Committee on Tuesday 13 October for debate before Second Reading.
Procedure and Privileges
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Consideration of Commons amendments in hybrid House (3rd Report, HL Paper 139) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
My Lords, the report proposes a process for noble Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments—known as ping-pong—in the hybrid House. The process outlined in the report was proposed to the committee by the Government Chief Whip in a letter outlining the agreement that the usual channels had reached. For the past few months, hybrid proceedings have allowed the House to continue its work of holding the Government to account and scrutinising legislation, but these are unsuitable for ping-pong. Using current hybrid procedures, two rounds of ping-pong would take around three weeks. The report sets out who may speak during ping-pong, the arrangements for amendments and Motions, and the minimum intervals between rounds of consideration. The report also makes clear that the remote voting system should be used for any votes and dispenses with meetings of the Reasons Committee. By the time a Bill reaches these late stages, the issues have already been well debated. In putting forward these proposals, the committee seeks to replicate as closely as possible the House’s usual rhythms for ping-pong in physical sittings. I beg to move.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 12th October 2020
(3 years, 6 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 137-I Amendment for Third Reading - (7 Oct 2020)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now continue. 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.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of the amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. 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. I call the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Clause 6: Children in care and children entitled to care leaving support: entitlement to remain
Amendment 1
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to address the Minister’s concerns at Report stage by removing the phrase “deemed to have”. It ensures that EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care, and those who are entitled to care leaving support, are granted Indefinite Leave to Remain under the EU Settlement Scheme.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it seems a long time since we debated this Bill on Report. I am now speaking to the amendment to Clause 6 in my name. This is a technical change and need not detain us for long. The amendment is intended to achieve settled status for children in care and care leavers. It deals with the identification of such children and the problems they may have with applying for their status—indeed, dispensing with pre-settled status and moving on to settled status.
On Report, the Minister raised concerns about the original wording of the amendment, particularly the phrase “is deemed”, suggesting that this would mean that children and young people would have no secure evidence of their immigration status. The amendment before us today removes the phrase “is deemed to have”, with which the Minister specifically stated that she was unhappy, and replaces it with
“on notification by the local authority to the Home Office that they are such a child, must”.
I hope that by setting out the process of identifying and supporting these children through the EU settlement process, this amendment would remove the Minister’s concern over automatic entitlements and the problem that these children would not be able to prove their immigration status in the future. In the first instance, we would expect that local authorities would be required to identify these young people, after which they would be granted settled status through the EU settlement scheme. This would allow these young people access to the evidence that they need to prove their rights and entitlements in the long term. This House has always championed the rights of the most vulnerable children, especially those in the care system. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I should have said when I called the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that we were talking about Amendment 1, to Clause 6. I now call the Minister.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I was about to clarify that we are talking about Amendment 1, but the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and indeed the Deputy Speaker, have now clarified that.
The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to remove the declaratory status aspect of Clause 6 so that it would provide for children in care and care leavers who have their right of free movement removed by the Bill to obtain indefinite leave to remain—or settled status—under the EU settlement scheme, where they applied to the scheme or a local authority did so on their behalf. It would do this regardless of how long the child or young person had been continuously resident in the UK. There is absolutely no difference of view on the importance of protecting the rights of children in care and care leavers as we end free movement—just as we are seeking to do where all vulnerable groups are concerned.
I set out in earlier debates on this provision the extensive support that the Home Office is providing to local authorities to ensure that those children and young people, as well as any other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme, and the secure evidence of that status which the scheme provides. This includes grant funding to organisations across the UK of up to £17 million over the period 2019-20, to support this and other vulnerable and at-risk groups in applying to the scheme. I am pleased to say that the Home Office announced last week that the number of organisations funded for this work would increase from 57 to 72. That includes local authorities and local government associations as well as charities.
I made it crystal clear in the earlier debates that, in line with the withdrawal agreement, where a person eligible for settled status under the EU settlement scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. I have also made it clear that those reasonable grounds will include where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. Therefore, if a child in care or care leaver does miss the deadline, they can still obtain lawful status in the UK.
In light of views expressed in this House in our earlier debates on this issue, the Government do not object to Amendment 1. We will see how the other place regards Clause 6 as so amended.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so I call the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted with the Minister’s positive response. I say in passing that I wish we had had such a positive response to a number of other amendments, but that may be too optimistic on my behalf.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I give my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for what has been a difficult but nevertheless constructive Bill all round. The Bill gives effect to the ending of free movement as per the referendum and allows for the EU settlement scheme, which has been extremely successful in processing nearly 4 million applicants to date.
There has been a reason why Members of your Lordships’ House have found it difficult—views around leaving the European Union—but the constructive way in which we have approached it, even if we have disagreed, does your Lordships’ House great credit. I have to say that I admire the skill in moving some amendments that had nothing to do with the Bill, but we have had some very good debates despite that and I think it right that these issues be aired.
I thank all noble Lords involved and am very happy that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Along with my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, I thank the Minister and congratulate her on her stamina and patience throughout consideration of the Bill, if not, perhaps, on the number of government concessions. We also thank her for her typical willingness to meet and discuss matters relating to the Bill; that is much appreciated. We appreciate, as well, the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and the work of the Bill team. In addition, perhaps I may be permitted to thank Grace Wright in our office for all her work and invaluable advice on the Bill.
This Bill has of course had its own unique incidents, not least the temporary hiccup over the voting arrangements. Let us hope that that remains unique to it.
As the Minister said, the Bill now goes back to the Commons—in my view, certainly a better Bill than when it left the other place. All that we can now do is wait to see what the Commons make of the amendments passed by your Lordships’ House.
I reiterate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark and myself our thanks to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and the Bill team, and indeed to all noble Lords who have participated in the lengthy and interesting debates during the passage of the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister said, the Bill is about ending free movement. From these Benches, we are no more enthusiastic about that than when the Bill started; if anything, perhaps less so, particularly because the debates have vividly demonstrated the impact on UK citizens resident in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK.
In our view, it is not surprising that the opportunity has been taken to pursue issues relating to the ending of free movement that have a wider context—a rather softer way of describing the various amendments that all sailed through the Public Bill Office, which is particularly careful in that regard. All the amendments have been very people-focused, which shows that there is a view of a fair and firm asylum system that is very different from the Government’s.
This is not the moment for long speeches, nor to rehearse the arguments on the amendments that were agreed by our House with such notable support. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, bore with good humour all that was thrown at them, although I do not know whether they took it out on the cat when they got home.
I express my thanks to our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches and elsewhere in the House; to the Bill team for all their work; and, since the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has paved the way, to Elizabeth Plummer in our whips’ office, whose assistance on the Bill has been magnificent.
We would like to think that we will not be discussing the various amendments again but I realise that we may well do so. In the meantime, with the obvious caveats, we support the Motion that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to have been asked to make the concluding Cross-Bench speech at the end of our consideration of the immigration Bill. I thank not only the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for their unfailing courtesy and diligence but also the unsung heroes, the Bill team.
During one of my interventions I drew the attention of the House to the tragic story of a Ugandan refugee, Mercy Baguma, who in August was found dead in a Glasgow flat while her one year-old son was found crying beside his mother’s body, weakened from several days of starvation. Stories such as hers and of those caught up in the underlying themes of this Bill—from the vast displacement arising from movement of refugees, to the criminal gangs who profiteer from this tide of human misery and the consequences of the so-called hostile environment—have provided the backdrop to our proceedings.
Last week, by a majority of 101, the House supported the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, on human trafficking. The Commons will now have the opportunity to reconsider that issue and other changes, such as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Oates, on physical documentation, which we have incorporated into the Bill. Although the primary purpose, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said, is to end the exercise of EU rights of free movement in this country, noble Lords have focused again and again on the position of children and young people of European parentage who were born here or who have grown up here.
In conclusion, I remember what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said from the government Benches: that it would be deeply upsetting for any of us to find our children or grandchildren experiencing this exclusion from their rights to British citizenship. Thanks to the amendments we are sending back down the Corridor, the House of Commons now has the opportunity to correct this profound and damaging injustice, but also to improve the legislation. I hope it will seize the opportunity to do so.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
As the Member who was lucky enough to speak first on this Bill, both in Committee and on Report, I thank those involved with its passage through our House. Indeed, I have spoken on nearly all the Bills that have followed from our exit from the EU, in my position as a former Minister and as a current member of the European Union Committee.
I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lady Williams on her handling of the Bill. It is possibly the most challenging of the EU exit Bills, involving very divided opinions across the House; yet, thanks to her good humour and diplomacy, shown again on Amendment 1 today, it has been progressed in a timely and very courteous manner. Thanks are also due to another Minister, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, our social security Minister on this Bill; to our Whip, my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; to all those on these Benches who have spoken and to others across the House; and of course to the excellent Bill team.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am glad the Deputy Speaker has given me another chance to speak, because I forgot to thank both my noble friends Lady Stedman-Scott and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I will just thank them fulsomely and sit down.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume. This debate is on the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North East of England) Regulations 2020 and two other Motions. The time-limit is one-and-a-half hours.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North East of England) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 17 September be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we are all aware of the rising rate of infection, particular after this morning’s candid briefings, and the risks that it poses. Your Lordships will therefore understand the importance of taking the necessary steps to keep members of the public safe, while continuing to keep the economy running and schools open, and heading off the need for a second national lockdown.
We know that some of the rules put in place have become increasingly complex and difficult to enforce. That is why the Prime Minister has set out—or will set out—how we will further simplify and standardise local rules by introducing a three-tiered system of local Covid alert levels in England. This is not the subject of the debate today, nor does it change the legal requirement to wear face coverings, but it should reassure noble Lords that we continue to work with the local leaders to tackle outbreaks with more targeted restrictions that are simple and constructive.
The regulations being debated today introduced the requirement that members of the public should wear a face covering in taxis and private-hire vehicles. In addition, they should be worn when inside premises that provide hospitality, such as a bar, pub or restaurant, except when eating or drinking, for which people must be seated. This means that people must wear a face covering when entering, leaving and moving around the premises.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I think the Minister will find that we are supposed to be discussing the north-east, rather than the face coverings. It does not make any difference—I am quite happy to do them that way round, but we might get confused.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I apologise and give great thanks to the noble Baroness for the polite and kind way in which she brought that to my attention. At this point, we are debating statutory instruments that apply to the north-east of England and were in force on 18 September. As your Lordships may know, a Prime Ministerial Statement in the other place will address these sorts of issues and we will of course keep a careful watch on the progress of that debate.
Over the past few months, local restrictions have allowed us to home in on areas where cases are high and rising, and put targeted measures in place. I understand that the measures we are debating have greatly affected families living in Northumberland, Newcastle, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshead, County Durham and Sunderland. Families in these areas are no longer able to meet relatives as they used to. I recognise the disruption the measures cause, particularly for those relying on often complex networks of grandparents and friends to help out with childcare. We must celebrate the complex civil communions which underpin so much of our day-to-day regimes.
However, this virus is transmitted by people meeting up with each other and the horrible truth is that the closer our friendships, the more relaxed we are in each other’s company and the harder it is to keep socially distanced. These measures are not taken lightly. They are driven by our public duty to protect the most vulnerable people in our society and do our utmost to ensure that this virus does not adversely affect these groups. What is of concern is that the number of cases in the over-60s is rising; we know that coronavirus symptoms can be more severe for people in this age group. I recognise that the Government are asking many people living in these regions of the north-east to make sacrifices to protect those most vulnerable to this virus. We will need to make adjustments to our daily lives until we have suppressed or eradicated this terrible disease.
Unfortunately, as cases have gone up in these areas, we need to introduce more of these local measures. On 18 September, we introduced new restrictions on household mixing, business opening hours and table-only service in pubs, restaurants and other places serving food or alcohol right across Durham, Gateshead, Newcastle, Northumberland, North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland. Unfortunately, again, despite these measures the number of cases continues to rise sharply. Incidence rates across these parts of the north-east area are now some of the highest in the country, with Newcastle’s rate now more than 534. So, at the request of the local councils, with which we have been working closely, we will introduce legal restrictions on families mixing with other families in their homes and being able to enjoy food or alcohol only if served at a table, and with non-essential businesses being required to close at 10 pm.
These are not steps that we take lightly but we must take them, and that is what we did because we know that swift action is more likely to bring the virus under control. The quicker we can do so, the quicker we can restore the freedoms we all enjoy—in the north-east and right across this country. Targeted measures were needed to tackle the outbreaks in those areas. The council leaderships collectively agreed that a ward-level approach would not be appropriate, as widespread community transmission had been observed in all areas. People move freely through the local authorities for work and leisure; for example, 40% of people who live in County Durham work in other areas.
These regulations prevent gatherings involving more than one household in private homes or gardens. There are exemptions for those in support bubbles, for example, and on compassionate grounds. We listened to feedback from the local leaders and amended these measures so that informal childcare support bubbles are allowed. Before the national restrictions for the same purpose, we tackled the risks of community transmission by allowing table service only in hospitality venues so that people cannot move about and pass on the virus. To reduce riskier behaviours often seen later at night when people have been drinking alcohol, we imposed the restriction on entertainment and leisure venues, limiting them to opening between 10 pm and 5 am.
Noble Lords will be aware that these regulations have since been amended so that they now also prohibit families meeting up with each other in any indoor space in these areas. We revised the guidance for owners and operators of indoor settings, including places of worship, to say that they should not intentionally facilitate indoor gatherings between households. We also advised that care homes should allow visits only in exceptional circumstances to protect their vulnerable residents. No restrictions have been placed on travel, but people have been advised not to travel with people from other households.
The Secretary of State is required to review the need for the restrictions at least every 14 days. The first review was completed on 1 October, and it concluded that the restrictions must stay in place. The next review is due this coming Thursday. I thank the seven local authorities for acting collectively as well as the local resilience forum, Public Health England, the joint biosecurity centre, local council leaders and the local directors of public health. I also thank the people in the protected area in north-east of England, who have responded so well to the measures put in place. It has been a tough year for many, and these regulations have a serious but necessary impact on how they live their lives. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I am sorry—it is the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, thank you. Surely, the Minister was right to open by emphasising the gravity of the situation, but here we are again debating regulations that have already been superseded, which serves to underline the unsatisfactory nature of how we are dealing with local Covid lockdown regulations. I do not want to go over the grounds of my PNQ on Friday, but, when Mr Speaker called for the most significant of these regulations to be debated in Parliament at the earliest possible point, I think he spoke for the great majority of parliamentarians.
As the Minister has said, the Government propose to introduce a new tiered system of restrictions for local lockdowns, and, whatever the justifications for them—the noble Lord is right about the evidence that we are facing—they involve a serious reduction of people’s liberties and, of course, put many businesses in jeopardy. I am in no doubt that this House should be asked to approve them before they come into force, just as the Commons is likely to do. My understanding is that that is now likely, and, if so, this is very welcome.
Of course, the relationship between government and local authorities is highly relevant to this and the regulations the noble Lord spoke to today. Right from the start—going back to March—the Government seemed to exclude local bodies from the key part that they could have played in helping to combat and manage the virus. Public health directors were ignored, NHS and university lab capacity was overlooked and, as the Institute for Government has pointed out in its analysis of government decision-making:
“The decisions on lockdown and school closures were taken and introduced swiftly, and with little consultation and planning for how they would work in practice.”
I was very struck by a comment made by the Newcastle City Council leader Nick Forbes a few days ago. He said that confusion over the latest restrictions was deeply unhelpful and that they were very difficult to enforce and had left dangerous conspiracy theories to fill the void. We know that a frequent complaint of many leaders is that local authorities were often given little notice of when local regulations were to be made.
In parallel to the new regulations that we will debate later this week, it has been reported that the Prime Minister wants local leaders to help shape the package of local lockdown measures. Clearly, as a principle, that is welcome. Does the Minister agree that, generally, evidence shows that, globally, countries that rely on a central approach are not as effective as those that use trusted local bodies? Does he also accept that local authority test and trace services seem to have a much higher rate of contact, both for complex and non-complex cases, than the national scheme, which faces so many problems? Can he also expect to see the ending of decisions on lockdowns being leaked in advance of local leaders being told what is in them?
It is clearly important that the rules are complied with. Will the noble Lord say something about compliance rates? I do not know whether he has studied the recent report of the C19 National Foresight Group, which has been looking at the communications the Government have with the public over these restrictions. It concluded:
“National Integrity and Trust is Being Eroded”
because of the
“style, pace and timings of communications”.
It says:
“This mostly focussed around rhetoric, over-promising and timing (where late night national announcements created negative impacts on the relationship with the public). Apparent conflicting activities (where two announcements seem to contradict) and stating ambitious targets that are then not achieved were aligned to eroding trust with the public.”
Regarding local bodies, the C19 group went on to say:
“The lack of trust in the local structures from ministers and government departments… also impacts on their ability to feel included as part of a greater UK wide management”
of the pandemic. Does the Minister recognise this, and will this be considered as part of the recasting of the relationship between the Government and local authorities?
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise again, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I was looking at the list for the next debate. I call the next speaker for this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I support and underline everything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just said. This is the latest set of local area statutory instruments that we seem to discuss on almost a daily basis. Yet again, they are out of date—it may be a little known fact, but this is actually now called the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North East and North West of England) Regulations 2020 as a result of an amendment in another obscure statutory instrument that we received. This illustrates the confusion about the whole thing. If the new initiative that may be announced this afternoon provides more consistency and makes these things easier to understand, that, at least, will not be a bad thing. I will not talk about childcare today; I think we will want to talk about that when we discover what is being proposed today.
I do, however, want to talk about test and trace. I believe it is now generally understood that, whatever restrictions are imposed and whatever the legal background to them, an efficient, well-run and successful system of testing, tracing, tracking contacts and isolating as appropriate is key to tackling the coronavirus problem. It is clear that whatever claims are made about the number of people who have been tested and all the rest of it, the system throughout the country is a shambles. This has to be tackled, and I am sure that everybody wants that. The key to it must be to do it a local level and to involve the skills and knowledge of those who do it week by week as part of their normal jobs—not in the case of coronavirus but in the case of food poisoning and other outbreaks of disease. They are trained people and they know what to do.
As an illustration of how shambolic it has been, I want to go through what has happened in my own patch in Pendle, which of course is in the north-west and not in the north-east. Pendle Borough Council was desperate to get involved and to use its expert staff in setting up a proper system. It is about a month now since the Government, the authorities and the county agreed that we could do this. The first thing that we discovered was that where the local system identified contacts from positive cases—all of which had been sent down from national level, being cases which the so-called NHS Test and Trace system had not been able to reach, so they were the difficult ones; they were coming late but nevertheless quite a few of them were contacted—those contacts had to be sent back to national level to be dealt with by Serco or whoever in their call centres, even if they were in the same families or in the same street or working in the same factories, and even if local people using local knowledge could have contacted and traced them much more quickly. I would like an assurance that this nonsense has now been stopped, and that if there are to be a lot of local councils doing this work locally, they will be able to follow up the people they have found, because, otherwise, it is a nonsense.
To have a proper testing and tracing system, it is necessary that there are sufficient testing stations locally. One thing that people in Pendle did was set up four stations. That number is now going down to two because, in the case of the community testing station, the Government are refusing to send out any more testing kits, so it has to close, and of the three that come under the Government, they have closed one. We have gone from four to two despite the fact that our numbers are still going up alarmingly. It needs to be taken seriously; it needs to be done properly. Unless it is, nothing else will succeed.
Baroness Morrissey (Con)
My Lords, we all want the Government and this country to win the battle against coronavirus, but what if the present strategy is just plain wrong? What if the strategy of ever tighter restrictions on bigger swathes of the population is not only not containing the virus but will never do so, while causing untold damage to the lives of so many?
I am afraid that the evidence suggests that this is what is happening. People sometimes say that the cure is worse than the disease. Unfortunately, the measures may be no cure at all. As the Minister said, since tighter measures were introduced in many parts of the country, including the north-east, two months ago, we have seen a sharp rise in cases. At the same time, the collateral damage is mounting. The nascent economic recovery has stalled; unemployment is rising, albeit still the tip of the iceberg of what we might yet see. The poverty that will come as a result of those job losses is obviously not far behind. University students, already fearful for their future, are incarcerated in their halls of residence. Mental health issues are clearly arising and worsening. The arts, hospitality and sports sectors are on their knees. Everyone I speak to—I am sure that it is the same for everybody in the House today—is exhausted and dispirited and can see no end in sight.
Instead of doubling down on a flawed strategy, the Government should have a big rethink—after all, a popular definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and again and expecting a different result. The only plausible defence for this would be if it were the only way, but that is not so. We have seen in the past week the publication of the Great Barrington declaration by eminent scientists, now signed by 27,000 medical practitioners and other scientists, which sets out a different way. It recognises that younger, healthy people should be free to live their lives pretty much as normal, while the more vulnerable should be offered—not have imposed—greater, more focused protections.
Since March, when I think we were all frightened—I certainly was—by the spectre of a potential 500,000 deaths hanging over us, we have learned a lot. Lockdown might have seemed an appropriate measure at that point, however extreme. We now know that the fatality rate from this illness is not so severe as that, though it is still a very serious and harmful virus. What we have really learned is that it does not treat people equally. That may be very unfair, but we know that young people are a thousandfold less likely to suffer than people who are over 80. Some 70,000 students from 50 American universities tested positive; three were hospitalised and, fortunately, none has died.
There is no playbook to consult for coronavirus. There would be no shame—in fact, I think we would all applaud it—if the Government took account of the evidence that is mounting and came up with a different, more sophisticated approach that recognised that the restrictions are not necessary for every single person in this country, or if they were at least prepared to consider the evidence. If they do not, it is important that they are absolutely confident that it is the right way forward and only way forward and have the evidence to prove it.
We are reading a lot at present but I want to conclude by reading out a letter that I am sure some of your Lordships have seen already, so forgive me for repeating it. It moved me greatly. It was in the Telegraph last week and was written by an Elizabeth Clarke—she is not from the north-east but from London:
“Does no one in the Government hear the screams and whimpers of this tormented nation, amid the unemployment, the loneliness, the heartbreak, the fear, the poverty, the despair, the cruelty caused by blind deference to unproved theories? … It is as if someone who, to kill a hornet, sets off a bomb in a house—and in the ruins says it was the only way. Covid may be here to stay. There are many unpleasant diseases. Mortality is 100 per cent in the long run. I am 80, and it is no business of the Government to tell me whether or not to kiss my grandchildren, or whom I may invite into my house.”
Minister, what do you say to Elizabeth Clarke? What do you say to those who are lonely, who are scared, who are suffering poverty and who are frightened about their future?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as outlined in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, for her important contribution to this debate; I agree with much of it.
When I put my name down to speak, it was to express my concern that Parliament appeared to be managing rises in Covid-19 rates in different areas of the country through myriad secondary legislation instruments—at least 18, I believe. As a member of the committee that considers SIs in this House, I and other members were becoming concerned that it was increasingly difficult to understand the evidence base on which individual SIs were being developed. In addition, it has become crystal clear over the weekend that the public and local authority elected representatives, particularly in the north-east, Liverpool and Manchester, have begun to lose trust in the way in which we are dealing with local restrictions.
Fortunately, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet accept that we must adopt a more strategic approach to legislation, associated with changes in the number of infections per 100,000 of the population. Currently, different parts of the country have significantly different rates, estimated at between 16 cases per 100,000 where I live, here on Dartmoor, and 600 in Nottingham. However, any three-tier system to manage the virus should be applied in a uniform manner associated with virus increases, and hopefully decreases, over time. The three-tier system that the Prime Minister is expected to announce should be passed into law and applied across England equitably as the virus ebbs and flows. Any legislation should clearly indicate when an area will be enabled to move up or down a tier, associated with the ratio of virus cases to the population. This will ensure that the public can clearly understand the core reason for proposed restrictions.
At the core of managing increases in infections are the test and trace system and the public’s buy-in to restrictions of liberty, be this closing licensed premises or requests to reduce travel and meeting friends and family. In March, care homes were largely closed down in terms of relatives’ and friends’ visits; we know that this caused considerable distress in many cases. Careful consideration must be given to trying to ensure that we avoid transmitting the virus from the community to care homes, but we must also weigh up the devastating effects to people of not being visited by ones they love. What approach do the Government intend to take on this issue?
When Governments reduce their populations’ liberties, even for good reason, it is vital that they counterbalance the restrictions with effective leadership. In particular, did the breakdown in recording over 15,000 positive coronavirus tests 10 days ago contribute to the rapid increase in cases in certain parts of the north-west and north-east of England? By this I mean: did a high proportion of those 15,000 cases, where contacts were not traced quickly, occur in this area?
Will the Minister assure the House that, if hospitals in any area of England become overloaded, the Government will ensure that additional test and trace facilities, PPE and other resources required to manage the virus will be made rapidly available from other parts of the country?
Finally, I welcome the honours given this weekend to nurses and other health and social care workers who contributed in the first wave of the pandemic. However, the Government’s recent press conferences have focused heavily on scientific evidence, with little reference to applied, evidence-based public health interventions, which nurses are often involved with. Yet nursing is reportedly the profession that is most trusted by the UK public. Nurses should play an important role in the public health messages we are trying to get across. They can encourage the take-up and delivery of vaccinations, including for flu and tuberculosis, and the mass vaccination for Covid-19 as and when it is developed. Does the Minister agree that now is the right time to more effectively use the voice of nurses, including the Chief Nursing Officer for England, Ruth May, and locally based community, hospital and school nurses, to explain to the public how best to reduce the spread of the virus?
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree in particular with my noble friend Lord Hunt about the Government’s failure to consult locally and that countries using locally rooted strategies are far more effective than those using centralised ones. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves—a friend from a past political life—made similar points. Ministers are guilty of incompetent centralism, for two central reasons. First, outsourcing to Serco, Deloitte and Boots testing and tracing tasks that they have never undertaken before has not worked. It was an astonishing thing to do when there are ready-made primary health and care systems in place, with one of the most respected local GP networks anywhere in the world. We could have utilised this network and resourced it better, rather than cutting it, as has happened remorselessly over the last 10 years. We could have poured into it all the money that has been given to Deloitte, Serco, Boots and other agencies. They have failed for six months and are still failing in the second wave.
The second major mistake has been imposing decisions on local councils and mayors. In recent days, we have seen an explosion of protest from Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester. We have seen similar sentiments from Steve Rotheram, Metro Mayor of Liverpool City Region. Other leaders of English regions, including some Conservatives, have expressed similar protests that Westminster keeps varying the rules by Whitehall diktat, and that they learn what the Government intend to do, not through Ministers consulting them—the people on the ground who know their areas and communities and what is happening—but from the newspapers.
The other day, the leader of Gateshead Council complained on the BBC that the rules are just dumped on them. He pointed out that in Newcastle and Gateshead, although cases in student populations have soared, Covid cases elsewhere in those communities have actually been falling, so it makes no sense to lock them all down, at great cost, especially to local hospitality businesses and jobs. Manchester City Council’s leader, Sir Richard Leese, told the BBC this morning that it had a much more granular system of local intelligence and information than Whitehall could possibly have, and so were better placed to judge what to do and how to do it. Importantly—I hope that the Minister might respond to this—he also wanted more local powers to enable these to be deployed selectively, for example to close a particular pub if it was transgressing the rules or being responsible for a crowding experience that might spread the virus, not the whole lot in a blanket approach
Precisely what has this incompetent centralism achieved? It has pushed us back to where we started: lockdowns, and rising infections and hospital admissions. How many lockdowns are still to come? Are we condemned to continuous lockdowns, lifting them and then reimposing them? There is no clear strategy. The strategy must surely be to localise testing, tracing and isolating and resource them properly, rather than having these failed, centralised diktats sprayed down on local communities by Whitehall, which are having the reverse effect and condemning the country to many more months of misery.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the north-east regulations. I fully understand that this is a very complex and fast-changing situation, and I hope that the Minister will take my suggestions as a constructive response to current circumstances. However, the House should be discussing these orders much nearer the date of decision, not nearly a month later. I am speaking this afternoon from Newcastle upon Tyne, and we shall learn later today what changes may be forthcoming for our area, and for others.
The regulations before us today derive from the initial decision on 17 September to introduce the greater social restrictions requested by the seven north-east councils when Newcastle had a rate of 70 cases per 100,000. There was then a further tightening of restrictions, announced by the Secretary of State on 28 September, apparently without proper consultation with those councils. Of course, even tighter rules are now expected.
I want to look at the issue of student testing. Over 2,500 students of the two universities in Newcastle have tested positive, significantly pushing up the local infection rate. We know that most of the students being tested had no symptoms. That makes me wonder whether university cities in the south and the Midlands have had such extensive testing of students without symptoms. Can the Minister give us any information on the evidence base being used to decide which tiers are appropriate to each area, given the apparent differences in the amount of testing?
In terms of process, I remain concerned by the consistent evidence that local testing and tracing leads to better, safer outcomes. England is simply too big to be run on the centralised model of recent months, and the debate over the last few days has confirmed this. To command public confidence in their decisions, the Government need to publish far more than they do. The evidence that limiting the opening of pubs and restaurants even more will result in lower transmission levels may well be accurate, but it should be published.
Our experience of the last few days tells us that meetings between local leaders, civil servants and Ministers should be formalised and minutes should be published. There has been too much claim and counterclaim that the public cannot understand, which can undermine their confidence in the decisions made.
The Government should use district postcodes for their decisions on which tier an area should be placed in. I have not understood why the whole of the north-east of England, from the Scottish border to the southern end of county Durham—some 80 miles—is treated as one area when the infection rates can vary so greatly. Nor have I understood why the 10 pm closure time for pubs and restaurants applies. The evidence suggests it could actually be increasing the rate of infection. Might it not be better to have staggered times of closure set locally?
On the continuation of furlough, the current proposals for financial support are just not enough. If things get worse and more businesses are forced to close, the financial support has to be greater. People’s incomes and their ability to pay bills depend on that level of support from the Government.
I accept it is clear that we are at a tipping point, and great care is needed. I know that local hospital admission rates here are rising, and that we must be careful to get decisions right. That means maximising engagement between decision-makers and sharing as much information as possible through public health structures, with the general public receiving better standards of messaging so they understand what they are being asked to do, what is compulsory and what is advisory.
The directors of public health for Newcastle and Gateshead have both said in recent days that the curve may be flattening. For that reason, the Government should heed advice from local political leaders to be very careful about unnecessary extensions to lockdown rules.
Finally, we need better clarity about review dates. The Minister has said that they are going to be fortnightly; they may need to be weekly.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who put forward an exposition on some very relevant points, some of which I will be touching on. I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose of these regulations, which we are looking at retrospectively, as we always seem to do; they came into force on 18 and 22 September respectively. I am afraid it is yet more scrutiny by means of the rear-view mirror, which I think we all agree is far from satisfactory. I look forward to the day when we look at regulations much closer to the time when they come into force.
The first set of regulations relates to the closure of pubs, bars and restaurants in the north-east of England. The second set merely corrects some minor defects in the first; it is purely technical, and I make no complaint about that. The third set relates to enabling infant childcare arrangements, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, touched upon. I agree with him: it is probably not appropriate to dwell on it when we know that, as we debate the regulations, new arrangements are being discussed in the other place. So, I do not propose to spend time on that.
While I, like the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, recognise the need for these regulations and the fact that we are at a tipping point, I do have some general points to make about our whole approach, as well as some questions. First, we need effective parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. I have made this point many times, and I know the Minister has emphasised it, too, but it would be good to hear from him when this is going to happen—when we are not going to be constantly two to three weeks behind the curve, looking at regulations that are so out of date. These regulations, for example, talk about trying to align the north-east with the rest of England. As we speak, the “rest of England” is shrinking because new areas will be subject to the restrictions. But also, there is a sense we are in the tail-stream of what is happening out there. It is too late to be debating these in any effective way.
On a related point, we should be publishing the evidence. The evidence must be there—I certainly hope it is—and it would reassure people to know that rational decisions are being made on their behalf about the closure of hospitality undertakings, for example. Why on earth do we not publish this evidence? We had a review of these regulations before we even looked at validating them. Some regulations had two reviews before we validated them. It is not good enough. I hope the Minister will heed these points.
I agree strongly about the need for localism. Localism is trusted, effective and familial—it is what people want. When we look at overseas experience, as we on the Public Services Committee and many people in the news, television and other media have done, we see that controls are exercised better and test and trace is better at a local level. Just look at Germany’s record compared with ours. For goodness’ sake, let us learn the lesson and trust people locally much more.
I appeal to the Minister that we should learn these lessons. It would be good to know what the reviews said. We keep hearing that reviews are taking place; I never get to see them, and I do not know whether anyone else does. It is about time we were trusted with some of the evidence, so we can see for ourselves. I am sure the Government are acting in good faith and are generally making the right decisions, but it would be beneficial to involve the rest of Parliament, the rest of the country and certainly people locally, so that we know the decisions have been properly thought through. At the moment, it is not clear what the national strategy is. By that, I do not mean that we need a uniform, one-size-fits-all approach, but we need a national framework and a national indication of how we are attacking this virus and what we are doing locally.
I look forward to some clarity and some strategy, and to what my noble friend on the Front Bench, who carries a heavy load, has to say on these issues.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I share the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, about the weight on the Minister’s shoulders, and I have every sympathy with him. However, I share the qualms of the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, that we might be pursuing the wrong course, inflicting untold damage on our country in misguided efforts to fight the virus. But having embarked on this course, the Government have done so in a manner that has just caused confusion, because they themselves act in a confused manner. It is no wonder that the country is bemused.
Others have stressed the unsatisfactory test and trace system. Back in May, when the system was launched, we were told that test and trace was going to be the way that we would solve this problem. It was crucial. We were going to have a world-beating system. When that did not appear to be the case, the Prime Minister stated on 22 September:
“Testing and tracing has very little or nothing to do with the spread or the transmission of the disease. The spread and the transmission of the disease is caused by contact between human beings and all the things that we are trying to minimise.”
He went on to say:
“Of course NHS Test and Trace is vital”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/9/20; col. 822.]
Test and trace is vital, and simply changing the rhetoric does not mean that it is any less important than it was in May, when it was launched. We need to get it working properly, which certainly is not the case at the moment.
The lack of logic in what the Government do is what really leaves people puzzled and often failing to comply with the regulations. For instance, we know that we are about to hear some fairly drastic changes to the way in which the Covid regulations are working, with a three-tier system. But we first got wind of that three-tier system a week ago. Seven days is a long time in a fight against a virus. Why did we have to wait seven days listening to rumour and conjecture before this becomes operative? If it is important and it needs doing, why not have a sense of urgency and move fast?
The lack of logic is in every aspect. We have heard time after time in this Chamber how local authorities, which have to cope with the 10 pm curfew, would like to see a clamp-down on off-licence and supermarket sales of alcohol, instead of encouraging people to leave restaurants and pubs at 10 pm and simply go drinking in groups elsewhere. There is no logic in that. We need to start applying common sense.
Finally, how can we expect anybody to stick to regulations that simply resort to gobbledygook? In those that we are currently looking at, it states that
“food or drink sold by a hotel or other accommodation as part of room service is not to be treated as being sold for consumption on its premises.”
This is nonsense. How can we expect anybody to comply with such gobbledygook?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for introducing these regulations and share others’ sympathy with the position he finds himself in on the Front Bench. I agree with him and echo his concerns that these measures have greatly affected families; they have interfered with the bonds that many children, parents, siblings, grandparents and friends rely on for their sense of worthwhile living. My noble friend mentioned that these SIs are vital to suppress and eradicate this disease. I understand how they suppress it, but how do they eradicate it?
As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, eloquently explained, we were in this position many months ago; the transmission rate fell but, once freedom was restored, the transmission reappeared. What consultation has occurred with the areas affected by these SIs? For example, will the 10 pm curfew merely transfer meeting to the street, or on to public transport, as all pubs and clubs empty at once?
We are once again being asked to rubber-stamp measures in this House that have already been introduced and amended twice—perhaps shortly to be thrice—yet there are still no impact assessments and no detailed cost-benefit analysis. I also echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, in asking for evidence of how the rising number of cases is related to the extent of testing in any area, and how many are among only the young and asymptomatic, which may be of far less concern. These measures are so draconian, intrusive and dangerous to both lives and livelihoods that we surely need much more rigorous analysis than we have hitherto been offered.
When calling for a detailed cost-benefit analysis, we are not just talking about looking at the trade-off between lives saved by lockdown versus costs to business and economic growth, important though that it is. As mentioned so powerfully by my noble friend Lady Morrissey, analysis is required of the costs and benefits of Covid-19 deaths prevented by lockdown versus deaths from other causes caused by lockdown. Deaths and serious ill health, both physical and mental, will be increased by the measures we are debating today.
How many people will die or suffer life-limiting impacts? Who has done those estimates? For example, Hull University NHS teaching hospitals have already informed thousands of patients that they will have to wait two years for medical treatment. As another example, 16,000 fewer patients than expected are being urgently referred for lung cancer tests just since March—a 50% fall. Some fear going out, but others may develop a cough and just self-isolate rather than going for a check. Even if they try to see their GP, they may have only a virtual consultation, which may tell them to self-isolate. Cancer, heart failure and other illnesses are being worsened by the measures that we are debating today.
This is not an easy situation; we are in a very difficult position. But we need much better and more detailed information and analysis on which we can truly base judgments about these kinds of draconian measures, so that we can satisfy ourselves and the public at least that we understand what the costs are, that they are justifiable and that, in the end, we have a strategy for eradicating this virus rather than just suppressing it on an ongoing basis, with all the damage that that entails.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We are talking today specifically about what will soon be historic rules applied to the north-east of England from Westminster. My remarks are informed by observations of Green Party councillors from the region, and I thank them for providing them and hope that they may not be too late to inform the forthcoming changes, or at least their implementation.
There are many ways in which to approach these regulations, including the approach that I took last week in asking whether we were learning appropriately from global best practice—a question that needs to be applied to everything that the Government do and one that they invite with frequent claims to be “world-beating”. Reflecting the Green slogan, “Think global, act local”, today I outline some of the issues reported to me from the north-east, seeking to add information to that provided by other noble Lords rather than repeat their points, although I agree with much of what has been said.
One issue is what might be called the “edge effect”. Communities just outside the areas of restriction are concerned about people from inside restricted zones coming to use businesses and socialising in ways forbidden in their home area, potentially bringing the virus with them. Secondly, whether they are inside or outside a restricted area may not be known to significant numbers of residents. Local government areas and coverage have changed significantly over the years. For example, Darlington was part of County Durham until 24 years ago, and many residents still write “County Durham” on their address. Darlington was not covered by these regulations, and people may be experiencing unnecessary isolation and deprivation as a result. Conversely, in other places, people may be breaking the law without any ill intention.
The answer to the second problem is clearly the best possible communication and information and a broader reflection on the need to involve communities more in local governance, to ensure that local government has the resources and powers it needs to be relevant to people’s lives, which would also encourage residents to vote in local government elections, further building their knowledge. That should include control over anti-Covid measures, as called for by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Greaves.
My second point refers to what might be called “concentration effects”. My local observers were reflecting on schools and colleges, but it is true in many aspects of life today that people have been concentrated into a few small areas. Where once pupils from a wide area used to go to local colleges, now they all go to one place. That has obvious risks both in spreading coronavirus and for anxiety and concern. The communities which see a large influx of people are concerned about the risk they might represent to them. This is, in terms of resilience, a risk for future pandemics where infections have greater impacts on younger age groups.
As a final point on detailed local concern, the local voluntary aid groups that were so effective in the early stages of the pandemic have less capacity now. Funding is needed to fill the gaps.
To conclude with an overview, there was an understanding back in March that the virus, however much we should have been preparing for an epidemic in general, had arrived suddenly, with very limited information and understanding about it. There was good will and an understanding that mistakes would be made through lack of information and time to plan. That does not apply now. From the north-east and around the country, we are hearing clear understanding—which reflects what the scientists are telling us—that restoring any kind of secure, certain life requires a highly effective test, track, isolate and support system, and that local systems, not a distant privatised call centre, are the key to making that happen. We are finally seeing some moves in that direction.
However, we need much more of an understanding that, for the north-east and every other region, it is local people who know and understand their community who need the resources to make plans and decisions and to implement the measures needed to keep coronavirus under control. In understanding that many of these communities are already blighted by poverty and inequality, there is a moral responsibility to understand that levelling up means spreading out the concentration of money, resources and particularly power in London and the south-east and not continuing to stand in the way, as Westminster has for decades, of people taking back control in their communities.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, this weekend I thought I would try to do a bit of research to help my noble friend on the Front Bench.
In 1960, I joined the Reckitt Group in Hull, which is in the north-east, as a management trainee. I looked up my notes and found that I was shadowing a test market just south of Newcastle for a brand of Jane Seymour cosmetics. I noted that my tutor made it quite clear that you have to analyse the fabric of the society in which you are doing the test market. The north-east is nowhere near the same as Bedfordshire, where I lived. It is very different. Therefore, any campaign or programme must reflect that difference.
There is a huge community spirit in places such as Hull which does not exist to anywhere near the same extent in the south. There is also far more terraced housing, far more ethnic mixing and a wholly different attitude to life. In that part of the world, local government is very strong. I had the privilege of being the only ever—so far as I can find out—Conservative leader of the London Borough of Islington. I soon learned that the friends in the north in local government are really strong.
I thought, “What is the nearest analogy we have for this?” I am in a medical household. We had a look at what happened with Asian flu in 1957-58; no less than 9 million people suffered from it, the commercial world was hit and 14,000 died. The key element in the report I read was that it started out being controlled nationally, but they soon found that that did not work and had to use local medical officers and GPs for help. That is the evidence there.
After that, I had a look at the statistics in the latest report I could find from the Office for National Statistics: death rates in the first wave of this situation, which began in March, rose steeply from one per day on 2 March to 975 per day at the peak on 7 April. If we look at the second phase—now—there were two deaths from Covid in England on 1 September; five weeks later, on 6 October, this had risen only to 11. That is a huge difference.
As I said on Friday, I looked at what the death certificates show as the primary cause. Between 10 August and 7 October, there were 43 deaths—not hundreds. There were no deaths in the groups 0 to 19 and 20 to 39, four in the group 40 to 59, 14 in the group 60 to 79 and 24 in the group 80-plus. If the objective is to save real lives, we have to look at the elderly and the very elderly. Frankly, the young are not dying. That surprises nobody. Any of us who knows anything about medicine knows that very few young people die from any sort of disease.
I cut a lot of papers, that is a terrible trait of mine. In the Telegraph of 11 October, I read a report from Professor David Livermore of the University of East Anglia. He says, quite rightly:
“In March, we knew little … Now … we know that much infection is very mild and inconsequential”.
He then gives us some figures from Northumbria University and goes on to say that lockdowns might be good if the vaccine were just around the corner. But it is not, is it? At best, it will be here in the spring. We are taking quite a punt following the present policy.
It seems to me—and to Professor Livermore—that life should return to normal, as far as possible, for those at low risk and anyone older who accepts the hazards, which includes him and me. The virus will circulate among us, generating herd immunity. As we recover, it will run out of hosts and lose traction, rather as it did in Sweden.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to the regulations relating to the north-east of England, particularly those that prohibit people in those areas gathering with one or more people from a different household, apart from linked households in a private dwelling, whether inside or outside the protected area.
It is very clear, and I share the frustration that I am sure Ministers and the general public feel about this, that Covid is not acting as one would expect it to. However, the communication and understanding that flow from the regulations which the Government are bringing forward are clearly key to enabling those in the north-east of England to follow the letter of the regulations before us this afternoon.
My particular concern relates to the fact that urban areas such as the Tees Valley were initially left out of the regulations, whereas deeply rural areas such as Teesdale, with a population of 25,000, and Weardale, with a population of just over 8,000, were included, lumped together with the whole of the city of Durham and other more urban parts of County Durham. This must be a feature of unitary government, and it is one I deeply regret. It leads to perverse consequences; I am not convinced that, when these regulations came into effect, the level of the virus in the rural areas was high enough to justify the draconian regulations that were introduced.
I will ask my noble friend a specific question, because I am being asked it by those I know living in County Durham. It relates in particular to linked households under SI No. 1010—Regulation 7 on page 6—and paragraph 7.2 on page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the SI No. 1012 correction regulations. What does my noble friend understand exactly by a “linked household”? Is it just for the householders to agree or do they have to notify the authorities, or only if they were challenged in that purpose? Also, can my noble friend explain what a support bubble is? How many people can form one? If I can learn that from my noble friend, I can go on to explain what it is to others who are asking. Other noble Lords have expressed concern about the extent of the measures before us today, so can my noble friend explain what balance has been reached regarding the mental health and well-being of—and the feeling of isolation experienced by—those living in a single household who may not be part of a linked household or a bubble, or who may not quite understand the extent to which they are? They may take a complete turn for the worse in those circumstances. Physical conditions such as cancer and others itemised by my noble friend Lady Altmann are also important, as the timing of diagnosis and treatment is a particularly critical factor.
I have a general question for my noble friend in connection with the regulations before us. I know he said that consultations were held with the leaders of councils, so presumably that included the leader of Durham County Council. However, with particular regard to my concerns about the rural area of Teesdale and Weardale, what consultation and discussions were held with councillors elected to represent those areas?
Finally, what is the relationship now between the regulations before us and the new tiers announced this afternoon by the Prime Minister? What will happen if, even in spite of the new, even more draconian, measures announced along with the tiers this afternoon, there continues to be a rise in infection? What further action might my noble friend and the Government consider taking if such a course of events transpires?
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, hindsight is frequently knocked as the privilege of an Opposition, but provided it is used wisely, it is a very useful tool to bring about informed decision-making in the future. That is what I have felt all these last six months as we have stood up to talk about these different regulations which have come before us, often weeks after they have been implemented. I like to think that at least some of the changes that will come about later today are the result of weeks upon weeks of penetrating questioning in your Lordships’ House of some of the Government’s assumptions. It is worth saying that some of the things that we have said and will continue to say still stand. Herd immunity is a strategy for when a vaccine is available. It is not a strategy for an illness for which there is no vaccine, and that will not change. However, it is also true that back in March we said to the Government, “You must be led and informed in your decision-making by local people—in local authorities, the police and local public services. Those people know how to deal with these sorts of outbreaks, and if we do not learn from them, we will waste a lot of time, money and resources.” Well, here we are today.
I am not in the brigade which has seized on the Barrington declaration and misinterpreted what the WHO has said to try to reject lockdown. There will be an ongoing place for lockdown until such time as we have an effective vaccine. However, there is not a place for reliance on generalised lockdowns in perpetuity, because they are very crude and ineffective, serving only to suppress a virus within a population. However, what we can and should be doing in these repeated regulations is learning from what has happened in different parts of the country to inform things.
We should have listened to the leaders of the local authorities in the north-east who predicted that, after a summer in which young people had been allowed to go out, go abroad and so on, if thousands of them turned up in a university town, they would make a difference to the incidence of infection, even if not to its transmission. We should listen to the public health officials, who tell us that they can see from the rise of infections in the 18 to 25 year-old group a lag but none the less a correlation with people with infections in the over-60 group on whom this has a differential effect. That evidence is there.
We ought not at this stage to rely on such crude geographic interpretations of statistics. I would like to know whether the low number of people infected in Northumberland and County Durham work in Newcastle, and how many of them work in the universities in Newcastle and have contact with students there, so that we can begin to see the patterns of transmission of the infection. That is the important thing that we are not yet learning. We are learning about incidence but we are not being told about transmission. I would like us to have the information to be able to differentiate between different businesses. I guess that transmission of infection is more likely in pubs than in restaurants, at which people sit down—or hotels, for example—and we should be able to make a regulation which differentiates between those different types of venue.
As I say, I am no Florence Nightingale. As noble Lords will know, she was originally a statistician. She was not a nurse; she went to follow the pattern of infection and illness in the Crimea. I am also tempted to say that I am no Dido Harding. What are we doing to get information from households? They are the easiest groups of people to trace. We should be getting differential information per household from all across the country.
I make a plea to the noble Lord for when we are using this information to plan for things. We saw what happened back in March, April and May in care homes. We should now be talking to the civic leaders and care home providers in the north-east and the north-west to make sure that we have no repetition of the daft and dangerous situation in which we had three different systems for ordering PPE, none of which worked.
I want to go back to the councils in the north-west, which my noble friend Lord Greaves mentioned. A few weeks ago, they wrote to the Minister to say that the protocols for the NHS 111 system needed to be looked at and changed. The Minister has told us that NHS 111 will become the primary point of access to the NHS. If we are talking about the NHS in these areas not falling over in the next few months, and as it is the one source of information that the public trust when they have long since lost trust in the Secretary of State for Health, can he assure us that the resources, training and protocols for NHS 111 will be resilient enough to make sure that people all across these areas get access immediately to the services that they need?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, after a weekend of speculation, leaks and press briefing, after the leaders of many councils—including the ones affected by these regulations—have rightly taken the Government to task about how they are conducting the local lockdowns, and after a Statement from the Prime Minister, which may be happening right now, the Minister must forgive me for feeling that we are yet again embarking on a fruitless exercise. He calls that scrutiny and assures us that we are being heard, but we on these Benches call it a continuation of the undermining of parliamentary democracy and the role of this House in particular. However, we can hope that all that might change.
Is it the case, as I heard just before I came into the Chamber, that the Nightingale hospitals are being reopened in the north-west and the north-east? If so, can the Minister explain that? If not, I would like to learn it.
My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Hain gave very good explanations of the issues that we face. Almost every noble Lord, possibly with the exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, talked about the importance of localism and running things locally. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, gave her an answer. In the face of no vaccine, how many millions of us does the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, suggest stay out of the way and locked up? In the face of no exit, how many millions does she want excluded from society? I am sorry that the hybrid rules do not allow her to answer those questions, but we will have another opportunity to have a go at this issue tomorrow; I look forward to that. Without any exit strategy, her proposition is not viable.
We can use this time to do what other noble Lords have done: see how things are going in the north-east. What do local leaders and others have to say? We can see certain patterns that we have seen before, with the regulations described as confusing and contradictory. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said, because of the way in which the restrictions were introduced, they have left space for dangerous conspiracy theories to fill the void. Councillor Nick Forbes, the leader of Newcastle City Council and the leader of the Local Government Association, said that the way in which the restrictions were introduced was “deeply unhelpful”. He said that, for example,
“the confusion allowed conspiracies to breed, such as the false claim that the 10 pm curfew was ‘part of a grand plan by the council to abolish alcohol’ to appease Muslims.”
Frankly, that is a very unhelpful thing to be said in a community. It was allowed to happen because the communications did not work in this case. It is deeply frustrating for local communities.
I have enormous respect for Councillor Nick Forbes, the leading councillor in this country. He called for help from the Government before the restrictions happened, but they were delayed and he says that they were confusing when they arrived. This weekend, he still came back to the Government to say how keen he was to work with them to make all this work. The Government are fortunate to have council leaders across the north-east who take that view. I hope that they respect that in the way that they conduct themselves from now on.
Noble Lords may have heard a 18 year-old Durham University student on Friday’s “Today” programme talking about having Covid, being seven hours away from home and not being properly fed. She lives in a college where she is supposed to have her meals supplied for her but was being given junk food, with no fruit or vegetables, for the week. Frankly, I thought, “Oh my God. Can’t somebody take this poor young woman some chicken soup or something?” She was also trying to complete her online lectures and so on. She said that
“it’s hard to concentrate when you’re hungry and haven’t had any vegetables in over a week.”
If I were her parents, I would be going absolutely spare with anxiety. I hope that Durham University has seen the error of its ways and is now providing nourishment for the students who have tested positive and are having to self-isolate.
I have several questions. What impact has the particular lockdown mentioned by the Minister had on mental health and well-being in the north-east? What will happen to that region next? What support will councils receive? Will test and trace be devolved to those areas? Will it be resourced?
Finally, let me say how much I welcome the third SI. I hope that support for people who need childcare is now built into the considerations on the restrictions being imposed, as we will discuss on Wednesday.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful for the debate on these technical but very important SIs. I want to say a few words about lockdowns generally and the role of the national/local framework, and then answer the question of where we go from here.
The Prime Minister is on his feet in the other place at the moment, talking about local alert levels. I cannot pre-empt what he will say but I remind the Chamber that the Leader of the House will make a Statement here and provide a platform to discuss those important measures tomorrow.
I also remind the Chamber that local lockdowns are likely to play and remain an important part of our response to Covid. They are a way of avoiding national measures, in that they help to preserve the economy, keep children at school, protect the NHS and maintain a normal way of doing things. For that reason, getting local lockdowns right is enormously important. A debate such as this one is an important part of lending scrutiny to the process; I am enormously grateful for that.
I should also mention that the British public are enormously supportive of the principle of local lockdowns. Some 73% of Brits support local lockdowns in principle, while 68% would support them in their area if they were needed. In this sense, we are not cutting across the grain of public opinion.
I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, that there have been instances where local lockdowns have emphatically worked, such as in Bolton, Leicester and Luton. We learned there how prompt, accurate and emphatic lockdowns can really nip an infection in the bud. I also mention Swindon—as I did in the Chamber last week—where car sharing was identified as a source of transmission and nipped in the bud at a very early stage.
In response to noble Lords’ questions, let me say a few words about the principles that we apply to local lockdowns. On our approach, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about enforcement. Our guiding principle is to use consent wherever possible, but enforcement is necessary. Up to 21 September, 18,912 fixed penalty notices had been issued in England and Wales. It is shame that that number has crept up as high as it has done but that demonstrates the determination with which we are prepared to follow up on this important principle.
The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, asked about the exit strategy. Let me reinforce the absolute primary importance of the exit strategy. She is entirely right: the public absolutely deserve to know how they can help to get their area out of lockdown. An important principle behind the Prime Minister’s announcement on local alert levels will be trying to design a way to articulate that so that there is a sense of common purpose.
On data, let me assure my noble friend Lady Altmann that incident rates are not the only thing that we look at; we also look at positivity rates so that we are not distracted by the increase in testing.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh that the mental health impact is a major concern. As an illustration of that, let me say to my noble friend that we are concerned about people who live alone. There is clear guidance on making a support bubble with another household. I would be happy to write to her with a link to that.
On technology, the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about 111. Privately, I am incredibly pleased that she listened to what I have said on the matter. I assure her completely that there is massive investment in both people and the tech behind 111. It is incredibly important that that stands up well and provides people with the reassurance and advice that they need to make that a success.
Lastly, on the observation from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on households and pubs, the Joint Biosecurity Centre makes that kind of analysis. I agree that there seems to be evidence that household transmission is extremely acute. Once in a household, the disease often spreads to many people within the household, but of course it needs to get into the household in the first place. That happens in places such as pubs, clubs and hotels, although I am not sure that there is any evidence to distinguish between different venues and their transmission rates.
Local/national interaction has been the subject of a huge amount of comment. I completely hear and endorse a lot of the sentiments that have been heard. Our approach, despite what might appear from the debate, is very much a national/local partnership. We have come a very long way since February and March, when we initially discussed these matters. There are more local testing sites, local test processing sites, local tracing partnerships and local dashboards, and there is more publication of data. I would be very glad to provide a guide for any of that public data to anyone who would find that helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, is shocked to observe the outrage of local council chiefs over these measures. I am surprised myself. I reassure noble Lords that a huge amount of dialogue goes on every hour of every day at the moment between local authorities and central government, and that the narrative on TV is quite different from what happens in private conversations between all parties. There is very much a deep commitment by the Government to work in partnership. That is one reason why so much care, time and consideration has gone into the design and funding of the tiers being announced by the Prime Minister as we speak. Local support for these measures is absolutely fundamental to changing behaviour and to the public committing to the rules we apply. That is the principle set out in the Chamber and the principle that the Government understand. Because of that principle, we are taking the care that we are over the national/local partnership.
My noble friends Lady Morrissey and Lord Naseby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, all alluded to whether we have a choice. That is a really important question. I completely share the exhaustion, frustration and occasional “What if?” feelings. There is no monopoly on knowledge in this Government; we do not necessarily get everything right. However, I invite my noble friend to read the publication by the Home Office, the ONS, the Government Actuary and the Department of Health on the direct and indirect impacts of Covid-19. It spells out in very clear, graphic and numerate detail what happens to a country such as Britain when it runs out of bed space, when there is an overwhelming demand for bed space that means that those with Covid or seeking bed space for another reason simply cannot get the attention they need. It spells out in clear detail what the impact on mortality would be were that to happen.
That publication also spells out the challenge of trying to enclose those who are vulnerable—the millions who are elderly, those with learning difficulty, those with diabetes and those whose ethnic background puts them into a special category. Millions of people are in the “vulnerable” category. Locking them up is neither conscionable nor practicable. We have tried this. Every year people try to keep their relatives out of the flu season. It makes no impact at all because people want to be with the people they love, and they need the attention and support of the social care workers who support them. For those reasons, the idea of confining the vulnerable to some form of isolation is neither conscionable nor practical. It comes down to a mixture of a values judgment and an economic judgment. History teaches us that those countries that have the stamina to defeat the virus bounce back fastest. That is why we take the approach we do.
To conclude and look forward from here, I once again acknowledge noble Lords’ frustration about the manner of these statutory instruments coming to the House. All I can say in response is that it is a negotiation for the usual channels and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to decide when these matters are programmed. I am very much committed to being here whenever it is decided by noble Lords that these SIs should be discussed. The Prime Minister’s recommendations on tiering should, I hope, bring a more predictable and easily scheduled progress to these SIs. I very much hope that that will work.
In the meantime, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the Manchester, Sunderland and Harrogate Nightingales have been put on standby. There are more patients in hospital with Covid today than they were before the restrictions came in in March. This is a sombre moment and I am extremely grateful to noble Lords for a rewarding and constructive debate.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North East of England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 18 September be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Protected Areas and Linked Childcare Households) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 22 September be approved.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now resume.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 22 September be approved.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we are all aware of the rising rate of infection, particularly after this morning’s candid briefings, and the risks this poses. Therefore, noble Lords will understand the importance of taking the necessary steps to keep members of the public safe, while continuing to keep the economy running, the schools open and heading off the need for a second lockdown.
We know that some of the rules put in place have become increasingly complex and difficult to enforce. That is why the Prime Minister has set out today how we will further simplify and standardise local rules by introducing a three-tier system of local Covid alert levels in England. This is not the subject of the debate today, nor does it change the legal requirement to wear a face covering, but it should reassure noble Lords that we continue to work with local leaders to tackle outbreaks with more targeted restrictions that are simple and constructive.
The regulations being debated today introduce the requirement that members of the public should wear a face covering in taxis and private hire vehicles. In addition, they should also be worn when inside a premises that provides hospitality—such as a bar, pub or restaurant—except when eating or drinking, for which they must be seated. This means that people must wear a face covering when entering, leaving and moving around inside these premises. Additionally, staff working in certain retail and hospitality settings should wear a face covering if they are in areas that are open to members of the public and are therefore likely to come into contact with members of the public.
I will now set out why this is a necessary measure, and how we have seen public behaviour change since the introduction of the first set of face covering regulations. A review of recent clinical research published in the Lancet in August suggested that face covering usage
“in community settings with reduced physical distancing might be justified.”
But despite this, the paper concluded that for Covid-19 this evidence is of
“low or very low certainty”
due to the nature of the data collection.
Studies published in the journal Nature have shown different degrees of support for face coverings. In an article at the end of September, the publication concluded that the effectiveness of cloth face coverings is not as well established as that for PPE in a clinical setting. This article recognised that face coverings are intended to protect the public from exhaled virus-containing particles, but points out that
“few studies have examined particle emission by mask-wearers into the surrounding air.”
In a news feature a fortnight later, Nature quoted studies suggesting that face coverings might have the capacity to save lives, but the article outlined the difficulty of establishing definitive proof. The BMJ pointed out on 7 September:
“There are large gaps in our knowledge and without clear evidence on the use of cloth masks in the community we may be wearing false reassurance.”
PHE conducted a rapid review in June of 28 studies into face coverings for community usage. At the time it concluded:
“There is weak evidence”
in these studies
“that mask wearing in the community may contribute to reducing the spread of COVID-19”.
There is, however, stronger evidence that the
“beneficial effects of wearing masks may be increased when combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as hand washing and social distancing.”
SAGE has advised that using cloth masks as a precautionary measure could be at least partially effective in enclosed spaces where social distancing is not always possible.
This is the scientific context for these measures. The Government have mandated the use of face coverings in places where social distancing is difficult and where there is closely shared space. We are not increasing high levels of acceptance that face coverings are gaining among the public. We need to be clear that face coverings are not a panacea; they are not a substitute for the key measures. Face coverings alone will not stop the chain of virus transmission, but to do so we must continue to maintain good hygiene, including when putting on and taking off face coverings, and follow social distancing guidelines and safe self-isolation advice.
As the WHO pointed out this summer, due to the limited evidence of the efficacy of homemade masks,
“their use should always be accompanied by frequent hand hygiene and physical distancing.”
With this in mind, noble Lords may have seen the recommendations published by the BMA this weekend about extending the use of face coverings in more settings, including outdoors.
We know that people are responding positively to these regulations, as it is reflected in data published by the ONS. On 11 May the Government advised the public to wear face coverings in enclosed spaces, and on 5 June ONS data suggested that only 32% of people reported that they had worn a face covering outside of the house. Fast forward to now, and ONS figures published on 9 October show that 98% of people had reported wearing a face covering when they leave the house. YouGov polls from the start of October provide further support for these findings. Data collected for the DHSC on health behaviours also show that since new regulations came into force on 24 September, 84% had worn a face covering in a restaurant, café or pub on some occasion, a rise of 22%.
This instrument is already benefiting members of the public and workers alike. I am enormously grateful to noble Lords for their continued engagement on this challenging process in the scrutiny of these regulations. We will, of course, reflect on this in the debate to come. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Just for the benefit of noble Lords, let me say that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will not be speaking next; she will be winding up for the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, will be relieved that he is not winding up for the Opposition, and I call him next.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is the 15th occasion since 9 March on which I have spoken on face masks, and I do not want to repeat much of what I have said in the past. We have made some gains over recent months, and I sense that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has certainly influenced events, and for that we are grateful—but there still remains a huge gap in mask policy. These regulations define the circumstances, regulatory requirements, enforceability, penalty and review arrangements, and I broadly support them, limited as they are.
The media criticism of inconsistency in wider virus policy application, which has dominated the national debate, is easy copy. The truth is that it is utterly impossible to avoid inconsistencies—we are in a crisis, and it is inevitable that make-do arrangements will breed inconsistencies. My criticism centres on the general approach to masking. It is quite clear to me, and I have read most of the material, that a more precautionary approach is required over the coming months. I can only repeat my view, held since March, that masks should be mandatory in all conditions of social interaction, apart from in the home. That includes offices, shops, and all public premises and spaces, including the streets, with exemptions for health requirements only. I need only point to the success of masking policies in south-east Asia to make my case.
Furthermore, I remain concerned about the issue of valves, which I raised on 18 September, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, responded positively. I shall be pressing this issue further, as people are simply not getting the message that masks with valves are suitable only in clinical settings where practitioner wearers are known to be virus-free. The Government have to address this issue at an early stage. Valved masks are still being sold to a wider public, unaware of the danger to others.
However, while concentrating my comments on masking policy, I need to raise the equally controversial and associated issue of herd immunity. I have opposed the herd as premature from the start. The experience of Sweden has been misinterpreted. The problem with the Swedish data is that commentators have sought to equate it with the United Kingdom data, which is a nonsense, as no account is being taken of statistics on population density and income. Population density is critical to the debate—we need only examine population and income stats from within the United Kingdom to see that our worst-affected areas are in our high-population-density industrial and socially deprived heartlands. So I say ignore the Swedish data; the solution is to be found at home.
At this stage, we need to reject the herd and follow a policy of differential regional lockdown, as advocated by the northern mayors—and yes, it should probably be tiered, as was suggested by the Government in the Statement in the Commons half an hour ago. The policy should be reviewed at this year-end. I say that, as we need to take fully into account the legitimate arguments of those who want to move to the herd at an early stage. I believe that their demand is premature, but it should not be completely ruled out in the longer term. We need to give the policy of hot-spot lockdowns time to work.
To embark on the herd has major implications for vulnerable groups. If, in the end, supporters of the herd have their way—and that may well happen, as they are driven by concerns of public expenditure—we will need assurances that a national comprehensive support system for the elderly and vulnerable will be put in place. That needs careful planning. It would be a disaster if the herd were introduced, leaving the elderly exposed to the ravages of the virus in the absence of adequate community support arrangements.
This brings me to why I suggest a year-end review. This is a very fast-moving debate. Today’s Statement in the Commons is a clear indicator of that, although the failure to address masking policy in that Statement is a mistake. In ideal circumstances, we need a bridging strategy between a rundown in government support and the introduction of a vaccine in the gap. Timing is critical. Government planners should be working on that now. In conditions of vaccine failure, the herd will be inevitable. Whatever the eventuality, we need careful planning. In my view, it is inconceivable that we would be driven into a herd strategy without the national mask programme that I advocate. Whether it is differential regional lockdown—which I refer to as DRL—or the herd, there is a clear case for mandatory masking in all social interactions, with the exemptions I already outlined in my contribution today.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, it must be hard work for the Minister to have to come here, make speeches and deal with noble Lords all the time. Trying to do this particular one twice must be a nightmare—fortunately, he was rescued from that.
As far as public consent is concerned, masks are one of the few successes of the Government’s policies and strategies on Covid-19. There is a high degree of compliance with mask-wearing, which is to the credit of people in this country.
When we started again in September, I was very concerned—I was frightened—at the prospect of going on the Underground, remembering what it was like in July, so I brought my bicycle down to London and had a wonderful fortnight cycling in, during the day. My daughter told me that if I brought my bicycle to London, it would be stolen, so I took precautions against that. It was not stolen, but somebody had a go at it and tried to smash it up and I had to take it home to be repaired. I took courage into my hands and went on the Underground. I have to say that, at the moment, the Underground is a safe environment. I have been coming down on the west coast main line, as I did this morning, and I worry how long those trains will run for when it is only me in a whole carriage. At least the public transport I use is safe, and almost all the people I see on it are wearing masks and behaving sensibly. That is good.
The problems seem to be in supermarkets and similar retail premises. People go on social media and get all het up about people not wearing masks in those places. The answer of the operators of retail premises is that they cannot force people to wear masks. But what they can do, and sometimes do do, is refuse to serve people. If the rule was that you could not be served in such places unless you were wearing a mask, it would be much easier to enforce. They would simply say, “I am sorry, I am not serving you.” It is not difficult to sort that out, so the Government ought to think about that and do it.
I am not someone who will march along the street behind the Great Barrington banner; I think that they are going overboard in what they are saying, though some parts are quite sensible and ought to be taken on board. Generally, there are too many people, on all sides, who are proclaimed as experts and believe that they are right about every aspect. Whether they are professor this, doctor that, or even professor-doctor something else, everybody in this debate, and everybody going on television, ought to have a great deal more modesty about what they are putting forward. The truth is that we do not know a huge amount about the virus and the illnesses that it causes, and we will not know everything for a long time, if ever. Therefore, instead of saying that this is necessary or this is essential, it would help if people had greater modesty and relied on evidence when we can get it.
The problem is that, increasingly, what is put forward as evidence, including the statistical stuff, varies according to where you go. A great deal of the evidence that we need is simply not there. I look at the PHE surveillance report every week. It is a mass of exciting graphs, many of which are put up on our television screens by various organisations. But the crucial evidence that is not known, which I think the Minister referred to in his speech, is how much of the primary transmission of this virus—the real source of it—comes from different elements out in the community.
We are told that it is almost all community transmission now—that while transmission within the health service has not been eliminated, it has been substantially reduced. We are told that care homes are being dealt with, so the two huge problem areas from before have been dealt with. But do we really know how much is coming from shopping, from hospitality, from sporting events and, if I dare say it, from schools—an area that we are not allowed to talk about—and so on? Also, how much of it is essentially among families? I think that family transmission is secondary and, as the Minister suggested, the virus is being brought into homes and then spread in that way. I do not think we know, and that is because the testing and tracing being done does not look backwards; it looks forwards. Environmental health officers can do the job of finding out where the virus is coming from in the first place. There is a huge amount of evidence about this that the Government really need to look at seriously.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Since the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, has withdrawn from the debate, I now call the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, in Greta Thunberg style, without being scientists in the relevant fields, many of us have asked the Government whether they have looked at particular scientific evidence, or what the scientific evidence is for the decisions they are taking or the decisions that they might take; we have asked these things about face masks. Unfortunately, although we know that the department is very busy and that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, is again very busy today, we often do not get answers to these questions, and when we do, they can be sketchy. Having said that, however, the Minister has given us much more scientific detail today about the arguments for and against the use of face masks. I would say that it is not an entirely fair appraisal of the scientific material, much of which is very convincing about the effectiveness of their use.
There are two things to consider here. One is that the public need to have confidence that the Government are doing the right thing, and therefore they have to show that they are thinking deeply about these matters. The second is that the public have the right to know what the scientific evidence is, and I would include local authorities in this principle of access. The legal challenges being mounted are surely a direct result of the Government’s secrecy in these matters, which is regrettable, but if the attempts to resolve this crisis were being made primarily through the public sector locally, rather than through private companies, one strongly suspects that there would not be the same concerns.
I would like to ask the Minister about the latest position on the science of face masks, but he has given the answer already. This may seem like going over old ground, although the evidence could be accumulating and may be refined. This is important because while most people in my area of Hampshire are complying with the regulations, there remain a significant minority who do not. This cannot be explained away by exemptions. On my train to and from London, I have had to move seats or even carriages a few times to get away from people not wearing masks. While huge fines are now threatened for not wearing a mask on public transport, I am still not convinced that the Government have won, or have even tried to win, the hearts and minds of people for this measure. Has research been carried out on variations in compliance across the country?
However, most people are complying—or at least they do so in my area. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, pointed out in an earlier debate, there is nevertheless a logical and common-sense precautionary aspect to face masks, and perhaps that is fortunate. But there is another reason for asking about the science and being convinced by it. If face masks are significantly effective, as the relevant scientific authorities in other countries believe them to be, we should ask whether their use should be extended much further than it has been. I therefore welcome the extension to shops, pub staff and taxis set out in the SIs we are discussing. Surely the bottom line here is that the combination of social distancing and the wearing of face masks will preclude the spread of the disease in those circumstances where these measures are deployed. I ask the Minister: would it be true to say that where this combination is not deployed or not happening, that is where we see the spread of the disease? Can the use of face masks therefore be extended to both inside and outside environments? I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, had to say about that.
Just looking at schools, at the end of September, just over 6% of schools reported being affected by Covid. What is the evidence of transmission within schools or outside the school gates? Should there be regulations about the wearing of masks within schools and what about school buses? Is there now a strong argument for children to wear masks from school to home or school to family car? At certain times of day, it is difficult to avoid large groups of schoolchildren, very few of them wearing masks and all shouting, as is normal, on their way home or to and from the railway station. Are the Government looking at this?
I know that some of these questions have been asked before, but now that schools have been open for a while, there ought to be data about transmission to which the public also have a right to access. Have the Government compared notes with other countries, including Germany, which has comparable statistics as regards Covid in schools?
The last time I participated in a debate on face masks, I asked a question about the effectiveness of visors as opposed to masks, as they are increasingly used as an alternative. I did not receive a reply the first time, so I ask the Government again: have they looked at this and what is their advice to the public?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support completely the idea of wearing face masks. It is an incredibly sensible option, particularly for most of us here. However, I point out to the Minister that my experience suggests that it is mostly men of a certain age and of a right-wing persuasion who find it most difficult to wear face masks. Then there are those who wear them but do not cover their noses. It makes their noses look huge and I feel that, from the point of view of attractiveness, we should encourage them to put the mask over their noses as well. Quite honestly, I think of this as a public duty. I hope that other people wearing them will protect me and I certainly hope to protect others by wearing mine. If the wearing of masks helps to reduce the spread of the virus, it is an important part of collective action and solidarity between people.
However, perhaps the Government have not always made this completely clear and I am very glad that we are not hearing any more of their August talk about “returning to normal”, which actually means supporting London businesses but not supporting local businesses, which most of us have been doing. The regulations have added yet more complexity to the legal framework, with yet more piecemeal amendments. With the announcement today of a new coronavirus legal framework, would it not be a good idea to start consolidating the regulations as part of the exercise so that it is all made as simple and as clear as it possibly can be? In the past—and possibly still—the Government have muddled up and blurred the lines between guidance, advice and the law. This has resulted in a huge amount of confusion, especially for organisations such as the police.
I feel it is inherent in the regulations that the Government expect the virus to be around for some time. It is therefore time for an economic package that includes a universal basic income for everyone to support them through the next six months, to make sure that people can not only support the economy but feed their children and themselves and lead a reasonable life.
An issue that has exercised me throughout the coronavirus crisis is that the Government have been bypassing Parliament. I know there has been a debate in the other place today and that MPs are going to be able to speak on these new regulations tomorrow and then vote on them, but the vote will be yes or no. That is not a debate. A debate suggests that there is a back and forth, and a vote would then imply voting for amendments and alterations.
Adam Wagner, whom I follow on Twitter, is a human rights barrister and a visiting professor of law at Goldsmiths, University of London. He said yesterday:
“One of the things this crisis has brought home to me is how illiberal outcomes are inevitable when hugely important decisions are made by a small group in secret and without parliamentary scrutiny. Biases and personal preferences of those in the room are inevitably amplified”.
For me, that sums up how these regulations are consistently formed and then imposed on us. It is not just about not bypassing Parliament any more or allowing it a say in improving the regulations; it is about understanding that a small clique of people deciding things for the rest of us is a really unhealthy way of going about things, and is absolutely not democracy.
I support noble Lords who have said that local authorities need to be brought in. The Minister said in his opening remarks something about the Government continuing to work with local authorities. That is the sort of phrase that I say “ahem” to; I do not believe it for a moment, and I think local authorities would agree that it is not what has been happening. Many of us do not trust private companies to have the interests of the population at heart, but we understand that it is the job of local authorities to put our interests first. The Government have to give local authorities the power to test and trace, give local authorities the funding so that they can make that happen, and then give them anything else they need to get the job done properly. Let us face it, Serco and the Government have made the most awful mess of this so far; they have wasted billions and allowed thousands to die.
I did not hear the Minister respond to my noble friend Lady Bennett’s questions in the last debate. I ask that he write to her with the answers so that we can all be clear exactly what the Government are doing.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I am on the BMA ethics committee. I want to consider what we know, what we are doing and where our duty in society lies.
Masks are increasingly reported to be protective. I thank the Minister for his brief summary, but I add to it that no evidence has emerged that they are harmful in Covid transmission. The coronavirus is tiny, 0.1 micrometres across, less than one-800th of a human hair in diameter, but it does not leave the body on its own; it relies on aerosols and droplets to spread, and it goes however far that mist takes it. Think of tobacco smoke spreading; once you get beyond two metres and are not downwind, you are less likely to inhale much of it, even though the aerosol lingers in the air for a long time. Do not forget that in indoor spaces that can be for many hours, which is why the BMA wants masks worn in offices even when alone.
This aerosol, often minute droplets of around double the width of the virus itself, is partly caught in the fibres of a mask. Masks made of double layers of tightly woven mixed fabrics, such as silk and fine cotton, seem to decrease aerosol transfer by up to about one-fifth. The standard mask for use in healthcare settings with aerosol-generating procedures is the N95 respirator mask, which is designed to protect the wearer by filtering out 95% of airborne particles that measure 0.3 micrometres or larger. A review of observational studies estimates that such surgical and comparable cloth masks are around 67% effective in protecting the wearer. That figure may be even higher for the G variant of the virus that seems to transmit faster, but we do not yet know that.
The other protective effect of a mask is that it can cut the viral count inhaled by up to 60%. Where masking reduces the dose of virus that a wearer might receive, it seems that the resulting infection is milder or even asymptomatic, whereas a large viral load results in a more aggressive inflammatory response. So wearing the suitable mask protects the wearer as well as protecting others if the wearer is excreting virus. In Hong Kong a new type of reusable fabric mask, CuMask+, will be issued to all citizens. This patented six-layer mask is washable 60 times and incorporates copper as a key filtering component, although there is some dispute over the extent of claims of efficacy.
What of mask deniers? I am afraid that they are still out there. The inconvenience of wearing a mask is tiny for most of us. Those who lipread for whatever reason need to see a person’s mouth and a very small number of people cannot tolerate a mask, so exceptions are appropriate. For the rest of us, it is only a slightly increased effort to breathe through the mask and cope with fogged-up glasses—although proper eye protection is associated with less infection. However, we all have a duty to others—the ethical principles of justice and that we do not cause harm. We have no idea if the person that we passed in the shop, the street or elsewhere is in a high-risk group and should be shielding.
Thin, disposable masks are not adequately protective, and there are now more masks than jellyfish in some seas. It is predicted that 75% of throwaway masks will end up in landfill or in oceans. The ecological effect will be long-lasting, as these masks last 450 years before degrading. What is the Government’s policy to radically decrease mask litter? Why are we not providing advice on how to recycle masks—for example, by hot-ironing cloth ones?
I stress, as I have before and as Distance Aware aims to stress, that the most important measures are social distancing and hand washing. Is the word “space” used simply because it rhymes with “face”? Is there evidence that the public know that this means the two-metre rule? Will the Government make it crystal clear that the two-metre distancing rule is more important than anything else, and that masks can be an adjunct of that but no substitute for it? Other than fines, what is being done to empower those who deserve to be protected when confronted by someone who is simply too selfish to wear a mask properly and thinks it is funny to hang it around their chin or off one ear? I hope we are at the end of mixed messages and that social duty towards each other will define what we do.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who has considerable scientific knowledge about this issue. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the regulations.
I agree with the use of face masks, particularly in relation to these regulations with respect to taxis and the hospitality industry. I note from the learned journal Nature that science supports the use of masks, but it also says that it is difficult to assess how well they work or when to use them. I think we have all been quite clear that wearing face masks protects not only ourselves but everyone else within our space, using social distancing, hand washing and all the other requirements to keep safe.
In relation to all these debates, I take on board the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who has referred to masks in many debates in your Lordships’ House as far back as February, and to herd immunity. Will the Minister say whether the reason the Government, who seem to be followed by the devolved institutions, are not going for a strict lockdown, as back in March, is to build herd immunity? Is that the real reason for all of this?
That brings me to the regulations regarding face coverings. I note that they came into effect on 23 and 24 September without parliamentary scrutiny, that there were errors and that remakes were necessary to provide clarity. I further note that three correcting instruments had to be made within 24 hours, and that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted its surprise that the Government are not doing more to co-ordinate such changes in a more structured way. The committee also stated that it is not helpful to have the law scattered between so many instruments, so I come to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who talked about the probable need for consolidated regulations. There are too many separate amending regulations, and that is where inconsistency and confusion can arise. Will the Minister consider the use of more consolidated legislation, or is that not possible due to the changing nature of the virus? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny in advance of the introduction of such regulations? When will that happen? That point has been made on numerous occasions during various debates in this House, and I recall the regret Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to that effect on a Friday about three weeks ago.
Undoubtedly, Northern Ireland will follow suit on these regulations. It is as if a time lapse has taken place, which can cause inconsistency in application, understanding and adherence. In that regard, will the Minister indicate what process is under way to assess the effectiveness of such measures as they relate to society and communities? As a result of that assessment, could best practice be adopted across the UK through the medium of a committee of officials in the devolved Administrations and the Government, so that we have the maximum impact in reducing the rate of transmission and the number of cases, at the same time as protecting all our citizens and our economy?
What assessment has been carried out of the use of face masks? Are there background statistics showing that they are actually being used, and are fines being imposed when they are not? What is the rate of such fines and the rate of malpractice in that regard? If such analysis has been done, what learning has been captured? Could best practice be rolled out through all policy avenues in relation to Covid and these regulations?
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, I would like to make two points about today’s regulations. The first is regarding the wearing of face masks and the second concerns the amount of legislation being created to deal with the pandemic.
As a country, we were slow to adopt the wearing of face coverings, and there was a huge debate in the early days of the pandemic about the merits or demerits of their protective qualities. This was at a time when PPE was in short supply, and it was generally agreed that NHS and other front-line workers were left vulnerable without the correct PPE, which included wearing masks for complete protection. It is therefore a mystery as to why it did not make sense to endorse the wearing of face masks by the general public in the beginning, given that there was so much evidence of their protective benefits from their use by front-line workers. Perhaps the Minister would like to say why such an oversight took place.
My second point, which has also been noted by the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, concerns the number of statutory instruments dealing with issues relating to the pandemic. For example, we had two original face covering regulations, which were subsequently amended by three further instruments. Today’s instruments add a further three amendments to the original two, making six in total.
One of today’s instruments includes taxis and private hire vehicles in the definition of public transport in order to make it compulsory for passengers to wear a face mask when using them. That it was not considered necessary to include this form of transport in the beginning means we need a further instrument to deal with the issue. Not only does that add to the legislative burden; it links to my first point about adopting the wearing of masks earlier in the pandemic: not having that regulation may have contributed to many more people being infected, as they were without face masks in a confined space. A second example is the provision that addresses the inadvertent omission from the original instrument of making it compulsory for bar staff to wear face masks.
While we are making fines for non-compliance stiffer, as here with the second regulation, we must make sure the law is accessible and easily understood by the public, or we are in danger of undermining the rule of law. I thoroughly endorse the committee’s view that the Government must take a more structured and, indeed, streamlined approach to the legislation in order to facilitate understanding and compliance, as no doubt the need for more legislation is unlikely to go away in the current situation.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness might be on mute, so she could try unmuting herself.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
I think we will go to the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I spoke in the earlier statutory instrument debate so will keep my remarks brief on this one. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, urged shopkeepers to refuse to serve customers who are not wearing masks, but I have every sympathy with those who serve in shops or work on public transport who see people not wearing masks but are highly reluctant to confront them. They face being told that the people concerned cannot wear a mask but have no evidence of that—they just do not want to wear masks.
The majority of people are playing by the rules, but not everybody. The Government’s advice is that:
“No person needs to seek advice or request a letter from a medical professional about their reason for not wearing a face covering.”
As long as that remains the case, it is difficult for anybody to challenge those who are not wearing face coverings. If the Government believe that it would help in reducing the rate of Covid if everybody who can do so wears a face covering, is it not worth considering making it obligatory—because we are in a time of emergency—so that those who do not want to wear a face covering cannot just decide that they will not?
Those who cannot wear face coverings surely should have no difficulty in getting a GP, or maybe even a pharmacist, to give them something indicating that they are exempt. Then people who are behind the counter, manning the turnstiles or driving a bus would feel confident in challenging those who simply were not wearing a face covering, and insisting that they complied with the rules or would not be served or carried on public transport, et cetera. I would be grateful to hear the thoughts of the Minister on that point.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, at the outset of the pandemic in Europe, medics from south-east Asia, who had the most experience of the virus and consequently the best understanding of it, made it crystal clear that the wearing of face masks, while no panacea, was one of a number of important measures in combating it and in making people less vulnerable to other seasonal viruses such as the flu. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, set out comprehensively how cloth masks in particular can be highly effective as part of a wider approach. She also made an important point about the reduced effectiveness of disposable masks and the ecological damage that they do. For some reason, at the outset of this pandemic we chose to ignore the advice from south-east Asia, preferring to reinvent the wheel because we somehow thought that we knew better.
At a time when the Government were closing businesses, restricting travel, preventing children and grandchildren seeing their parents and grandparents, and confining people to their homes—the greatest interference in British people’s civil liberties since World War II—for some reason they would not take the simple step of requiring, or even just requesting, that people protect themselves and others by enduring the minor inconvenience of wearing a face mask. It was not until 11 May, nearly two months after the lockdown, that the Government first advised the public to wear face coverings. It was not until 15 June that they were made mandatory on public transport, three months after the lockdown began, and it was not until four months later that they were required in shops, supermarkets and transport hubs—and even later in hospitality venues.
The Government preferred to spend their time focusing on grandiose claims about world-beating apps that never arrived, rather than on adopting and enforcing effective infection control, including masks, and, as the Minister said, handwashing and social distancing. They have only recently started focusing their public messaging on these three basics together—“Hands, Face, Space”—when those should have been there from the outset. It is impossible to know how many lives would have been saved if we had listened to advice from our colleagues in south-east Asia much earlier, but what is unforgivable is that today we still lag way behind in the measures we have taken and the means of enforcement.
The regulations we are discussing, which require face coverings to be worn in taxis and private vehicles, came into force only on 24 September. It is extraordinary that it was not a requirement from the outset. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Emerging data has demonstrated that taxi and private hire vehicle drivers as more likely to be vulnerable to Covid-19”.
I am very surprised that it has taken over six months to arrive at what seems a reasonably self-evident supposition, because of not only the disproportionate number of drivers from more susceptible groups, as referenced in the Explanatory Memorandum, but the confined space in which they operate. I understand that even under these regulations, the requirement is upon passengers and not drivers. This seems an unfathomable policy decision and I hope that the Minister will be able to explain it in his reply.
The second set of regulations, as we have heard, require face coverings in theatres, bars, restaurants and pubs, except when seated. These did not come into force until a day later—not until 24 September. Again, what was the Government’s rationale in applying such a basic public health measure so late in the day after we started to reopen the economy?
Finally, on enforcement, over the past weeks, the penalties for failure to wear a face covering that are displayed at London railway stations, such as the ones I have seen at Waterloo and Clapham Junction, have moved from £100 one week to £3,200 the next and £6,400 the week after that. Who thinks this sort of thing up? Do they not realise that, far from making the public think that the Government are getting a grip, it makes them think that the law is a joke—doubly so, because they can see that enforcement appears almost entirely absent? I know now, although only from reading the regulations, that the £6,400 figure is a maximum for repeated offences. But as far as I am aware, the public are not avid readers of statutory instruments, so they will not know that. They will regard the fine displayed as frankly absurd—as I did when I saw it. As enforcement seems to be most notable for its absence, it is hard to imagine anyone being challenged enough times for the maximum fine ever to be applied, so what is the point? In that context, can the Minister tell us how many fines of £100—the minimum—have actually been issued and what is the maximum fine that has so far been employed?
As the Minister stressed, face coverings are no panacea, and as my noble friend Lord Greaves said, we often do not have the evidence that we would like when making decisions. But if we are going to get ahead of this disease, we are going to have to act much faster. Sometimes we are going to have to use our common sense and act ahead of having all the evidence that we would want. We need to have an enforcement regime that is proportionate and effective, with a verifiable system of exemptions.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the contributors to this debate have asked the Minister pretty much all the questions that need to be asked on this issue. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours that I would not have minded if he had been here doing this job, because he is definitely the expert on face masks in the House.
I want to make two procedural points. First, as we move forward to discuss face masks, I cannot see any reason why we would not be discussing them before regulations are made. If there are to be any changes to the regulatory regime around face masks, I cannot see that emergency legislation needs to be used. The House is perfectly capable now of discussing whatever needs to be changed, as the science evolves, prior to enactment rather than several weeks after. Secondly, I cannot resist teasing the Minister about the fact that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has asked the Government if they can please take care about not publishing three amended statutory instruments to correct the mistakes that they made in the first one—and they did it within 24 hours. It said:
“The Committee has noticed a recent increase in the number of correcting instruments, with several Coronavirus instruments having to be revoked or amended immediately after laying … We therefore remind all Departments to check all instruments thoroughly before laying them before Parliament”.
I think that probably counts as a B.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was correct to say that the need to wear masks was about protecting each other. The Prime Minister said last week, concerning the sharp rise in coronavirus cases across the UK, that the country had become blasé about following restrictions designed to bring the pandemic under control, but I think a lack of enforcement is partly to blame. The Prime Minister’s father, former MEP Stanley Johnson, has been pictured three times either not wearing a mask or with one tucked under his chin, in places where face coverings are required: a London shop, a Tube station and an airport.
Therefore, it is legitimate to ask the Government not specifically about Stanley Johnson’s conduct but about what assessment they have made of the levels of compliance and of people’s reasons for not following the rules. Perhaps it is because the rules are changing so quickly and are confusing, or because people are becoming blasé. As I have said, I travel in and out of London on Tubes and buses every day; as the Minister said, the wearing of masks is significantly better than it was a month ago. There is absolutely no question of that. However, there are still people refusing to wear them.
Business enforcement is an issue here. Shops and supermarkets are required by law to inform customers to wear a face covering—unless they have an exemption—which they do through signs or by telling them when they enter the premises. This is enforced by local authorities and businesses risk a fine if they fail to do so. However, there is concern that the Government may not be following through on their own advice. Four retailers—Sainsbury’s, Lidl, Morrisons and B&M, the homeware stores—were issued with warning notices by Barking and Dagenham Council in east London, after their staff were seen failing to enforce mask-wearing and social distancing by customers. After the enforcement notices were issued under anti-social behaviour legislation, stores were understood to have complained to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It has been reported that a senior official at BEIS then telephoned the council and said that it
“did not have powers to enforce these guidelines using the Government’s Covid-19 emergency powers”
and that
“the action had caused a negative reaction from the operators”,
according to a letter of complaint from the council to Alok Sharma, the Business Secretary.
This is rather important. Can the Minister confirm these reports? If so, does he share my concern that maybe his colleagues are undermining these regulations, and public health? Who will enforce these regulations, and how? As the Minister said, the British Medical Association has called for face masks to be mandatory in busy outdoor areas as well as indoors, and where there is a risk of coming within two metres of other people, including in offices. It is clear that most workplaces were never designed for people to work two metres apart. The Government need to revisit the science and enforcement of wearing face masks. It would be great to have that debate before enactment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)
Can we try the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, again?
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, many of us in this House have consistently called on the Government to make mask-wearing mandatory. I am relieved that they have seen the error of their ways. When masks were gold dust, my wonderful mother started making them, beautifully crafted, for all our family. I have diligently worn them since April, even when I am cooking and baking. We are at a crossroads, with increasing numbers of people being admitted to hospital across the country. No doubt we will have to examine whether mandating masks would have prevented the rising infection rate.
I take this opportunity to acknowledge the decisive action of the Lord Speaker, and the Speaker in the other place, who instructed both Houses in protecting staff. I hope that guidance will also be extended to staff at hospitality venues, including restaurants. It makes no sense for staff not to wear masks while cooking and serving.
Masks are an expensive commodity, priced well beyond the means of those on paltry state benefits and low pay. Can the Government enshrine their commitment to public health and meet the needs of those most vulnerable by making them available free in health service institutions, schools, universities, community centres and places of worship, where people are still allowed to congregate in greater numbers with social distancing?
I went to venues, as I usually do every weekend, to see what was happening and if there were any improvements among young people attending organised events. I was pleased to see increased numbers of young people wearing masks—though still not enough—but social distancing remains a huge gap in public education. The Government must address this and I am sure we will discuss it in due course.
I have just come from a Zoom briefing by the Chinese Information and Advice Centre. Its members have seen an exponential rise in hate crimes against the Chinese communities. Under the outstanding leadership of Edmond Yeo, CIAC’s endeavours have also been outstanding, ensuring that it provides thousands of masks and food parcels to vulnerable families. I have worked with CIAC since April and throughout the summer. Its work is incredible and its commitment outstanding. This community has suffered a huge rise in hate crimes. Can the Minister take this back to his and other departments, and ensure that the Chinese communities are protected on the streets of our country?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, in thanking the Lord Speaker and noting his words on masks in the House. Who would have believed in February that a Lord Speaker would be sending an email recommending wearing masks in the corridors of the House of Lords? We have indeed come a very long way. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for their insight on the wearing of masks. They have both clearly taken deep dives into the scientific evidence, as I have, and have thought to synthesise from the raw data an understanding of how masks and face coverings may or may not protect the wearer and the society around them. The upshot is that it is not always crystal clear, as they both acknowledged, but there is interesting advice there for everyone.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had in some ways the most interesting insight—at least to me. Out of the science comes a very human and important public health observation, which coronavirus has struck us all with: my health is important not only to me but to those who share my space and my health service. If I have coronavirus, it is not just of interest to me but to anyone standing near me. A communicable disease is just that. The clue is in the name. It is shareable with our neighbours. That is why the wearing of masks and face coverings is not only about protecting ourselves, but about protecting our community, our neighbour and our health system.
I take from this debate a real sense of optimism that public attitudes in the UK have massively changed. I note, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the huge endorsement of the wearing of masks: according to recent ONS figures, 98% of people say that they have worn a mask in the last few weeks. The scientific evidence on masks would endorse that spirit. A simple hand-made or cloth mask is a public service rather than a source of self-protection and it is all the more poignant and important for that reason.
We have come a long way since February and March when there was a serious and understandable concern about cannibalisation. As I said in the previous debate, we have tens of millions of items of PPE from hundreds of suppliers covering months of health needs ahead, so cannibalisation is no longer a fear. The example of south-east Asia is important. I note and echo those who observe the role of face coverings and masks in countries that have much to teach us about public health concerns. However, I reiterate some of the practicalities and concerns about inappropriate—and overreliance on—face mask wearing. It can be a displacement activity. For some people, it can be a way of channelling concerns and can lead to unnecessary risk-taking, particularly for those who are seeking to avoid social distancing. For some, it can be a distraction from the important regimens of hygiene. As I said in my opening words, it is absolutely imperative that those wearing masks are conscious of and abide by hygiene protocols—a badly treated face covering, reused over days, can become a vector for infection and a source of contagion.
These are the concerns of the CMO and why we have moved thoughtfully and not rushed into this. As the evidence base builds and public attitudes change, we are putting more and more store in this important area, particularly in those instances where social distancing is difficult and where masks can helpfully control or minimise contagion. There is also an important question of public trust. We do not want to be in a position where we highly recommend something that we cannot quite prove is effective. There are those who say, “Well if it doesn’t hurt, why not give it a go?” It can hurt, however, because if the public suspect that we are not relying on clear scientific evidence, that has an enormous impact on our trust figures.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned the environment and asked about the measures we are taking to minimise the ecological impact. This is challenging. The best practice for masks is, frankly, to use them frequently. In south-east Asia, pupils bring three masks to school each day—one for the morning, once for lunchtime, one for the afternoon—and each one is thrown away after use. That is an enormous consumption of environmentally damaging disposable goods. I pay tribute to the Keep Britain Tidy campaign, which has done an enormous amount to try to think through the disposal of masks; work is being done to figure out ways of either reusing or recycling them.
I will answer some specific points. I absolutely, categorically and 100% reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, that there is no herd immunity strategy. It is not the Government’s strategy and we have no plans to move in that direction. To the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, I explain that masks are recommended for indoor areas in schools, particularly in places such as corridors where social distancing is impossible. It is up to headmasters to provide specific guidance but this is all explained in the guidelines. The noble Lords, Lord Greaves, and Lord Oates, and my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft spoke about shops. This is a challenging area but we are loath to put shopkeepers and shop workers in the firing line; it is not appropriate or fair to ask someone working behind a counter to police the wearing of masks. However, we are very serious about enforcement. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Oates, I pay tribute to Transport for London. Some 102,856 people were stopped between 4 July and 1 October. Of those, 1,753 were removed from public transport and 430 fixed penalty notices were issued.
The question from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on Barking and Dagenham was very interesting. I do not know the full answer. I will seek it and write to her with whatever answer I can find. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, asked where the transmission of disease comes from. He was right to say that there are different types of transmission in different categories. As we discussed in the earlier debate, households are where it all ends up. Household contagion is extremely high. Many households will originally be infected from the community, by their neighbours or in places where they socially congregate. The disease is introduced into communities from various distances. That is why we often look at ways of restricting transport, whether within a lockdown area or internationally. Finally, in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, visors are not enough to cover mouths and noses; that is why they are not a substitute for a face covering.
Looking to the future, I have said enough on our desire to bring a more regular scrutiny to these kinds of statutory instruments; I completely endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on this. I remind noble Lords that it is up to the usual channels to schedule the business of the House. On the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments corrections, I take note of the noble Baroness’s remarks. I have little to say in mitigation, other than to balance her well-meaning and frank remarks by paying testimony to the legal teams who do this work. I know that the noble Baroness would join me in thanking the legal teams who have the unenviable task of drafting these regulations, often late at night and at the weekend. I can tell noble Lords that this weekend was particularly tough for the legal team, who are doing their best under difficult circumstances. As I said, I pay tribute to their work. With that in mind, I beg to move.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place and on Public Transport) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 23 September be approved.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings in a Relevant Place) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 24 September be approved.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Apprenticeships (Alternative English Completion Conditions and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 10 September be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, apprenticeships have an important role to play in creating employment opportunities post pandemic and support employers to meet their skills needs to maintain their businesses. The Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme was launched in March to protect jobs and businesses from the worst of the pandemic, and it enabled workers who were still employed to be furloughed. The Government have made financial support available to employers and targeted relief at the hardest-hit sectors. To enable apprenticeships to continue during the pandemic, we introduced a number of measures and flexibilities to enable apprentices to undertake remote learning and complete their end-point assessment.
We all know that, sadly, young people starting their careers have been severely affected by this pandemic. As we build back stronger, we will need to ensure that apprenticeships play a key role in creating jobs and boosting the skills that employers need. To ensure this, the Government are already taking action. For example, our plan for jobs set out new payments for employers who hire a new apprentice between 1 August and the end of January next year. Where that apprentice is under 25, the employer will receive £2,000, and they will receive £1,500 where the apprentice is aged 25 or older. This is a strong encouragement for employers to create new apprenticeship opportunities in their businesses. Additionally, for young people seeking the skills to enter the labour market, we are tripling the number of traineeships we make available and rewarding employers for offering work placements. For those at risk of long-term unemployment, we are subsidising employers to create new short-term roles as part of the Kickstart Scheme.
However, the scale of the economic impact of the pandemic means that apprentices are not immune from redundancy. While employers are doing their best to protect and retain existing apprentices, sadly, many have cut their workforce and made the difficult decision to make them redundant. To help apprentices through this difficult time, we launched in August a new support service for redundant apprentices. This provides individuals who have been made redundant, or who are at risk of redundancy, with advice and guidance on the impact of redundancy on their apprenticeship. It also enables them to access wider support services, such as careers and financial advice and well-being support. More importantly, it helps them to find new apprenticeship opportunities with employers as part of our vacancy sharing service. We must remember that apprentices have valuable skills, often transferable to different industries and sectors.
It is wonderful and encouraging to see that more than 700 employers have come forward to support those apprentices who have been made redundant by providing them with the chance to apply for the range of opportunities available across all sectors and regions. We have received positive feedback from a number of employers who have shared their vacancies and successfully recruited redundant apprentices via this service.
We hope that any apprentice who is made redundant will be able to secure new employment and continue their apprenticeship. Sadly, we know that this will not always be possible. We now require training providers to produce a record of part-completion where an apprentice has to stop their apprenticeship as a result of redundancy. This sets out the knowledge, skills and behaviours that the apprentice has acquired prior to redundancy, helping the apprentice to secure future employment. It is important that, where individuals have made a commitment to their training and where the end goal is in sight, they are not prevented from completing their training due to redundancy. However, we want to go further by giving more apprentices who suffer redundancy the opportunity to complete their apprenticeship should they not find new employment immediately. That is the key reason why these regulations are being debated today.
There have been significant changes to apprenticeships. We have introduced higher and degree apprenticeships, which are of a longer duration. As a result of this, the average duration of an apprenticeship has increased: more apprentices are starting longer programmes. Apprentices on longer programmes who are made redundant do not always benefit from the current policy, where they can continue to be funded if they are six months or less from completion. We now propose to go further. We want those who have completed 75% or more of their apprenticeship to be funded as well. This could mean that an additional 8,000 apprentices can complete their programmes in the event of redundancy. I think we all recognise that apprenticeships are not just training programmes. The unique benefit of an apprenticeship is that it is a real job, and the training consists of a mixture of on-the-job and off-the-job training to achieve occupational competence.
To conclude, having taken steps to encourage employers to offer new apprenticeship opportunities, we are now taking further steps to extend support to existing apprentices seeking to complete their apprenticeship in the face of redundancy. We believe that these regulations strike the right balance between supporting these apprentices and protecting the quality of the apprenticeship experience they receive and the endorsement it provides to employers of their knowledge, skills and behaviours. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, in the 1960s, I became an apprentice. I began my articles to a solicitor in Newcastle upon Tyne to ensure that I would learn the profession which has served me so well throughout my adult life in a comprehensive way. My articles of clerkship were a legal document signed by me, my principal and also my father, conveying responsibilities on all of us to ensure the success of my training. I might add that that training was not just good from a legal perspective but also, as an indirect benefit, allowed me to become an expert in the operation of a corded switchboard when the telephonist took her lunch breaks. I am afraid that I have lost that skill, because of the ongoing pursuit of technology. My father had signed a similar document himself some 30 years before, when he joined a large industrial firm on Tyneside as an engineering apprentice. The training he received set him up for his own successful career.
I was pleased that, after many years of falling into abeyance, apprenticeships came back into prominence in 1994 when the then Government introduced what were called modern apprenticeships, based on the frameworks of the sector skills councils. They were brought up to date in 2009 with the establishment of the National Apprenticeship Service, which co-ordinated apprenticeships in England and required certain elements to be applied, including both knowledge and competence with employment rights and responsibilities. Different levels were instituted, which put them on a par with other educational achievements or demonstrated that learning a skill or profession in this way was most definitely not a lesser means of career progression. Even so, while we in the UK had a general policy to enable as many young people as possible to pursue university training, our main European competitors, especially our German friends, were reinvigorating their apprentice schemes, to encourage more to pursue non-academic training in engineering and technical fields. This was, arguably, a sensible approach in equipping their economies for future challenges.
We lost much flexibility in further education and training at that time, but I am pleased that, late in the day, we have reverted to a more balanced approach. Nowadays, there are several ways in which apprenticeships are provided: through the government apprenticeship service, by an employer provider, and/or by a supporting provider. There are many stories of success for those who have participated in apprenticeship schemes but, as in so many other cases, the Covid virus is threatening training schemes as some businesses can either no longer offer to take on apprentices or are under financial pressures which force them to make staff, including apprentices, redundant. This is very tough for those who are well on with their training schemes, so these provisions are a welcome gesture to enable a trainee to complete his or her course.
It is particularly important to remember that these courses are made up of several elements, both on-site and off-site, and include theoretical learning. These provisions take away some of the time limits for those who have already passed through a substantial part of their training. Can my noble friend confirm how the different elements of an apprenticeship can be co-ordinated if the trainee has to complete the apprenticeship with an alternative employer? How will apprentices who meet the new criteria of 75% completion be helped to find a new employer who will offer the completion of the programme? If the economic conditions continue to be problematic, it might well be much more difficult, whatever the extension of time might be, for the continuation and completion to be achieved.
I know there is a view that it is not possible to extend these provisions to those who have more than a quarter of their term left. This has been clearly expressed by the DfE, after consulting the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. It is therefore no doubt correct in most cases, but possibly still leaves too many out in the cold. Not all apprenticeship courses are the same. Can my noble friend offer any further comfort to those affected?
I appreciate the announcement of the new Kickstart programme, launched in September, which aims to help young people currently on universal credit to get a job. The placements are to be made through a jobcentre. That programme cannot be a replacement for any existing role, so in those circumstances can my noble friend explain whether if applicants for this scheme show the interest and aptitude to take on an apprenticeship they can and will be steered in the right direction?
I assume that the basic support and government incentive payments for employers who hire new apprentices between 1 August 2020 and 31 January 2021, to which my noble friend has already referred, will be available to those wishing to pursue this course. If an alternative employer is to take over an apprentice made redundant in the circumstances set out in this measure, will they benefit not only from the money payable in all cases but from the new incentive payment?
In general, I am sure that we all welcome these provisions. I wish they could go further, but I hope they will be kept under review. This country, with the major economic and trading challenges that lie ahead, needs more than ever the skills and the skill training that apprenticeships provide.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I applaud the many interventions that the Government have made to support young people to get jobs. I want to raise just one concern about these regulations. They seek to ameliorate the effects of the Covid-19 epidemic on young apprentices. This is certainly a laudable objective. Inevitably, many will be made redundant while undertaking their apprenticeships but, under the regulations, as others have mentioned, if they have completed 75% of their apprenticeship, they will be enabled to complete it without any specified time for doing so. The Minister explained that apprentices made redundant before achieving the 75% bar will receive a statement setting out the skills that they have obtained up to that point, but can it be justified to help those who have completed 75% of their apprenticeship to complete it but to provide no help for those who have done a little less than 75% to complete theirs? I understood from the Minister that they will get a document saying that they have achieved certain skills, but that is nothing like an ability to carry on with the work that they have started on that apprenticeship to gain a qualification and real opportunities to work.
Regulation 3, by amending Regulation 6 of the 2017 regulations, also applies the high 75% bar to apprentices who have more than six months of their practice period left to run and who need an alternative English apprenticeship when their approved English apprenticeship is terminated early by reason of redundancy. Again, why in these cases does the provision apply only to those who have completed 75% of their apprenticeship? The same Covid impact applies equally to those made redundant at an earlier stage. I presume that this is driven by cost—though I may of course be wrong—but is saving money really the right priority when the Government have rightly suggested that helping young people to obtain work is a high priority? Indeed, the Minister mentioned that apprenticeships will play an important role in meeting that objective for young people.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who I saw introducing the noble Lord, Lord Field, last week. I thought I would mention it because the noble Lord, Lord Field, is a very old family friend of the Vaizeys. But I digress.
I too welcome these regulations, and having heard the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, I will not add to the complicated response the Minister has to make to some of these very wise, technical points. As far as I am concerned, while the regulations may not be perfect, they are welcome. When I read the debates in the other place, the main criticism seemed to be that they had not been brought in soon enough. I hope that if and when the pandemic passes, it will have focused the Government’s mind on how to support apprentices in the future should they be made redundant, even when everything else is going well. Partly as employees, they suffer the risk of being made redundant depending on who they are working with.
As noble Lords can probably tell, I am currently serving my apprenticeship in this place, but I remember when I was in the other place visiting apprentices in my constituency of Wantage, where a huge number of science and technical companies were based. I remember meeting apprentices and thinking they had won the lottery. I met young men and women who had worked from the age of 16, earned a salary, and at the age of 20, were coming out with a qualification and no debt, having earned their living. Even more importantly, they were in demand for their specialist skills in certain technical areas. I thought then, as I think now, that apprenticeships are extremely important for our economy, yet bizarrely remain an unloved part of our education system as far as the establishment is concerned.
In the last year before Covid, we managed to achieve 800,000 apprenticeships in this country, but that is still well below the target set by the Government; I think the Government set themselves a target of 3 million apprenticeships by 2015. The apprenticeship levy has raised £4 billion, I think, to contribute to the funding of apprenticeships. I am afraid that I used to be an apprenticeship levy sceptic, because when I was in the other place, I met lots of employers who said the apprenticeship levy was far too inflexible and was ruining perfectly good schemes. But having educated myself when I was studying these regulations, I now understand that despite its teething problems, the apprenticeship levy is a good thing. It has weeded out some of the weaker programmes and forced numerous employers to focus on whether they want to have apprentices and what kind of apprenticeship programme they want in place.
I also commend the Government on the range of initiatives, building on the previous Labour Government and other Governments, such as the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, the apprenticeship delivery board and apprenticeship ambassadors. When I was a Minister at the DCMS, I worked with a man called David Mellor, who was absolutely passionate about apprenticeships. He had been, I think, a non-executive director at the Department for Education. I am sad he is not still there with his energy and passion to promote the importance of apprenticeships.
I want to make one fundamental point about why these regulations are so important and why we have to support apprenticeships. My noble friend Lord Kirkhope, for example, mentioned German apprenticeships and how the Germans have updated them and focused them on manufacturing. But, as I said, when I made my maiden speech, I want to concentrate on culture and technology. It may interest noble Lords—I am sure they know this already—to know that more and more tech companies and start-ups are also employing apprentices. If you go to Facebook, Google, Salesforce or Amazon, you will find apprenticeships. There is a consultancy called WhiteHat which specialises in these apprenticeships, and it tells me that digital and technology apprentices are the fastest growing cohort alongside healthcare.
When we consider that in this country we have 100,000 vacancies for data analysts and that last year business spent something like £6.5 billion trying to plug the skills gap in digital, we can see why apprentices are so sorely needed. So while I see great schemes like HS2 as a fantastic opportunity for apprentices, and while I welcome my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, talking about manufacturing apprentices, I hope that the Minister has spent less time at BAE Systems and more time at Facebook, because those are the forward-looking apprenticeships.
While we traditionally tend to think of Germany as the home of apprenticeships, a lot of people doing thinking in this area believe that Germany is slightly old-fashioned and inflexible. In the United States, where they are thinking very hard about apprenticeships and modernising them, they are looking to Britain as the role model for what an apprenticeship should look like as we approach the middle of the 21st century.
I hope that the Government remember that they set themselves a target of 3 million apprenticeships, and I hope that they will fulfil their own target of 2.3% of employees in every government department being apprentices, even if that is a slightly odd figure. While of course we look at manufacturing and technical companies for apprenticeships, we should remember that digital—and, indeed, my other passion, the arts—are just as good places in which to be an apprentice. Some noble Lords may have seen that terrible advert which brought together my two worlds: there is a picture of a ballerina, suggesting that she could, if only she knew it, retrain as a cyber specialist. It is far easier for a ballerina to retrain as a cyber specialist, but I do not think you will ever be able to show me a cyber specialist who could retrain as a ballerina.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
I can imagine nothing worse than a young person who has managed to obtain an apprenticeship and is absolutely thrilled—the family are delighted—when, suddenly, along comes a terrible pandemic that completely destroys his or her opportunity. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, is absolutely right that we need to realise how important a vocational education is and how important a role further education colleges play in vocational education, if we are to create the skills that we need. I am glad to say that government is now listening to this and, for the first time in a long time, action is being taken.
The people who will suffer most during this pandemic, other than those who sadly contract the illness, will be young people. The numbers of young people who do not have a job is increasing at an alarming rate. Of course we support this statutory instrument. As has been said, it will enable apprentices who, through no fault of their own have lost their apprenticeship, still to get that all-important piece of paper provided they have done 75% of the training. We know from the figures that the average duration of apprenticeships has increased from around 16 months in 2015-16 to around 20 months in 2018-19. A growing number of apprentices have completed most of their apprenticeship and, if they are made redundant, will still have more than six months or so before completion.
As we heard from the Government, and as we know, the Government have introduced the Kickstart programme, which offers subsidised six-month work placements for 16 to 24 year-olds. It is a very good programme, and I commend the Government on it. However, I have written to the Minister about eligibility for that scheme, which is for those in receipt of universal credit. Only a Jobcentre Plus can refer people to those opportunities.
My concern, which is shared by many youth organisations, is that 16 and 17 year-olds in particular, and to some extent those who have just turned 18, are unlikely to be on universal credit, even though they are NEETs, and do not engage directly with Jobcentre Plus. Kickstart would be a great opportunity for this age group, but they do not qualify. What is the solution? It is to remove the universal credit requirement for 16 and 17 year-olds and to enable local councils—which, by the way, have a statutory duty regarding NEETs—and other voluntary bodies to refer 16 and 17 year-olds to the programme.
It is also worth noting that the number of young people starting an apprenticeship has fallen to its lowest level in a decade, despite government cash incentives to encourage more businesses to take up the scheme. Of course, the decline reflects the hammering the job market has taken from the pandemic, with employers having to cancel or postpone apprenticeships since March.
In June, the Prime Minister promised an apprenticeship for every young person. This was followed by the introduction of a new payment of £2,000 to employers for each new apprentice they had under the age of 25. But, as Verity Davidge, director of central policy at Make UK, which represents engineering and manufacturing companies, said, the incentive was a “drop in the ocean” compared with the costs involved in taking on an apprentice. She also said that only 45% of manufacturers planned to offer apprenticeships in the next 12 months. The figure is normally 75%.
Finally, when we emerge from this pandemic we will have to take bold financial measures to ensure the skill shortage can be speedily addressed. This must include greater flexibility to use the apprenticeship levy on wider costs.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, Labour very much welcomes these measures, but I must ask why it has taken the Government some six months since the start of the crisis to introduce them. We agree with the Minister that apprentices who are 75% of the way through their programme should be allowed to complete it, but for those who have already experienced redundancy or seen their employment end in the past six months, the support comes far too late. The Minister must surely accept that they do not deserve to miss out on the support that has been given.
I live in a part of the world where the hospitality industry is a major employer and quality apprenticeships are at a premium. Given all the problems the hospitality sector is being hit with, what sectoral support will be made available for apprentices in this industry, and for others in a similar position who have already been made redundant and now face an uphill struggle to find an alternative employer to finish an apprenticeship in sectors where new opportunities are scarce?
Local FE colleges tell me that apprenticeship starts are down by 50% on this time last year. They anticipate a tidal wave of redundancies among apprenticeships at the end of the current furlough scheme. Providers will need to know what support those apprentices will get if they are less than 75% through an apprenticeship. How will they be supported to find another job in sectors facing a dramatic contraction? This is particularly acute where areas come and go from special measures and where Covid containment ratchets up and down.
Which services will provide the advice and guidance and how many apprentices are they equipped to deal with? Will the Minister give us more detail on the signposting service, which, as I understand it, will act as a sort of triage system, directing redundant apprentices to local and national services? What will the service look like on the ground and how will the Minister ensure that provision is available right across the country? Can we have any confidence that the services involved in providing support will have sufficient resources to undertake this important role? Can we be certain that they can handle the number of former apprentices who will need their assistance?
In the past few months we have seen many announcements from the Government. For example, in July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced 30,000 new traineeships, but almost three months on the tender for procuring these has not even been issued. Last week, sadly, the Chancellor ignored calls to introduce a national retraining strategy.
However, if the Government will not listen to Labour on this, perhaps the Minister will listen to businesses. We support the creation of a national skills task force to redeploy skilled workers and provide retraining and upskilling opportunities for both young and older workers. Will the Minister consider this proposal, which businesses back? It includes skills-matching, which we know Ministers generally favour and which could support redundant apprentices and workers alike.
I am sure that the Minister will be aware, and have received a copy, of the letter on the formation of a skills task force. Its signatories include the chief executives and general secretaries of many different bodies including, among others, Make UK, the TUC, Cogent, UK Steel, the British Plastics Federation, the High Value Manufacturing Catapult and the Food and Drink Federation. It is difficult to imagine an issue that could bring together such a wide-ranging and diverse group of bodies, but they are united in their call for the Government to act decisively and quickly in setting up a task force to address the urgent skills crisis that we undoubtedly face. We support the call for a cross-party, pan-industry task force. We commit to working with the Government, unions and employer organisations to ensure that such a task force can assist the Government in making decisions more holistically and strategically. Will the Minister take that suggestion on board and set up a task force, as those industry bodies have proposed?
I have a number of specific questions for the Minister and I would appreciate a response to them, if not today then perhaps through the benefit of a letter. How many apprentices does the DfE expect to be made redundant as a result of the pandemic? How many have been made redundant so far this year? Will the Government reach their target of 3 million apprentices by the end of this year—a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, helpfully drew our attention? Can the Minister confirm that apprentices who are made redundant before the 75% threshold is reached can get on to the Kickstart programme? It is worth observing that the DfE says that it has
“launched a support service to make sure that apprentices who have lost their jobs can get the help they need to access financial, legal, health and wellbeing support, as well as careers advice.”
I wonder whether the Minister can advise how many have used this support service so far during the pandemic.
Labour will support the statutory instrument today, but these measures alone will not be sufficient. I urge the Minister to be bolder and act now to help redundant apprentices and those in a state of limbo, so that they can use their much-needed skills to rebuild our economy—something that, I am sure, the good Minister and all noble Lords will want to achieve.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I am delighted that the valuable contribution that apprenticeships can make to individuals’ careers and businesses’ productivity was so clearly recognised.
In July, the Chancellor recognised the value of apprenticeships when setting out the Plan for Jobs. The payments we have introduced for employers hiring a new apprentice will help to promote many more apprenticeship starts before the end of January next year. Now, we are going further in supporting redundant apprentices. I welcome noble Lords’ support for the steps that we will introduce to protect apprentices from further redundancies.
It was wonderful to hear about the family history of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, in apprenticeships and to see that he has transferred his skills from his telephone days. It was also wonderful to hear him agree that the Government are correct to make this earn-while-you-learn approach a priority.
The apprenticeship levy for this year is £2.5 billion. In answer to a query raised by many noble Lords, if an apprentice is made redundant, they have a 12-week period in which to find new employment where their training is paid for anyway. Obviously, we hope that they will receive a new apprenticeship in that period.
We consulted on the 75% figure that many noble Lords mentioned. There is no precise science to it, but a balance had to be struck. The point of an apprenticeship is that you have occupational competency, so on balance, someone on, say, a three-year apprenticeship probably has the competences after 75% of it to go on and be employed in that sector. Anything less than that will affect employers’ confidence in apprenticeships. The whole point of this provision is that once 75% of the apprenticeship is completed, it will complete without the need for an employer. The training carries on even if the apprentice cannot find a suitable employer to transfer to. It is about that balance—the training carries on but without that valuable part of being on the job. As I say, it is not a precise science, but it was felt that for the longer apprenticeships, 75% was the appropriate point from which the person could go on and gain employment, while the employer could be confident that the apprentice had the skills and knowledge that they should. As for whether it should happen at an earlier stage, it was not to do with cost but was rather—as the noble Baroness properly asked the Government—to do with this balance of ensuring that an apprentice is a competent employee in that sector and field.
I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and other noble Lords that if an apprentice has part completed and transfers to a new employer, that new employer is indeed entitled to the new payments, whether £2,000 or £1,500, depending on the apprentice’s age. That creates the incentive for other employers to take on a part-completed apprentice. We are doing as much as we can to address the situation in which someone experiences, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, the excitement of getting an apprenticeship and then finds that they lose it due to the pandemic.
As many noble Lords mentioned, this is the time when, thankfully, the Government, the Secretary of State for Education and the Prime Minister have been talking about FE and skills and want to level up the parity of esteem, so that an apprenticeship is seen as a valuable way to earn and learn. This year there will be an investment of £200 million in our FE colleges.
As I say, we consulted on apprenticeships with the employment ambassadors, the AOC, the AELP and the provider reference group.
It is wonderful to hear my first speech from my noble friend Lord Vaizey. Other help has been given to apprentices through remote training and the apprenticeship service, and this support is being brought in now because, as many noble Lords will be aware, there will be a transition from the furlough scheme into the new support for jobs. At this point, we expect that employers will make those decisions about any apprentices they have furloughed, so it is important that we introduce this support now.
I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Vaizey talk about the technical skills that apprentices can have and develop, and I assure him that that passion is shared in the department by the honourable Member Gillian Keegan, the Minister for this area. I believe she is the only Member of Parliament with a degree apprenticeship, so she is passionate about this area.
On the levy, we have been doing more to enable levy payers to transfer their levy down their supply chain. I am grateful that my noble friend, despite being a levy sceptic, has appreciated that it has been a success. But it is not perfect and we know that we need to do more to make it even more flexible for levy payments to be sent to small and medium-sized employers. It has been vital to the whole scheme that employers are there, developing the standards, so that when people complete their apprenticeship, they know that they have the necessary skills to be an employee in that sector.
Of course, the future is with tech apprenticeships, as the noble Lord outlined in relation to Facebook, but we are also looking at flexibilities in relation to culture, the other sector he mentioned. We recognise that in culture and media there is often not a traditional single employer for which someone will work; we are looking at flexibility so that an apprentice could have a number of employers, as is the nature of the sector. We are trying to develop this so that we can meet the needs of all the different sectors.
On the Whitehall apprenticeship scheme the noble Lord mentioned, I am pleased to note that I have a meeting tomorrow with a DfE data apprentice who is sorting out some data in the school sector for me. So, yes, we are looking at meeting the commitments we made, and the levy has enabled us to invest more in apprenticeships.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about the Kickstart scheme, we are all working hard to try to ameliorate as many of the effects of the pandemic as we can on the career prospects of young people, whom we know are more affected during this pandemic. I have received his inquiry on the Kickstart Scheme. We must have some kind of criteria for entry to the scheme. I will write with further clarification but, as I understand it, only the DWP holds the necessary data on young people to know whether they will be vulnerable to being NEET and whether they are in employment. That is why that scheme is being run out of the DWP, with which we are working closely. As I say, I will refer any further details on that.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, only that the apprenticeship service is being used by hundreds of employers and redundant apprentices. It is aimed at all sectors and has been made available hopefully in advance of the decisions that have been made on furlough. There have also been other announcements such as the free level three entitlement to qualification.
Skills are an enormous focus. The Government have launched a skills toolkit, and we now have a national productivity board so we can know at a national level what skills employers will need.
In supporting these regulations, we hope we can increase the number of apprentices who can complete their apprenticeships in the event of redundancy, recognising the sustained commitment that these individuals have made to their training over a period of months or years. It will make a huge difference to those individuals and ensure that they can make a full contribution to our businesses and help the country to recover and thrive in future. I commend the regulations to the House.