House of Commons
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
At every stage of the pandemic, the UK Government have engaged with the devolved Administrations, metro mayors and local councils. Local resilience forums are at the frontline of providing the response to tackling covid-19, and the Government will continue to engage with local authorities to beat the virus.
Julian Sturdy [V]
With covid cases in York now well below the level they were when the city went into tier 2, can the Minister reassure me that the Government are listening closely to the feedback and case numbers they are receiving from the city authorities, and that York’s restrictions from 2 December will be based on the local virus situation and local judgments, not based on decisions imposed by central Government or on wider regional figures?
Penny Mordaunt
First of all, let me acknowledge the immense sacrifices that people in York and elsewhere around the country are making, and what people are having to endure. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the current restrictions will end on 2 December, and we will then return to a local and tiered approach. The Government will work with my hon. Friend and other local leaders in the area to determine the most appropriate response. We will be tailoring any tiers that people have to go into, as we have done previously, depending on what is needed locally.
Damian Hinds
Will my right hon. Friend join me in commending the strong local agency working and local resilience forums, such as our own in Hampshire? Will the Government commit to working with local areas to really understand the pressures that, sadly, will persist even after this time? I am thinking in particular of areas such as children’s services.
Penny Mordaunt
I am very pleased to join my right hon. Friend in sending thanks to Hampshire LRF and all the LRFs around the country, which are doing an incredible job in such difficult circumstances. We very much understand that they are in the frontline of this fight, and communications with them and with local authorities are vital. That is why we put in liaison officers at the early stage of the crisis. We know and understand very well the additional pressures that they are under, particularly, as he says, with regard to children’s services, and children going into care or being in care for prolonged periods because of pressures on the family courts.
Darren Henry
Will my right hon. Friend let us know what Government discussions are taking place about an exit strategy for lockdown, so that local businesses such as pubs and close contact businesses such as Skinderella in Broxtowe can plan ahead?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that he has done in recent weeks to stand up for individuals and businesses in his constituency. The Government do listen to all representations that are made, as we have seen in recent weeks—for example, over takeaway beer, which was a suggestion as to how pubs and related businesses could help themselves throughout this period. The Government are always keen to hear ideas from business and hon. Members about how we can best ensure that our economy comes through this strongly. We will continue to listen to all representations made as we leave the current restrictions on 2 December and return to the tiered system.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
The Government have been clear that the transition period will end on 31 December, when the UK will be outside the single market and the customs union. There is a guaranteed set of changes and opportunities for which the Government, businesses and citizens all need to prepare. The vast majority of the changes that will come into effect will take place regardless of the outcome of negotiations with the European Union on our future trade relationship. Although we have seen a significant increase in readiness among businesses and citizens, there is still more to do, which is why I encourage everybody who needs to do so to go to www.gov.uk/transition, where there is a range of tools to help people to make the changes they need to for life after the end of the transition period.
Chris Elmore [V]
I have every confidence that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and all Government Ministers—wishes to continue to prioritise the protection of children online after we leave the transition period. Over the past decade, the UK Safer Internet Centre has removed millions of child sexual abuse images and videos from the internet. Its work costs the UK Government 10p per child under the age of 15 in the UK. What assurances can the Minister give me that the UK Government will continue to fund this work, and will work with the centre, after the EU funding it receives ceases at the end of the transition period?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman raises a critically important question. The online exploitation and abuse of children is one of the most horrific crimes, and the more that we investigate, the more we are aware that its scale is even greater than any of us feared. That is why it is so vital that we continue to fund all the organisations that are fighting this scourge. Funding will be maintained. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work in this area.
Mrs Murray [V]
The Marine Management Organisation has stated that about 700,000 tonnes of fish caught in UK waters are landed by other member states. We catch a tiny amount in their waters by comparison. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that fishing businesses are ready to take advantage of a rebalance once we have finished the transition period?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Under the common fisheries policy, it is not just the case that environmentally we have lost out, but that the coastal communities that she stands up for so brilliantly have lost out as well. As an independent coastal state, we will be able to rebalance the opportunities in our waters in order to ensure that our coastal communities can benefit more financially. We will replace the European maritime fisheries fund with new funding to ensure that there are facilities onshore to help with the processing of the fish that we catch, and of course we will enhance our maritime security capability as well.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) [V]
We left the EU in January and there are now less than 50 days to go until the end of the transition period. Labour Members have been clear that failing to achieve a deal with the EU would be a disaster for the British economy, but deal or no deal, preparations need to be in place for whatever our new trading relationships are on 1 January. In February this year, the Minister recognised the need for 50,000 customs agents trained and ready to go by the end of this year, and in July he announced a £50 million new fund to make this happen. So can he update the House: how many customs agents are now trained and ready to go?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question and also for the emphasis that she quite rightly puts on the need for all businesses to prepare, whether or not we secure a deal. Of course we are determined to secure a deal, and that is why our negotiators, under Lord Frost, are working hard with Michel Barnier to close the remaining gaps in the negotiations. As to the number of customs agents, 50,000 was always an estimate. There has been a significant increase in the number of customs agents who are being employed, both by companies themselves with in-house capacity, and through intermediaries who have been scaling up their activities as well.
Rachel Reeves
It is frustrating that the Minister cannot answer this basic question. One minute he wants to channel his inner Roosevelt and the next minute he says that this should all be left to markets, but businesses are demanding leadership and demanding action. Last week, the National Audit Office expressed its concerns about a lack of preparation, and now more and more businesses are expressing their concerns that crucial technology like the customs declaration system is just not ready. Is the Minister actually in control, and will he stake his own reputation on there being no delays, disruption or lost orders due to this Government’s gross incompetence?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for drawing attention to the National Audit Office report of last week. I would encourage everyone who cares, as she does, about making sure that we make the most of the success that life outside the European Union can offer us, to read that report. One of the points it makes is that there are many IT systems for which the Government are responsible. Progress on all those systems has been good. The customs declaration system is essential to making sure that we make a success of life outside the European Union. That is why we have invested, particularly, hundreds of millions of pounds in making sure that businesses that will use CDS when they are transferring goods to Northern Ireland can do so with the support of the Trader Support Service.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
It is now some 50 days until we go over the Brexit cliff edge, and in the meantime the covid death rate in the UK reaches 50,000. England is in the middle of another national lockdown, unemployment is on the rise, and the faceless characters that actually run this country at No. 10 are at each other’s throats. Should Scotland be celebrating this incoming Brexit, and whose side is the Minister on—Dom’s or Carrie’s?
Michael Gove
I am on the side of people from Aberdeen to Aberystwyth who voted to leave the European Union. They want us as a United Kingdom to make a success of these new opportunities. I know that the Scottish Government are total strangers to behind-the-scenes intrigue and briefing wars, so I can imagine his shock and amazement to see these things reported in the newspapers, but let me assure him that the Government continue to make decisions in the interests of the whole United Kingdom. The people of Perth and North Perthshire can have confidence that they have not only a gamesome representative in the House of Commons, but a Government committed to their welfare.
Pete Wishart
May I tell the right hon. Gentleman what Scotland is in fact doing? Scotland is quickly determining that it wants no part of this incoming Brexit nightmare after the transition. Independence and a European future is now the new settled will of the Scottish people. We are now the majority, so can he think of an example anywhere in the world where another dilapidated, finished Government are attempting to deny a majority in a democracy?
Michael Gove
I think that the hon. Gentleman might be referring to Belarus, of course, with his last question, but let me assure him that the United Kingdom Government remain strong, resolute and committed to delivering on the will of the British people. In particular, the Union, which has provided for 300 years an example of people coming together in a spirit of solidarity to proclaim the values of democracy, human rights and liberalism, will endure for many decades to come.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
We now learn that the First Minister and her deputy have said that there is a “real threat” to the continuity of food supplies in Northern Ireland. The Road Haulage Association has described border preparations as “frankly pathetic”. The customs declaration service probably will not be ready in time, and the NAO has warned that widespread disruption for 1 January is likely. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly assured the House that it will all be fine, why does he think so many other people do not share his optimism?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. His Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union has done extensive work drawing attention to the preparations that are required to be made. There are still significant preparations that we and businesses need to make to conclude our preparedness, which is why later today, I will be meeting representatives from business representative organisations, including the CBI and others, to ensure that everything possible is being done to prepare for the changes. I do not shirk from acknowledging that there are challenges we all face in the run-up to the end of the transition period, but there are also significant opportunities for which the British people voted and which we are pledged to deliver.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
I and other Ministers have regular discussions with representatives of the Scottish Government and also other devolved Administrations to ensure that we can be prepared across the United Kingdom for the challenges we face as we end the transition period and the opportunities that will follow.
Kenny MacAskill [V]
A shared prosperity fund is by its very name inclusive. Why then, given the proximity to the end of transition, are not just Scottish businesses but the Scottish Government excluded from its details?
Michael Gove
The Scottish Government, unlike the hon. Member, will not be in the dark about the future of the UK shared prosperity fund. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that outside the European Union, we will be able to take back control of the billions that currently we give to the European Union, and we can invest that money in our shared priorities—for example, making sure that his constituents in East Lothian are better connected digitally, by rail and by other means to other parts of the United Kingdom, so they can enjoy the shared prosperity that comes from a strong United Kingdom working for all.
Neil Gray [V]
We now know, through leaked Cabinet papers, that this Tory Government hid their Brexit plans from devolved Governments, including on state aid and food supply availability. How does the Minister expect these Governments to prepare when those crucial details are blocked from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland? Does he agree that this level of ignorance and contempt is helping to deliver record levels of support for independence and a consistent majority over the last 12 polls in a row?
Michael Gove
I have no secrets from the hon. Gentleman. We take an open-book approach to our preparations for leaving the European Union, which is why, later today, the Cabinet Sub-Committee that deals with the preparations—
Michael Gove
I can see the hon. Gentleman making goldfish-type movements of his lips and teeth. Now he is breaking into a smile. That smile, of course, welcomes the fact that later this afternoon, the Government Sub-Committee that deals with our preparations for leaving the European Union will have Ministers from the devolved Administrations, including my friends from the Scottish Government, taking part. It is one of the pleasures of this role that I have the opportunity every week to talk to excellent colleagues such as Mike Russell, Humza Yousaf and others, who do such a good job in working across the United Kingdom in the interests of all.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Amanda Milling)
The Government are doubling down on levelling up opportunity across the United Kingdom, ensuring that everyone benefits from economic growth. That includes longer-term measures such as £1 billion for local projects to boost local economic growth, alongside unprecedented support for businesses, workers and local authorities in every nation and region of the United Kingdom in the light of covid-19.
Steve Double
Cornwall has been in receipt of funding through the European regional development fund for many years. I am delighted that the Government have committed to continue to support the Cornish economy at a similar level through the UK shared prosperity fund, which will be vital for continuing to level up our country. With the current ERDF programme coming to an end shortly, it is vital that the replacement fund is put in place as soon as possible. Can the Minister update the House on when we can expect the Government to come forward with details of the shared prosperity fund?
Amanda Milling
I thank my hon. Friend for his question about Cornwall. I was delighted to have the chance to support the Cornish economy as part of a south-west visit over the summer, which included visiting him in his seat of St Austell and Newquay. As we said in our manifesto, we will introduce a UK shared prosperity fund that will match at a minimum the current levels of funding to each nation from EU structural funds. The arrangements for the fund will be confirmed following the upcoming spending review.
Gareth Davies
In order for us to truly level up, we will need to mobilise billions of pounds of private capital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as part of the national infrastructure strategy, we should launch a new financial institution such as a British development bank to make that happen?
Amanda Milling
The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses and infrastructure projects continue to have access to the finance they need. The UK has a range of existing tools to support investment, including the UK guarantees scheme. The Government will bring forward further measures to boost investment in UK infrastructure as part of the national infrastructure strategy.
Mark Fletcher
This year has presented many challenges, but as my right hon. Friend will know from her visit to my constituency in the summer, there remains a strong desire to see a levelling-up agenda in constituencies like mine, with better infrastructure, better educational standards and more affordable housing. Can she assure me that this Government remain committed to levelling up constituencies like Bolsover?
Amanda Milling
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend once again on his historic election victory in Bolsover exactly 11 months ago. I was delighted to visit him in Bolsover during the summer. I can assure him that the Government are as committed to levelling up opportunity across the UK today as we were last December.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I appreciate how important medallic recognition is to so many of our veterans groups. There is an independent process that looks at the consideration of historical medal claims. That sub-committee restarted in 2018, and I know that it has received representations from nuclear test veterans. Those review recommendations will be made public as soon as possible.
Lee Rowley
I thank the Minister for his response. My constituent John Ward was one of many veterans sent there in 1957, and he has campaigned for many years for recognition of his work and also for acknowledgement through a medal. May I encourage the Minister to continue to do what he can to acknowledge the service of those veterans and to confirm that the recent Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which was passed, has no bearing or impact on their cause?
Johnny Mercer
I have for some time been a supporter of his campaign, and I would urge him to continue in that vein. When it comes to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, there were a huge number of misunderstandings about this. It deals with people who are deployed on overseas operations. The nuclear test veterans were not deployed on overseas operations, and their ability to claim compensation for what happened to them is unaffected by this legislation.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
The Cabinet Office has been working closely with the Department for Education to deliver on our ambition of 30,000 new apprentices by the end of 2020 and of 2.3% of the civil service workforce in England as apprenticeship starts. We had been on track to meet those targets; unfortunately, because of the pandemic, that has been delayed slightly to April, but we will be publishing further performance data as it becomes available. In the past fortnight, I have written to the skills Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan)—and the Minister for Universities about how we can broaden the apprenticeship supply market and use apprenticeships to attract ever more talented people into the civil service.
Robert Halfon [V]
Will my hon. Friend just make it absolutely clear that all public sector bodies must fulfil the legal requirements to fill the 2.3% apprenticeship target, and will she ensure that every new appointment, where possible, is advertised as an apprenticeship to the civil service, whether at level 2 or degree level? Will my hon. Friend also make certain that all Government sector employment contracts have a significant percentage of employees as apprenticeships before the jobs of procurement are offered out?
Julia Lopez
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I wish to assure him that apprenticeship recruitment is an absolutely core part of Departments’ resourcing plans. We want to make sure the apprenticeship route is used for all recruitment activity, where it is appropriate. I shall look into some of the other issues that he raises.
I am also very keen that we as MPs play our part in highlighting to our constituents some of the absolutely incredible civil service apprenticeship opportunities on offer. In that vein, I am going to host an online apprenticeship event to advertise some of the civil service apprenticeship opportunities, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend joined me in that event so that he can advertise them to places such as Harlow College in his constituency.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
We want to make the administration of government much less London-centric and more reflective of the country as a whole, with an ambition to relocate 22,000 civil service roles out of the capital and into the regions and nations of the UK by the end of this decade. Our Places for Growth programme is an incredibly exciting one, working with Departments and public bodies to establish a series of hub locations that we hope will deliver on our levelling-up ambitions, strengthen the Union, reduce estate costs, support our industrial strategy, and take advantage of untapped talent and expertise.
Mark Jenkinson
I thank the Minister for that answer. Can she confirm that, as well as civil service reform, this Government will use the opportunity to level up all parts of the UK? With a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs site already in Workington, does she agree that we are perfectly placed to take this forward and ensure that the north-west does not get left behind?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We hope to be able to announce where we are going to place hub locations shortly. I am afraid that I am not in a position to confirm that now, but I am very confident that the north-west will benefit from the programme. I hope that he will engage with that and contribute in his role on the levelling-up taskforce.
Jacob Young
The purpose of moving civil service jobs out of London is not simply to relocate jobs from one part of the country to another, but to place policy makers in communities that have been left behind for too long, such as mine in Redcar and Cleveland. Can my hon. Friend confirm that she has seen the plans presented by Ben Houchen to relocate civil service jobs to Teesside, and will she commit to meeting me and my Tees Valley colleagues to progress these plans further?
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I have heard the Mayor of Teesside mentioned in this place perhaps more than any civic leader in the country, and I find myself in awe, once again, of the raw power of the Teesside parliamentary caucus. I am pleased to say that I spent last night eagerly reading the Mayor’s plans for the international campus in Teesside, and I particularly enjoyed the value-for-money comparisons with the London housing market. I understand that he has already met the lead official for Places for Growth, and I will be asking for an update on those discussions so we can make sure that the north-east benefits from this agenda.
David Johnston
In 2018, just 9% of the civil service fast stream came from a working-class background, which was higher than some previous years, but still low. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as well as improving the locations that civil servants work in and come from, we need to improve the social backgrounds they come from for better policy making and delivery?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend’s commitment to opportunity for people from less wealthy backgrounds extends back many years to his tremendous work at the Social Mobility Foundation. We are looking at how we can get a more diverse array of people via the Places for Growth programme, but it is not just limited to places for growth; we are looking at the whole human resources strategy in the civil service so that we look at diversity in a much broader way than previously.
Mr Speaker
We now head up to Jonathan Gullis in Stoke-on-Trent. No, he is unavailable, so I call David Simmonds.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Negotiations are continuing in London this week, and this of course is a continuation of the intensive talks that both sides agreed to on 21 October. Progress is being made, but divergences remain. That said, the UK will continue to engage in negotiations on a free trade agreement, and the UK’s negotiation team, led by Lord Frost, will continue to work hard to find solutions that, of course, fully respect the United Kingdom’s regained sovereignty.
David Simmonds
In pursuit of the levelling up agenda, which we are so passionate about, will my right hon. Friend provide an update on the progress being made to ensure that powers that are being released from EU treaties are devolved to local and regional government, where they may most appropriately sit?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point and, as a distinguished former local government leader, he knows the power of good local government to make a difference for the better for all our citizens. That is why, as we take power back from the European Union, we are working not just with the devolved Administrations in Holyrood and Cardiff and Belfast, but also with local government leaders and metro Mayors—including, of course, the superb metro Mayor in Teesside, Ben Houchen—to ensure that we exercise the distribution of power in a more equitable and progressive fashion.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
These negotiations are not going well and time is running out. The best the UK can now hope for is a very basic trade deal with the EU. The Minister knows that in all negotiations there needs to be concessions and some give and take on all sides, so what exactly, if anything, is the UK willing to concede or compromise on?
Michael Gove
The UK has already shown a great degree of flexibility in these negotiations, but it is that the European Union shows flexibility too, and in particular there needs to be full recognition that we are sovereign equals, and any attempt to continue to tie the UK into EU processes or to extend EU jurisdiction by other means will be quite wrong.
Tony Lloyd [V]
May I remind the Minister that the Road Haulage Association described the Government’s preparations for the transition as not only “chaotic” but “pathetic” and said that
“logistics may not be able to deliver”?
The Minister has a deserved reputation for politeness, but can he also be candid and give us a guarantee that there will be no jobs lost and no goods not delivered, particularly to and from Northern Ireland, when we hit the end of the transition period?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point, and in his time in this House he has been a distinguished champion of the rights of the people of Northern Ireland. It is very important in the discussions that we have in the Joint Committee that we make sure that we implement the protocol on the future of Northern Ireland in a way that ensures that its people can continue to have unfettered access to the rest of the UK, and in particular that we can maintain the flow of goods that are so vital to the life of the Province. That is why I am confident that the Vice-President of the European Commission, Maroš Šefčovič, who is the co-chair of the Joint Committee, will work pragmatically, as he has in the past, to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland have a secure future.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
When the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made his statement to the House on the negotiations on 19 October, his former boss, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was left incredulous when he told her that without access to previously shared databases, the UK could act
“more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 761.]
So can he explain precisely how without that access we will get the real-time information needed to pick up foreign criminals at the point of entry in ports and airports?
Michael Gove
One of the things that we will be able to do when we take back control is to have total discretion over who comes into this country. One of things that we will be able to do, for example, is to end the abuse of ID cards, which are easily forged, easily used by organised criminals, and utilised in order to gain access to this country. Once we are out of the transition period, we will take back control of our borders, a precondition of greater security for all.
Paul Blomfield
Frankly, we are at a stage of this process where empty reassurances and dodging questions just will not do. Earlier this week, the president of the Police Superintendents Association said that without this access, information sharing will be “less effective”, and highlighted his concern about the implications for policing and security. So let me try again. At the Home Affairs Committee on 4 November, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was asked repeatedly by the Chair to state which real-time system will be available for Border Force to identify foreign criminals, without access to SIS II. Repeatedly, the Minister was unable to give an answer, so can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster simply answer that question?
Michael Gove
Yes, of course; it is the case that Border Force will be in a stronger position to be able to detect a criminal—[Interruption.] Well, if the hon. Gentleman keeps asking the same question, I will give him the same answer, which is that Border Force will be able, through the deployment of safety and security declarations, to have a more effective means of monitoring organised criminals. The truth is that when we take back control of our borders, we enhance our ability to deal with criminality.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
The Department of Health and Social Care is working closely with Government Departments and bodies and the NHS, as well as local leaders, on all aspects of vaccine deployment, including distribution logistics.
Michael Fabricant [V]
In his response to the urgent question on Tuesday, the Minister for Defence Procurement said that it is not for the Ministry of Defence to suggest that it should do the logistics. I think he was being unusually shy. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will know how good the armed forces are at logistics, so will she ask the Ministry of Defence to definitely get involved in the deployment of the covid-19 vaccine when it is available?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for affording me the opportunity to pay tribute to the work that our armed forces have done across many aspects of this, often visibly but also behind the scenes in providing planning expertise. They have provided in an incredible service to every aspect of the response. This is a massive undertaking—the largest vaccination programme, I think, in the NHS’s history—but, as the deputy chief medical officer has said, plans for it have been under way for some time. That includes logistics, transport and personal protective equipment, but also an expanded workforce so that we can deploy it rapidly. Every part of Government is going to be making a contribution to that, and as soon as the vaccine is approved, we want to be in a position to deliver it to as many people as possible.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)
Working effectively with the private sector is a vital part of our response to tackling the covid-19 crisis, allowing us to procure quickly and innovatively and to obtain specialist solutions to the myriad challenges that are facing us. Rapidly obtaining PPE is the most obvious example, but we have also turned to the private sector to help us operate things such as the virtual courts service and video services for families wishing to see loved ones in intensive care units.
We are clear throughout that contracting authorities must use good commercial judgment and continue to achieve value for money for taxpayers, and we are engaged in both internal and external audit to satisfy ourselves that that has been the case. Through “The Outsourcing Playbook” we are also improving the decision making and quality of contracts that the Government place with industry, and we are building our internal civil service capability, as we believe it is important that we invest in our in-house capacity and expertise so that we rely less on external consultants and contractors.
Kate Hollern [V]
The Government failed to publish any information about £4 billion-worth of covid-related contracts, all awarded to private companies, in what appears to be a flagrant breach of the law. Will the Minister hold an independent inquiry—and if not, why?
Julia Lopez
I am unaware of the details of the allegations that the hon. Lady makes and I would be grateful if she wrote to me about them. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, the National Audit Office will conduct an external review of the procurements during the pandemic, but we are also doing our own internal review. I note some of the criticisms that are made by the Opposition and I wish to satisfy ourselves that those have no basis, because it is very important in this time of crisis that we maintain public confidence in everything that we are doing.
Mr Dhesi
Some £175 million of taxpayers’ money has been shelled out so far on covid consultants. There has been £252 million for face masks from a company specialising in currency trading and offshore property—more than half the masks were not even fit for purpose because they had the wrong straps on—£43 million for hand sanitisers from a company that was previously dormant, 11 PPE contracts for a pest control company, and so the sordid list goes on. All aboard the covid Tory gravy train. It is no wonder that across our country, there are accusations of corruption and cronyism, with contracts handed down to Tory firms that have links to Tory chums and donors. Does the Minister think that it is right that consultants should be paid up to £7,000 a day to work on test and trace, which, in itself, is a world-beating failure?
Mr Speaker
We are going to have to have shorter questions for other people to get in—it is only fair.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the points he raises. As I mentioned, we wish to reassure the public through the use of external and internal audits on some of the issues that he raises, but when it comes to some of the contracts that have been let, we were advised by Labour that we should be looking into a number of different companies, from people producing costumes to a number of other interesting leads that actually led nowhere. We were trying to procure at speed and I have a good degree of confidence in the PPE contracts that were let during this time.
Matt Western
I understand what the Minister is saying about trying to procure at speed, but it does seem that some of the agencies that the Government have chosen to do this are completely not fit for purpose and inappropriate. I cite Deloitte, which was appointed to set up a testing centre in south Leamington in my constituency. It took six weeks for a couple of portakabins and a couple of gazebos. How difficult is it? Why was Public Health England not more involved? It could have done this better.
Julia Lopez
There is some naivety from Labour Members about how easy it is to do some of these very complex operations at the speed at which they need to be done. We have to thank the private sector for the support that it has given us. We do not have huge volumes of public sector workers sitting there ready to be deployed, and if we did, they would have to be sucked out of other important frontline services. I think we should thank the private sector for the support that it has given us in this very difficult time.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
£1,040,585,807—that is the value of Government contracts that have been directly awarded without competitive tender to companies that have links to the Conservative party’s friends or donors during the covid crisis. Will the Minister explain why, with the Tory party, it seems to be all cheques and no balances?
Julia Lopez
The hon. Lady makes a very serious insinuation about some of the ways in which contracts were let. As I said, we have external and internal audits to make sure that those allegations are investigated and that we are confident that they are baseless. I am happy to continue to engage with her on these issues, but the challenges that have faced us in this time have been substantial and a lot of people have dedicated substantial amounts of time, often for free, to giving their services at a time of crisis. To have insinuations about their character and integrity is very damaging to public confidence.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
We have extensive discussions across Cabinet and with representatives from the devolved Administrations as we co-ordinate an appropriate UK-wide response to the covid-19 outbreak. Only yesterday afternoon I was discussing with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales how we can ensure that we can co-ordinate effectively the roll-out of mass testing.
Dr Evans [V]
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. Building on that answer, what steps is he taking to ensure that, as the guidance and lockdown measures change, the public are fully informed about what is expected of them across the UK?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a vital point. Of course, devolved Administrations have the right and responsibility to tailor solutions to their geography and their populations, but unity of communication is important. That is why, in the call we had yesterday, we also talked about the vital importance of having an aligned approach towards relaxation of restrictions for the Christmas period so that people can be with friends and family across the United Kingdom, confident that they are following rules that have been agreed by all.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
As a number of hon. and right hon. Members have reminded us, there are just 50 days to go before the end of the transition period. That is why I am pleased to be able to discuss with the CBI and other business representative organisations this afternoon exactly how we can ensure that we are all ready for both the challenges and the opportunities that that will bring.
Kenny MacAskill [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Even senior Tories are accepting the inevitability of a second referendum. As Parnell once said:
“No man has a right to fix the boundary to the march of a nation.”
Scots have learned, as the Secretary of State will know, from the trickery of 1979 when even the dead were counted against. Does he not then realise that the people of Scotland will not accept political chicanery on the number or the nature of the question to be asked?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. It is vital that we have confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions. That is why the Electoral Commission and other bodies play such an important role. Of course, it is also important that people can have confidence in the promises made by politicians, and it was the case in 2014 that Nicola Sturgeon and leading Scottish nationalists made the point that that referendum was for a generation. Just six years later, I do not believe a generation has passed.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) [V]
Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke are rich with industrial heritage, from the pits of Chatterley Whitfield to the pots of Middleport Pottery. We are also a UK-leading city, having installed a full-fibre network that will connect every home and business to gigabit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are the perfect location for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s new hub?
Michael Gove
I cannot think of anywhere better to put DCMS Ministers than Stoke-on-Trent: a jewel in the heart of Staffordshire, home to industrial innovation for generations and boasting three of the finest Members of Parliament in the House of Commons.
Mr Speaker
Talking of which, what will you say to Robert Halfon? Let us bring him in.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
Yes, my right hon. Friend makes an important point. While taxation matters are questions for the Chancellor, who will be updating the House shortly on a variety of important fiscal matters, it is nevertheless the case that outside the European Union we can lower VAT in a way that we could not within the European Union—one of the many benefits of Brexit.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The right to vote independently and in secret should be enjoyed by every voter at an election. I draw the Minister’s attention to the recent report by the Royal National Institute of Blind People about the last general election that found that just one in 10 blind voters and less than half of partially sighted voters were able to cast their vote independently and in secret. What steps are the Government taking to turn around those terrible statistics so that blind and partially sighted voters can enjoy the right that sighted voters have to vote independently and in secret?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes an important point, and it is important that everyone’s vote counts. Those who are living with a disability, blind or partially sighted must feel that they can have confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. We have forthcoming legislation on electoral integrity, and I know that the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), has been working with charities to ensure that we have a fully inclusive and modern voting system.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend does a fantastic job speaking up for the fishermen on both the north and south coasts of Cornwall, and I can absolutely reassure her that in the negotiations we are standing firm on ensuring that her constituents and the coastal communities that she represents can benefit from our exit from the common fisheries policy.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Michael Gove
Yes. My hon. Friend makes an important point, and it was one that was emphasised earlier. The relocation of parts of Government to different parts of the United Kingdom is not just about distributing economic opportunity; it is also about ensuring that, as we think about the future, we represent in particular those undervalued communities and overlooked families in coastal communities just like Blackpool, who for generations now have not been at the centre of our thinking about how to ensure that we truly represent every citizen. One of the lessons of the Brexit campaign and its aftermath is that far too many people in the United Kingdom felt that the values and instincts of those who governed them were out of tune with their own sentiments and beliefs, and we have got to ensure, as we restructure government, that their values and instincts are at the heart of everything.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Listening to some of the questions from the other side of the House, you would think that the only way in which we could ever procure vaccines, testing or personal protective equipment was by having some sort of Gosplan Stalinist approach in which no private sector individual or organisation could ever be involved. I think that most people looking at, for example, the contribution of—
Mr Speaker
Order. I do not think we need more political broadcasts. We have had a good day today. We are meant to have short, punchy answers to these questions, not rhetoric.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Michael Gove
Again, my hon. Friend makes an important point. There is no better representation of how we work well together as a country than the shared sacrifices made by those in our military, and they are doing an outstanding job in supporting us in the fight against coronavirus, as they did in all the challenges we have faced in the last 100 years.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes absolutely the right point—we will be able to control who comes into this country—but we will also have visa-free travel with the EU.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Michael Gove
As I mentioned earlier, I will be meeting businesses this afternoon to make sure we provide all the support necessary for businesses, in York and elsewhere. The hon. Lady makes an important point about working together, but she prefaced her remarks by reflecting on the length of time from the referendum to the conclusion of the transition period, which would have been shorter had her party been committed to implementing the results of the referendum. I commend to her the words of the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery)—wise men indeed.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Michael Gove
With excellent advocates such as my hon. Friend the south-west will always be heard and never left behind, and it is indeed crucial that we make the most of the opportunities that Exeter and Devon can provide for a bright economic future.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Michael Gove
Whenever I see the hon. Gentleman, I am irresistibly reminded of the words of “Bring Me Sunshine”. I do not know whether he is Wise, but he is certainly one of the reasons the Conservatives represent Morecambe.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) [V]
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and he has been a consistent and effective advocate for the rights of older and vulnerable citizens in all his time in the House. We must make sure, both through effective voter registration and through the effective roll-out of our vaccination programme, that older and vulnerable voters are in a position to take part in the democratic process, and I will work with the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution to do just that.
Mr Speaker
Thank you for getting through topicals on time—we have done well. 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.
Hong Kong
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the disqualification of pro-democracy lawmakers in Hong Kong.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
Yesterday was another sad day for the people of Hong Kong. China’s National People’s Congress Standing Committee imposed new restrictions that mean that any Hong Kong legislator who is deemed to support independence, refuse to recognise China’s sovereignty, seek foreign forces’ interference or endanger national security should be disqualified from membership of Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. This decision led to the immediate removal of four elected Members of the Legislative Council, who were, at that moment, sitting in the Chamber.
It is my unfortunate duty to report to the House our judgment that that decision breaches the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration. It breaches both China’s commitment that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy and the right to freedom of speech, guaranteed under paragraph 3 of the declaration. This is the third time that the Government have called a breach of the joint declaration since 1997, but the second time that we have been forced to do so in the last six months.
This decision is part of a pattern designed to harass and stifle all voices critical of China’s policies. The new rules for disqualification provide a further tool in that campaign, with vague criteria open to wide-ranging interpretation. Hong Kong’s people are left now with a neutered legislature, and 15 pan-democratic legislators have already resigned en masse in protest.
China has yet again broken its promise to the people of Hong Kong. Its actions tarnish China’s international reputation and undermine Hong Kong’s long-term stability. The UK has already offered a new immigration path for British nationals overseas, suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. The permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has today summoned the Chinese ambassador to register our deep concern at this latest action by his Government.
Hong Kong’s prosperity and way of life rely on respect for fundamental freedoms, an independent judiciary and the rule of law. China’s actions are putting at risk Hong Kong’s success. The UK will stand up for our values. We will stand up for the people of Hong Kong. We will call out violations of their rights and freedoms. With our international partners, we will continue to hold China to its international obligations.
Layla Moran
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his words. Today I have a very simple question. What are the Government going to do as “one country, two systems” disappears before our eyes? The disqualification of pro-democracy lawmakers from the Legislative Council of Hong Kong means it has effectively been reduced to a rubber-stamp Parliament and democracy on the peninsula is now in mortal peril.
Although the previous actions of this Government are to be commended, it is time to do more. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary told the House in July that the Government
“will hold China to its international obligations.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1832.]
Yet here we are again. Through these actions, the Chinese Government are making a mockery of the joint declaration. I ask the Minister what legal routes to defend the joint declaration are being considered. What has the Minister done to co-ordinate a response with our allies internationally, in particular the USA, including President-elect Biden, and the European Union? Will the UK finally impose Magnitsky-style sanctions on those individuals in Hong Kong and China who are responsible for human rights abuses, and, if not that model, will he look at a sanctions register, as used by the US?
The BNO citizenship scheme excludes those who need it, particularly young people who have so bravely protested in the best traditions of democracy. We must protect them. The estimated true cost for a Hongkonger to come here for five years is £3,000, and that is before living costs. Many simply cannot afford it. Will the Minister confirm how many applications have been made under the scheme and how many have been granted? Will he consider introducing a bursary scheme for those unable to pay, and will he introduce a lifeboat policy for all Hong Kong citizens regardless of age and, if not, will he agree to meet me to discuss this matter further?
In 1996, John Major underlined our commitment to Hong Kong when he said:
“If there were to be any suggestion of a breach of the Joint Declaration we would have a duty to pursue every legal and other avenue available to us.”
He concluded:
“Hong Kong will never have to walk alone.”
It is time for actions, not just words. It is time to make good on our promise.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this urgent question. One of her points was about whether I would meet her; of course, I am more than happy to meet her. I know how important this issue is to her and other Members of this House, and my door is always open for conversations with me and my team. I can tell her that we have already seen statements from our partners thus far on this particular issue. Australia, the USA, Canada and Germany have all made statements on the matter and we will continue to work with all our Five Eyes partners to hold China to account. The actions we have taken at the UN over the last few months are testament to that and proof of our leading diplomatic role in this regard.
The hon. Lady asked about sanctions and we will continue to consider designations under our Magnitsky-style sanctions regime. She will appreciate it is not entirely appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under the sanctions regime in the future, as that could reduce the impact, but we are carefully considering further designations under the scheme.
She was right to mention the action we have taken on British nationals overseas. The Home Secretary issued a statement on 22 July on the new route for BNOs, which states that
“in compelling and compassionate circumstances, and where applications are made as a family unit, we will use discretion to grant a visa to the children”
of BNO status-holders
“who fall into this category…the existing youth mobility scheme is open to people in Hong Kong aged between 18 and 30, with 1,000 places currently available each year. Individuals from Hong Kong will also be able to apply to come to the UK under the terms of the UK’s new points-based system”.—[Official Report, 22 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 115WS.]
The hon. Lady asked about the number of BNOs. From July 2020, BNO citizens and their dependants have been eligible to be granted six months’ leave outside the rules at the border to the UK, and from 15 July to 14 October 2020, a total of 2,116 BNO citizens and their dependants have been granted that. That data is not a reliable proxy for the number of people who may apply for the visa when it opens in January, but it does suggest that the number of BNO citizens seeking to come to the UK in the short term is unlikely to be at the high end of the scale.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s designation that this is the third breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, and I do not think that anybody in this House disagrees with him. After all, we are now seeing that China really does believe in “one man, one vote”, and that man, of course, is Chairman Xi. We now need Her Majesty’s Government to respond not just, as my hon. Friend quite rightly said, by looking at our own laws and Magnitsky sanctions, or, indeed, by seeking to work with others, but by working on the international trade platform as well. What conversations has my hon. Friend had with the Department for International Trade, partners at the World Trade Organisation and others around the world to make sure that Hong Kong is designated correctly as a part of China and that it no longer has a separate status for customs or, indeed, any other form of commerce?
Nigel Adams
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs for his question and for his ongoing leadership on this particular issue. Trade with China is absolutely pivotal and crucial to the UK. Figures over the last six months show that China is only one of two countries where our exports have actually grown over a very difficult period. We have a high level of ambition for our trade partnership. We want to work with it to increase trade, but as we strive for that positive relationship we will not sacrifice our values or our security. We are very clear-sighted about the challenges. As we continue to engage, we will always protect our national interests. Absolutely and imperatively, as the Foreign Secretary has said at this Dispatch Box on many occasions, we will continue to hold China to its international commitments and its promises.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]
This assault on democracy represents not only a clear breach of the Basic Law and the joint declaration; it also confirms that the Chinese Government and the Hong Kong Executive are committed to the removal of dissenting voices from the democratic process, and to the repression of the rights of the people of Hong Kong. The Labour party stands in solidarity with the four pro-democracy representatives who have been removed from the Legislative Council, and with the 15 additional Opposition Members who have resigned in protest. Their departure leaves Hong Kong without an Opposition in the legislature, removing one of the vital checks on the Hong Kong Executive and effectively denying the people of Hong Kong the right to choose their own representatives.
The UK Opposition welcomed the Government’s recent announcement regarding BNO passport holders, but it would be unacceptable for the UK Government now to conclude that they have done all they can for the people of Hong Kong. With that in mind, I ask the Minister the following questions.
First, does the Minister agree that the British Government are legally obliged, through the joint declaration, to defend human rights in Hong Kong, and that failure to do so, to the utmost of their abilities, would put the UK in default of its treaty obligations? Secondly, when will we see details of what the UK Government are offering by way of support to Hongkongers born after 1997? Thirdly, will senior Hong Kong Executive officials now be added to the Magnitsky list? The Minister has been asked this question many times and he has consistently declined to give a definitive answer. Who in Government is holding this up? Fourthly, the Foreign Secretary has rightly condemned the likes of HSBC and Standard Chartered bank for their stance on Hong Kong, but could the Minister please update the House on what action, if any, has actually been taken against those two banks?
Nigel Adams
I thank the Opposition spokesman for his questions. On sanctions, he will be fully aware that it is not appropriate to speculate on who exactly will come under the radar of our new sanctions regime. We are considering further designations constantly. In terms of HSBC and Standard Chartered in Hong Kong, I have had previous conversations with HSBC, and I am very happy to have more. I am also more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman on that particular issue.
As I said to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), our door is always open. Our offer to British nationals overseas of a pathway to UK citizenship is compelling and compassionate, and as I said in my previous answer, the youth mobility scheme is open to people in Hong Kong aged between 18 and 30. I am more than happy to flesh this out with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) when he is next in the Chamber or in London.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on her position. She is a friend, because she is part of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, and of alliances on many other countries around the world.
I fully understand the issues for my hon. Friend the Minister and the Government, but the reality is that we face an arrogant country, led by an arrogant leadership that has trashed the Sino-British agreement and is guilty of huge human rights abuses and dangerous confrontations with its neighbours. The British Government must lead in this matter, not wait. It is time for us to let the Chinese Government know that these actions come with serious repercussions. Does he accept that we need to sanction individuals responsible for any of these actions? Let us start with Carrie Lam in Hong Kong.
Nigel Adams
I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued efforts on this issue, and for working positively with the Government. We will continue to consider designations under the sanctions regulations. I fear I am repeating myself, but he will know, given his background, that it is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated in the future, as putting that on the record may well reduce the impact of the designations. I completely agree with his opening comments, but we have offered a new immigration path for BNOs; we have suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong; we have extended our arms embargo on mainland China to cover Hong Kong; and we have led international efforts to hold China to its international obligations. Gaining 39 signatures at the UN is no mean feat. We have also, rightly, consistently raised our concern with the Chinese authorities.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
I try to be fair, and I have much respect for the Minister. I listened to his statement carefully, and anyone would accept that there are limited things that the UK Government can do about the internal workings of the Chinese state. It would be unfair to say that the UK Government have done nothing on this, but it would be fair to say that they have not done much of any consequence—certainly nothing that has elicited a change of heart from Beijing. I reiterate colleagues’ calls for Magnitsky sanctions. We are not looking for speculation; we are looking for announcements, which are overdue. I appreciate that it is difficult, but we need to take that forward.
There are things that the Government can do, and that are in their control. I would be interested to hear plans for an audit of Chinese engagement with our academic infrastructure, and particularly of Confucius institutes and their activities in the UK. We are overdue an audit of Chinese involvement in the UK’s physical, and data and communications, infrastructure, big chunks of which are being bought up by Chinese companies that are emanations of the Chinese state. We should also look at audits of UK companies engaged in trade in Hong Kong to make sure that they are not benefiting from slave labour. There are things that the UK Government can do domestically now, and I support calls for, and moves towards, our taking those steps.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered question. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of academic interference. UK universities are international at their core, and we warmly welcome overseas students, including from China, and the valuable contribution that they make, but we will not tolerate any attempt to interfere with academic freedom, or freedom of speech. As I have said before in the House, if any universities experience any attempts to undermine free debate, we encourage them to get in touch with the Government.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned data infrastructure. The long-term security and enduring resilience of our telecoms network are incredibly important, and we are taking difficult decisions to protect those interests. The position in January on high-risk vendors was based on the need to balance security with the need for us to level up and be a world leader in our digital infrastructure. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am more than happy to have a direct meeting with him when he returns to London, as I have said to the Lib Dem and Labour spokespeople, the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock).
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
First, the Minister says that our Government continue to hold China to account. Has the Chinese ambassador been summoned to meet the Foreign Secretary following the most recent developments? If so, with what results, and, if not, will the ambassador be summoned? Secondly, it is clear that human rights safeguards have effectively collapsed now in Hong Kong. One of those, of course—a key human right—is freedom of religion. We have seen what has happened with the attacks on freedom of religion in China. Have the Government considered how that can be protected in Hong Kong? What calls have they made to ensure that the right to worship remains there?
Nigel Adams
I can confirm that the Chinese ambassador has been summoned to the Foreign Office this morning. Freedom of religion or belief is a key issue for this Government. My hon. Friend has spoken on this matter on many occasions, and I have had the pleasure to be in such debates. We are very concerned by what has been going on in mainland China—particularly in Xinjiang—but we are concerned by all restrictions placed on freedom of religion or belief in China.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
It started with the disappearance of a bookseller. Then there was state-sanctioned violence against protesters and health workers, university lecturers were sacked and the free press challenged. Twelve Hong Kong youths have been detained for over 80 days, and now we see the disqualification of four moderate legislators. Things are clearly escalating. What will the Minister actually do to hold China to account for the breach of the joint declaration and international treaties, and what consular support is he providing to Hongkongers?
Nigel Adams
As I have laid out in previous answers, we are working with international partners and have summoned the Chinese ambassador. We have done an immense amount of work at the United Nations whenever we believe that China is transgressing, particularly on human rights. We could not be any clearer; our assessment is that this action is a breach of the joint declaration. This is a subject on which we have been incredibly robust over the past 12 months, as the hon. Lady will know. The joint declaration is in force and the policies contained within it should remain unchanged for 50 years. It is a legally binding international agreement that is registered with the UN, and we are fully committed to upholding Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Just last year I had the privilege of meeting, here in Parliament, one of the legislators who has now been disqualified, and we had extensive discussions about the rights of British national overseas passports. It is now clear that our very generous offer to BNO passport holders is a critical lifeline to Hongkongers, but there is concern that those in positions of power in Hong Kong with links to Beijing may seek to use the BNO route to come to this country and enjoy the very democratic liberties that they are seeking to oppress. What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office on this matter, and will the Government do everything possible to ensure that those who seek to undermine democracy and violate human rights are not able to come to this country and enjoy the benefits of BNO passport holders?
Nigel Adams
We have a duty to uphold our promise to the people of Hong Kong to protect their rights and autonomy. I am pleased that my hon. Friend realises that the offer that we are making to BNO citizens and their dependants is a generous one. In turn, they will be expected to be self-sufficient and contribute to UK society. We look forward to welcoming applications under this new immigration route. However, he raises a good point, and I can tell him that the existing provisions in the immigration rules will apply in relation to criminality and other adverse behaviour.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Under the national security law, individuals and companies outside Hong Kong and China can be prosecuted for offences that pertain to that law. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Hongkongers in the UK or British-based businesses with operations in Hong Kong will not be targeted by this repressive law?
Nigel Adams
We have made our position very clear on the national security law—the second occasion that we called out a breach of the joint declaration. That certainly should not be the case, but as the hon. Lady would expect, we are in contact with firms that have investments both ways between China and the UK. It is key that we do not agree with the principal tenet of this national security law. We believe it is vague and far-reaching and could have very damaging consequences. I appreciate the question, and we do have communication lines open with those firms.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
Yesterday the world witnessed the ousting of elected lawmakers in Hong Kong by the Chinese Government, and over the past week the world has witnessed the outgoing President of the US fail to concede defeat, despite the outcome of the election being clear. It is in everybody’s interests—especially here in the free world—for the benefits of democracy not to be undermined. Will the Minister join me in condemning these blatant attacks on democracy, and does he recognise that continual attempts to deny the will of the Scottish people in relation to our own constitutional question will also be viewed by the watching world as an attack on democracy?
Nigel Adams
That is the one of the cleverest ways I have seen of segueing from an urgent question on the actions in Hong Kong to a question about Scottish independence—the hon. Member should be applauded for his gall. Of course, we object in the strongest terms to the actions that have been taken in the last 48 hours.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran)—she is my hon. Friend, because we are both members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—on securing this urgent question, and I welcome the Minister’s robust language. He stated that China’s policy is to “stifle all voices critical” of it and that China has failed to meet its international obligations. I want to ask about the Magnitsky sanctions; I am not asking the Minister to speculate, but to explain. If our friends and allies can gather enough evidence on Chinese officials’ abuses of the Uyghur, what is stalling the Minister’s Department in doing the same?
Nigel Adams
As I have said in previous responses, it is not appropriate to speculate on sanctions or individuals. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will consider any evidence that is put forward, and if my hon. Friend has such evidence, I urge her to get in touch with that Department.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
The sleeping giant is most certainly not sleeping anymore, and Hong Kong is shaking. The new legislation passed this week is not just illegal but, frankly, tyrannous. Are the Government actively considering compiling a case to take China to the International Court of Justice for breaching the Sino-British treaty for the third time, as well as the Vienna convention on the law of treaties?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and for her continued interest in China and her work at the FCO previous to her work in this place. The simple answer is that we cannot submit a case to the ICJ without the consent of China. In my judgment, and I would imagine that of anybody of sound mind, it is very clear that China would not accept that. There is no easy adjudicative route, I am afraid.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) [V]
What progress has the Minister made in identifying the senior Chinese Government officials who have committed serious human rights violations in Hong Kong, and also those who have persecuted Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang? We are not asking for speculation: when will the Government do more than just consider Magnitsky sanctions and actually use them?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We are deeply concerned about the extrajudicial detention of over 1 million Uyghur Muslims and other minorities in so-called political re-education camps. We have made our case very clear to the Chinese authorities in this regard—that invasive surveillance targeting techniques and suppression of freedom of religion and belief are unacceptable. I am sorry to have to refer to my previous answers in terms of sanctions. We are constantly considering designations under our Magnitsky-style regime, but it would not be helpful to speculate on the names of the people that are being considered at the moment.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) [V]
I thank the Minister for his response and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the urgent question. On Monday, the United States State Department announced that it was to impose further sanctions on four more Chinese officials over their alleged role in recent crackdowns on democracy in Hong Kong, and that is further to its sanctions on officials with regard to the actions in Xinjiang and the unacceptable treatment of the Uyghur Muslims. My question is on sanctions, but it is slightly different to the questions being put by others. Can the Minister explain the difference in terms of why emergency Magnitsky-style sanctions were rightly imposed in Belarus and why they are not being imposed on Chinese officials with regard to their behaviour in Hong Kong or their behaviour in Xinjiang on the treatment of Muslims?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for all his work as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on freedom of religion and belief. We are aware of the designations by the US, and we will continue to consider designations under our regulations. I am more than happy to write to him to try to clear up the point he has made. Again, I apologise for repeating this, but it is important to emphasise that it really is not appropriate to speculate on who may be designated under the sanctions regime in future.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Depressingly, I think we know where all this will end, and it is not pretty. We are therefore into mitigation. Does my hon. Friend agree that, not least out of a sense of enlightened self-interest, we should encourage and welcome Hongkongers who wish to leave Hong Kong for the UK, as those from other countries have also done, noting, for example, those we welcomed from Hungary in 1956, as well as Iranians in 1979 and Chinese after Tiananmen Square in 1989?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend is very highly skilled in this area, having served in a similar role to me at the FCO, and he is absolutely right. Hongkongers are highly skilled and highly educated individuals, and we very much look forward to welcoming applications under our new immigration route.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I listened to the answer that the Minister gave to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I can understand the logic of it and I can understand his caution, but, in practical terms, the idea that the likes of Carrie Lam might at some stage be subject to Magnitsky sanctions is something for which we may now have lost that element of surprise. Therefore, the practical consequences of the Government’s position are probably not that significant, but the political consequences of a more robust answer to the hon. right Gentleman and others could be immense, especially if we were to pursue this through our membership of the UN Human Rights Council, to which we have now been elected for the next two years. What will the Minister do with that very useful tool?
Nigel Adams
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, my former ministerial colleague, on his question and also on the interest that he takes in this particular issue, but he will have to forgive me when I say that, as tempting as it may be, it is absolutely inappropriate and not right for us to speculate on our sanctions regime. We do not want a situation where the effect of our regime is diminished, and speculation could very much do that. We are working very closely and very hard with the EU, as he will be aware.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I hope that every self-respecting member of the international community will condemn this action by China. I also hope that the businesses that have tried to shut their eyes to what has been going on now open them and realise that this affects them, too. This is the latest attempt to try to crush the spirit of the people of Hong Kong and my friends from there are understandably anxious. What is the Minister’s message to the people of Hong Kong?
Nigel Adams
We will always stand by Hong Kong. That is why we have taken the actions that we have. We believe that there have been three breaches of the joint declaration. Our offer to BNOs is generous, compassionate and widely welcomed. We have a duty to the people of Hong Kong, clearly, given our history there and we will not stop speaking up on behalf of the people of Hong Kong when we believe that there have been these serious breaches.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
In October this year, the Government confirmed that a new immigration route for BNOs from Hong Kong will open in January. Unfortunately, under the current plans, BNOs will still be subject to an expensive immigration health surcharge of £1,560 per 30 months and £3,120 for five years. Will the Government consider abolishing the immigration health surcharge for BNO applicants?
Nigel Adams
We have been generous with regard to BNOs, and rightly so, given the duty that we owe to them. We have developed proposals for a bespoke immigration route for them and their dependants with five years’ limited leave to remain, with the right to work or study. The issue to which the hon. Lady refers is a matter, of course, for the Home Office. It is entirely appropriate for her to write to the Home Office and see whether she can get a response that gives her the satisfaction that she requires.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for confirming to the House this morning that this is the third breach of the Sino-British agreement, which was registered at the UN. As a friend of China for 25 years, I say that this is unacceptable. He and the Foreign Secretary must now show the Chinese that this sort of breaking of international norms has consequences. Will he therefore build as wide a coalition of the free world as possible to act in unison on things such as the Magnitsky sanctions? If he does that, they will be much more effective.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. We have already seen statements from four of our partners earlier today. I understand there may very well be a statement from the European Union later. In response to these developments, we have, as I say, offered this new immigration path, suspended the extradition treaty and extended our arms embargo on mainland China to Hong Kong. We have summoned the Chinese ambassador. We will continue to raise our concerns internationally at the UN. We will continue to lead the international community in calling on China to live up to its obligations under the joint declaration.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
One country, two systems was supposed to be a magic formula, but it has turned out to be nothing more than a mirage. Democracy and free speech are as good as dead in Hong Kong. The British Government are bound by their obligations through the joint declaration to defend human rights in Hong Kong. The offer to BNO passport holders is welcome, though it does nothing to hold the Hong Kong Executive to account for the human rights violations they are carrying out against their own people. Does the Minister not run the risk of allowing the UK to default in its treaty obligations if it fails to do more to hold the Hong Kong Executive and the Chinese Government to account on this?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise his question. I do not necessarily agree with his last point. On the one country, two systems point that he raises, these actions by China have had an incredibly detrimental impact on many areas of one country, two systems. We will do everything possible to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and, most importantly, the rights and freedoms under the joint declaration.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I welcome my hon. Friend’s clear statements in relation to the violations of freedom and democracy in Hong Kong. Will he assure me that he will continue to speak out against any violations of the one country, two systems protocol that we have and take up in every international institution, including the United Nations Security Council, this clear abuse of democracy in Hong Kong?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Again, I would like to thank him for his continued work on this issue. We have played a leading role in the international community in holding China to account. On 6 October, 39 countries joined a statement at the UN General Assembly Third Committee, in which we expressed our deep concern at the situation in Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Tibet. We will continue, as I have said, to bring together our international partners to stand up for the people of Hong Kong, to call out the violation of their freedoms and, importantly, to hold China to account for its international obligations.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am sorry to say that it feels as if the Government have given up on this, to be honest. They did not choose to make a statement on this; they had to be dragged to the House by an urgent question. Frequently, it is Back Benchers in this House who are dragging the Government to make more categorical statements and to stand up to the cross words, which is so far all we have had. They have devoted next to no energy to pursuing this in the vast majority of international forums. The one thing that they could do they repeatedly refuse to do, which is to implement Magnitsky-style sanctions against Carrie Lam and others. I do not know what more the Minister needs to know. We have a country that has millions of people in concentration camps. We have people who are being refused the right to their own religion, and women who are having forced abortion and sterilisation. We have the whole of democratic systems being suppressed, and, frankly, communism today looks remarkably like fascism. Every single time he says, “I can’t speculate,” he is actually announcing that he is not implementing sanctions. Please, please take the whole of the House seriously on this. We must not give up.
Nigel Adams
I have got an awful lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but to accuse this Government of sitting idly by on this issue, frankly, is nonsense. We have led the international community in this regard, and we have made incredibly generous offers in terms of the BNOs. I applaud him for harrying and hassling the Foreign Secretary in terms of making sure the sanctions regime has been delivered; it has been delivered. I appreciate that we are in the theatre of the Chamber, but the hon. Gentleman will know in his heart that it is not right to speculate publicly about individuals and sanctions before there are any designations—he will know that—but I would just ask him to reflect on the actions that we have taken, particularly internationally, where we have led the way.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I am afraid that history teaches us what happens if regimes like this are not stood up to, but we cannot act alone, so what engagement has the Foreign Office had—at an early stage, I know—with the incoming American Administration, because their support on these issues will be key?
Also, I recognise that we have a healthy and robust debate in this Chamber about matters such as Scottish independence, and I know we proceed with good humour, but does the Minister agree that to link in any way, shape or form what is happening in Hong Kong, with the absolute destruction of people’s rights and fundamental freedoms, with the healthy debate that we have around Scottish independence is disrespectful to the people of that country making that fight?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point. I will not use the term disrespectful to describe the comments of the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) from the SNP, but I would say that he has more front than Scarborough in trying to link the two issues during this urgent question.
I can tell my hon. Friend that we have seen this morning the United States make its statement on these latest moves to disqualify the four legislators. The Prime Minister has had conversations with the President-elect, and I am sure that Hong Kong will feature in future conversations. I would add that we have consistently led the international community with regard to the response to breaches of the joint declaration and the events in Hong Kong.
Mr Speaker
We have a technical problem with question 25, so I call Bob Stewart.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The Security Council is hamstrung because of China’s veto and the General Assembly is largely supportive of Chinese policy. May I ask my hon. Friend the Minister what sort of feel he gets from the forum of the world, the United Nations, in support of what we are trying to do against China?
Nigel Adams
What I can tell my hon. Friend is that we work very closely with our international partners, and to have 39 countries sign up to our statement at the UN on this single issue was quite the achievement. People internationally do realise that China has yet again broken its promise to the people of Hong Kong, and its actions tarnish its international reputation and, more importantly, undermine Hong Kong’s long-term stability.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this urgent question and the Minister for his answer. As MPs in this House, we stand side by side with the MPs in Hong Kong; they need to know that, and we are doing that today. Will the Minister outline whether any support can be offered to these MPs who have taken a stand, specifically in regard to their families, who are often the ones left trebling in the background, fearing for their very lives? Can any support of a practical nature be offered, and what form might that take?
Nigel Adams
I have laid out the terms and the offer that has been made to BNOs over the past couple of months. We completely understand the issue for Hongkongers and MPs advocating in particular for the families left behind. If the hon. Gentleman has any specific cases that he wants to bring to my attention, I am more than happy to discuss them.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
A great many of us have little faith in the processes at the United Nations when it comes to defending liberties in Hong Kong, precisely because of the influence of China at that body. Aside from the 39 signatures at the UN that the Minister has mentioned, will he please tell the House what precisely we are doing as a Government to build the international coalition of support that he talks about, specifically in putting together an international contact group or using the G7 as a forum for bringing together a coalition of democracies, to really show China that the international community is serious about defending the rights of Hong Kong people?
Nigel Adams
As I say, and as my right hon. Friend will have seen this morning, we are working closely with our international partners. Australia, the US, Canada and Germany have all joined us with their statements this morning. We will of course continue to work with our partners—our Five Eyes partners in particular—to hold China to account. My right hon. Friend is right to point this out. There is a growing caucus of support at the UN that is very much behind the UK’s leading diplomatic role on the issue of Hong Kong.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
After the ethnic cleansing of Buddhists in Tibet, the cold, calculated genocide of Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang and the mistreatment of Christians and other minorities, the authoritarian Chinese Communist party regime has now turned its tyranny on to pro-democracy Hongkongers. What concrete steps is the Minister taking to mobilise our international partners so that the world’s democracies act against this human rights crisis in an effective and co-ordinated manner?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this, and I know that he has a deep interest in freedom of religion and belief. We are very concerned about the reports coming out of Tibet. We had a debate in Westminster Hall on this very issue. I believe that our growing caucus at the UN is bearing fruit. Thirty-nine countries is no small achievement. The Foreign Secretary should be congratulated for his work in this regard, and Lord Ahmad, a fellow FCDO Minister, has delivered several statements at the UN on this issue. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, with the Foreign Secretary and the FCDO taking a leading role on this issue, we are getting purchase internationally, and China will have heard the remarks today and countries’ abhorrence at the actions in Hong Kong.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The legally binding joint declaration signed by China as well as the UK sets out that Hong Kong will have a high degree of autonomy. China must respect that. Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will continue to work with our international partners to condemn these attacks on democracy in every possible way?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is 100% correct in every word he has just said. I can assure him that we will continue to lead this international effort against the violations and the breaches of the joint declaration. We are in constant touch with our international partners on this, not least Australia, Canada, Germany and the US, which, I reiterate, have all issued statements today condemning this action by China.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Given the latest brutal attack by China on Hong Kong democracy and freedom of speech, will the Minister undertake to increase the number of visas available to Hong Kong citizens, tell us what he will do if they are not recognised by China and reassure those who may need them that they will have access and recourse, in the short term at least, to public funds in the UK if they need to flee?
Nigel Adams
It is a very generous offer that we have laid out to British national overseas citizens. We will expect them to be self-sufficient and contribute to UK society. We look forward to welcoming those applications. As I have said, the new route that the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary have hammered out is compelling and compassionate, particularly, as the hon. Gentleman will welcome, with regard to applications that are made as a family unit. We will use discretion in issuing a grant to children of BNO status holders who fall into this category.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
The United Kingdom, a stalwart champion of democracy, pluralism and liberty, has demonstrated its purpose to defend those values with all available tools, including Magnitsky-style sanctions. The disqualification of four Hong Kong pro-democracy lawmakers from the Legislative Council is another case in an ever-growing list of intrusions by the Chinese Communist party into the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong. Will my hon. Friend outline what efforts the Government are making to ensure a co-ordinated approach among our international partners to the crisis in Hong Kong and ensure that the Chinese Communist party is held responsible for its violations of both its international treaty obligations and fundamental human rights?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his continued leading voice on these matters. We are focused on giving voice to the widespread international concerns, basically in order to protect Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms. As I have said, the increasing number of countries supporting joint statements in the UN’s various human rights bodies underscores, we believe, the success of our approach. There are elections next September, and there not being an effective Opposition voice in them when half of the Legislative Council is appointed does make a bit of a mockery of the situation. We will continue, however, to call on China to uphold the contents of the joint declaration and, most importantly, live up to its responsibilities.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Extending the right to apply for BNO status has been very welcome and indeed is a lifeline to many Hongkongers. However, the CCP is likely to do its utmost to obstruct the process. Will the Government consider giving diplomatic assistance to legitimate applicants who are still in the process of applying but might get arrested under the draconian new security laws?
Nigel Adams
We are very much opposed to, and have called out, the new national security law. We welcome applications under our new immigration system, which has been broadly welcomed in the House and beyond for Hongkongers. Of course, the Home Office will work with applicants on visas. On the specific point the hon. Lady makes, if she writes to the Home Office, it will hopefully be able to give her the satisfaction she is looking for.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that this latest step really does indicate that we have seen the end of the one country, two systems approach?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises a good point that has been made previously. These latest actions by China have had an incredible impact on many areas of the one country, two systems approach. However, I assure her and all right hon. and hon. Members of the House that we will continue to do everything possible to uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy, rights and freedoms under the joint declaration.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
The world has watched aghast as President Trump desperately tries to suppress domestic democracy. Thankfully, his successor President-elect Biden has promised to fully enforce the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act. Ironically, even the Trump Administration have imposed sanctions on four more Chinese officials in Hong Kong over their role in crushing dissent. What concrete action will the Minister’s Government take to uphold the Sino-British joint declaration and the Hong Kong Basic Law, which were supposed to grant a high degree of autonomy to Hongkongers until 2047?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. This should have been a 50-year agreement. We continue to call out breaches of the joint declaration. The actions we have taken at the UN have been almost unprecedented, having 39 co-signatories. We will continue to call out China on its actions with regard to Hong Kong, and, as we speak, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has summoned the Chinese ambassador to make our points incredibly clear to him directly.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
The anti-democratic national security law shows that China is willing to break the Sino-British joint agreement, and that puts religious freedom under threat. Religious leaders in Hong Kong are already fearful for their safety, with some scared to read certain scriptures in case they are accused of subversion by the Government. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with the authorities internationally on the dangerous experience of people of faith in Hong Kong, and what will he do if the situation worsens?
Nigel Adams
It is absolutely the case that all countries, China included, must comply with their international obligations. Freedom of religion and belief is incredibly important, and this UK Government take that incredibly seriously. We will continue to make the case that individuals should have the ability to practise their religion, and whatever they believe in, in a free way. We will continue to call out any transgressions of that where people are being oppressed, not least in mainland China.
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.
Business of the House
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 16 November will include:
Monday 16 November—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 17 November—Second Reading of the National Security and Investment Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill.
Wednesday 18 November—Motion to approve the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, followed by a motion to approve the Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a general debate on covid-19.
Thursday 19 November—Debate on a motion on regulation and prevention of online harms, followed by a general debate on International Men’s Day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 20 November—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
We have a result: there is a new chief of staff at No. 10. No, seriously, what I actually wanted to do was to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris. It was a historic victory, winning not only the popular vote but the electoral college. Despite the closing of mailboxes, I think democracy won, and I agree with the President-elect that the integrity of the peace agreement in Ireland is vital. He has also made a statement on Iran, which gives hope for Nazanin, Anoosheh and Kylie. It is interesting that Nasrin Sotoudeh, the human rights lawyer, has been released, and it gives hope to Luke Symons too.
I do not know whether you saw the strapline yesterday, Mr Speaker, but while there were squabbles behind the door at No. 10, we reached the terrible statistic of 50,000 deaths. We are the highest in Europe and the fifth highest in the world, and it is a terrible statistic because the other countries ahead of us have larger populations. Everyone in the Conservative party, from the Prime Minister to the bag carriers, was focused on the power struggle at No. 10 for jobs and influence. What this country needs is proper leadership and the Government to focus on the job at hand: saving lives and livelihoods.
The Leader of the House will have to come up with an answer—I asked him this last week—on when the Session is going to end. I hope he gives us the answer soon, because we would like another Opposition day.
Government Members will be interested to note that there was a U-turn on school meals—the Rashford turn—but they must be pretty annoyed because they were asked to vote for it, and then the announcement was made by the Prime Minister to the ether, not to the House. We could only glean what the details were from the press. It is no wonder that the Leader of the House does not want a return to remote voting, where Members actually have to vote themselves. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) was right, was he not, when he said that it is an affront to the House and everything that it stands for that there were 203 proxy votes cast by a Whip? More seriously, there are factions—the common sense group, the northern group, the covid recovery group. What the Opposition want to know—the Whips are asking us—is: do they all have their own Whips? Do we have to deal with each individual group? So I ask again, in the interests of democracy: can we have remote voting?
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport made a written statement on Tuesday on a new advisory panel for the UK system of public service broadcasting. The panel, interestingly, is this: the former Conservative Prime Minister’s director of communications, who has been helping GB News to challenge the BBC; a Conservative peer; and a former Conservative Prime Minister’s press secretary. After the claims from the Leader of the House about political impartiality earlier this week, can we have a statement on the recruitment process? We do not want this to be another assault on public broadcasting.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of the interactive map, “My Little Crony”, which has been created by Sophie Hill. I raised last week all the contracts that have been handed out to those connected to the Tory party and I did not get an answer, but it is well worth a look. He will know that I think it might be time for a public inquiry, particularly on the £670,000 that has been allocated by the vaccine tsar for public relations. If you look at the My Little Crony interactive map, it links directly to the special special adviser’s relation. I do not know whether that is because they are essential workers, to enable them a visit to Barnard Castle, but it would be interesting to know what they do, because they are actually based in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, where there are 100 comms staff. But if it is something about a vaccine, I would rather Dr Van-Tam told me about it, instead of a public relations so-called expert.
There are more concerns about the use of public money, so will the Leader of the House find time for a full debate on the Public Accounts Committee report into the towns fund? It concluded at page 5:
“The selection process was not impartial.”
He was fond of saying that word earlier this week and it is a cross-party Committee. Is it the kind of Committee that the Leader of the House does not actually like, given his comments earlier? The Committee said that it was
“not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others.”
We have a crowded programme coming up in the next six weeks. We have the comprehensive spending review on 25 November, and already nurseries have contacted me to say, “Can the Chancellor find long-term funding for us?” They will be part of the recovery after the pandemic, with parents going back and children being looked after. One of the heads apparently described the Secretary State for Education as “missing in action”, so can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education, particularly ahead of the comprehensive spending review?
Will the Prime Minister come to the House and update us on the trade talks that are going on with the EU? I think he made a statement to the press, but not to us.
Last week, the Leader of the House highlighted his love of heritage, and I ask him to join me in lying down in front of the bulldozers at Stonehenge. Professor Mike Parker Pearson said:
“When we’re looking at prehistory, the buried remains are the only evidence we have. It’s rather like burning ancient manuscripts…There will be almost total destruction of all archaeological remains within its path”,
referring to the road scheme. Will the Leader of the House help us to stop it?
Finally, I wish everyone a happy Diwali. It represents good over evil, light over darkness and knowledge over ignorance. I know that is a sentiment that the whole House agrees with.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Absolutely, we are in favour of the triumph of good over evil, and we wish everyone a happy Diwali. I think that conservatism is very generally the triumph of good over evil. As regards Stonehenge, as I take the A303 to Somerset, the sooner it is a dual carriageway the better. I fully support the proposals to have a dual carriageway, though I would add that one of the great joys of going on the current A303 is that one gets a glimpse of Stonehenge. That is a benefit and is uplifting for people to see.
As regards statements by the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend has been incredibly assiduous in updating the House, coming to the House, making statements, answering questions and leading debates. His appearances here have been exactly what we require, and he has met and exceeded the expectations of the House.
The right hon. Lady rightly congratulates the President-elect of the United States, as Her Majesty’s Government have. The Government look forward to working with—
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have congratulated him. The Government congratulate him, and I am speaking as a Minister for the Government. It is very important, as the Prime Minister rightly said on Wednesday, that the British Prime Minister has a good relationship with the American President, and that is in the interests of the United Kingdom. It has to be said that one person who was particularly good at that was the former leader of the Labour party, Tony Blair, who was able to get on with different American Presidents of different ideological outlooks, and that I think is a model for British Prime Ministers.
I know that the Foreign Office has responded to the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) about Nazanin and the other people improperly held, and her campaign is an important campaign to ensure that they are kept at the forefront of people’s minds.
It is of course a deep, deep sadness, and a tragedy for the families, that 50,000 have died with covid, but it is too early to be making international comparisons, because the statistics are not calculated in all countries in the same way. But the Government have made enormous efforts to limit the effect and to ensure that the interests of safety are paramount. That is why we entered into the second period of lockdown and, indeed, had the first period of lockdown. It is why £200 billion of taxpayers’ money has been provided in support to the economy in these very difficult times. Yes, it is a deep sadness, but it is not, I think, a matter of party politics, one way or another. The Government have made every possible effort, strained every sinew.
The right hon. Lady mentions my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who of course himself gave a proxy to the Deputy Chief Whip and proved the efficacy of the system, because he was able to take his proxy away and vote the way he wanted to, having listened to the debate. This is a way that is working, it is effective and it has reduced the queues in the Division Lobbies, which I know is a great concern of the right hon. Lady. I do my best to accommodate her, but I feel sometimes that she models herself on the deaf adder, and charm I ever so nicely, still no notice is taken of the efforts I have made to meet with her approbation. In spite of having made every effort to help, still more is asked for, but I am afraid we need to be here in person. Government business has to be carried through. Important legislation has to be scrutinised. This is best done in person, as we found when we were hybrid earlier in the year, so there will not be a return to remote voting.
As regards the questions about the vaccine and the vaccine tsar, and the money spent on publicity, may I say from this Dispatch Box what a fabulous job Kate Bingham has done? She deserves credit, plaudits and praise—paeons of praise—for what she has done for free. She has been working for free. She has not been charging the British taxpayer. She has brought her energy and her enterprise to ensure that we are one of the best-placed countries to have supplies of the vaccine when it comes through.
Of course, we have to tell people what is going on. There are a few nutters around, Mr Speaker—I am sure you have never met them—who are anti-vaxxers. They go around spreading rumour and causing concern to people. We need to put out the true information to reassure people. That is a reasonable and a proper thing to do. The attacks on Kate Bingham are discreditable and unpleasant.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The reference to the vaccine tsar in disparaging terms, but more generally than the right hon. Lady. Kate Bingham has done enormous public service and we should be grateful to her for what she is doing.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]
The Leader of the House will be aware that today there is a debate in Westminster Hall on breast cancer, in which, because of his ruling, some of us with real and current life experience of the disease are disappointingly unable to participate. While I respect his commitment to traditional parliamentary procedures, I am sure if he was on the Back Benches, and not the fine specimen of health and fitness he clearly is, he would be arguing forcefully for Members to be able to contribute more often in proceedings via modern technology, perhaps even currying favour with you, Mr Speaker, by suggesting that not every contribution to a debate requires an intervention.
Given that hybrid proceedings have been extended, will my right hon. Friend please stop thinking those of us at home are shirking our duties—in fact, quite the opposite—and urgently reconsider virtual participation, even if just for general Back-Bench and Westminster Hall debates?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I begin by wishing my hon. Friend well? I think the whole House joins me in praying for her swift recovery. She knows she is one of the most popular and respected Members of the House, who has campaigned cross-party on a number of issues very effectively, so we all wish her extremely well.
The point about bringing back Westminster Hall is that at one point the broadcasting facilities were already being fully utilised, so it was not an issue then of whether we wanted to do it or not. It simply was not an option. But the demand to bring back Westminster Hall was great across all parts of the House. Members who are shielding—who are seriously, critically vulnerable—are able to participate in many aspects of the House’s business. They are able to participate in interrogative sessions such as this, vote by proxy and participate in Select Committees, but we have to get a balance between the needs of hon. Members and the needs of the House as a whole to proceed with its business.
With debates, we need to have the proper holding to account of Ministers, which is the purpose of the debates, and to have the interventions that make a debate, rather than a series of statements. It is a question of striking a careful balance, in these difficult times, between ensuring that Parliament can serve its constituents in full and making sure that Members can complete their duties as safely and as effectively as possible.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
I have two procedural points to start. By our calculation, we are overdue a third party Opposition day. As St Andrew’s Day approaches, can the Leader of the House tell us when we might get it? Secondly, we are increasingly concerned not only at the lateness of the advance sight of the Chancellor’s statements, but at the level of redaction therein, especially as we know that media outlets are being provided with full, unredacted copies before they are delivered in the Chamber. This is not good practice. Can the Leader of the House stop it?
I want to ask for a debate on the shared prosperity fund. We are exactly seven weeks from the end of the transition period, yet we have no idea whether and how this fund will work. I would like a Government assurance not only that Scotland’s funding will be maintained, but that decisions will be fully devolved, in much the way that EU structural funds are currently managed. After all, how hard can it be?
Uncertainty over Brexit, of which that is one glaring example, is partly why Scottish public opinion is turning to independence. You know that I like to keep the House informed on these matters, Mr Speaker. This week we have another opinion poll showing an 8% lead for independence. It is the 12th poll in a row to show majority support for yes. These developments have prompted former Prime Minister Major to call for not one but two referendums on independence. Sadly, though, the current Scottish Secretary just burrows further into his bunker. He declared this week that Scotland should not be able to consider this matter again for another 40 years. At least Donald Trump waited until after the election before denying the result. It seems that the Scottish Secretary has gone one better: he is denying the result of the election even before it has taken place. I agree with Joe Biden that it is not for one politician or another to decide the outcome, but for the people themselves. Can we have a debate on whether the Government will respect the outcome of next May’s election in Scotland; for if they will not, what is the point in having one?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman perhaps does not see the irony of what he has just said. There was an election in 2014 and I am afraid that it is the hon. Gentleman who is the Trump of Scotland, because he is denying that result. He is trying to pretend that it did not happen and that the people of Scotland, in their wisdom, did not vote to remain in the United Kingdom. May I beg to remind him that the people of Scotland voted to remain and that at that time the Scottish National party leadership said it was generational? That is why my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary is right to say that it must be for a generation. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he does not like the result and therefore he is going to sulk and, in a state of high dudgeon, complain and moan and object, because the people of Scotland have spoken, and in their wisdom they wanted to remain in the United Kingdom.
Is that any surprise when £8.2 billion of UK taxpayers’ money has gone to the benefit of the people of Scotland? In addition, 779,500 jobs have been saved or supported by the furlough scheme, and £806 million has been paid out to help 157,000 people in the self-employed scheme. This is the success of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman says that he gets redacted statements. The good news will be boasted about later—such as the £8.2 billion and the 779,500 jobs—but it is routine for a Chancellor’s statements to have market-sensitive information not provided at the time. That is an obvious thing to do.
Opposition days are provided—I am well aware of the Standing Orders requirements—and, on the shared prosperity fund, Scotland shares in the prosperity of the United Kingdom.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
In the 45 years I have been here, I have worked for tenants and leaseholders in tower blocks. For the last 15 years, I have been trying to get Government Ministers to accept the need for changes and leasehold reforms so that at least tenants are not exploited. There are 6 million of them, with 1 million affected by cladding-type issues and many more affected by the apparent increased cost of lease extensions. The Government have got the Law Commission to produce some very good reports, and Ministers sometimes say that something is going to happen. When will the Government make a statement about implementing the needed reforms and when will we have a Government debate so that we can support the Government when they take the necessary action? At the moment, the praise and plaudits cannot come in full because the Government have not supported lease tenants the way that they should.
Mr Rees-Mogg
On the issue of cladding, which my hon. Friend raises, we are providing £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding. That will be of help to some leaseholders in buildings that have cladding that has not yet been removed. The issue of compounding ground rates has been raised in the House before and is clearly a problem. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State gives a full answer to my hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
Let us head up to Gateshead to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
May I say what a pleasure it was to see the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) from her home? It was really good to see her up and active—it is fantastic.
Following last week’s exchanges, I thank the Leader of the House for writing to the Home Secretary on my behalf and that of my constituents. I also thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s Backbench Business Committee debates on Tuesday. We are getting through the queue, but we still have some way to go.
I have the privilege of being the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters, and I have written to the Prime Minister in that capacity. I know that the Leader of the House has previously admitted to not being a great fan of association football, but he may be a great fan of adherence to the Government’s manifesto commitments, in particular to a fan-led review of football and its governance. The resignation of the chair of the Football Association after his frankly embarrassing appearance before the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has thrown a bright light on the need for urgency in this review, which was promised at last year’s general election. Will the Leader of the House be so kind as to remind the Prime Minister of his Government’s commitment to this now pressing issue?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments, and I would remind the House and Members here this morning that if I ever can be helpful in facilitating answers from Government Departments, that is very much part of my role. The hon. Gentleman must not confuse my ignorance of football with a lack of concern. It is a matter of great concern to my constituents and his, and although I would never hold myself up as somebody who could win a pub quiz on football, I recognise that it is an issue that people are interested in across the country and one of great seriousness. He is right to note the resignation of the gentleman from the Football Association after his really extraordinary comments and the need for football to lead the way in doing things better and more appropriately. I am sure that the Government will fulfil our manifesto commitments, because that is what the Government do.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on unexplained deaths through epilepsy? On 16 November, SUDEP Action will be publishing a report that details how people with epilepsy have coped during the coronavirus pandemic. It makes some excellent recommendations, and I do hope that the Government will act on them.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I commend my hon. Friend for his campaigning on a range of health issues. He is a credit to this House and I am always happy to see him at business questions supporting these important causes. The Government welcome all research into the important topic of sudden death from epilepsy and look forward to the forthcoming report from SUDEP Action on the impact of the pandemic on epilepsy. Once it is received, the Department of Health and Social Care will consider its findings carefully and I will be sure to pass my hon. Friend’s question to Ministers in that Department. In the meantime, this may well make an important Adjournment debate.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Yesterday saw the sad passing at the age of 90 of Theresa Stewart, the only woman so far to lead Birmingham City Council. She represented the people of Billesley for a total of 31 years and was a champion of childcare and the payment of family allowance and child benefits to the mother, a pioneer of women’s representation and equality and a co-founder of Birmingham Pregnancy Advisory Service. May we have a debate on the contribution of Theresa and other recent civic leaders who have given so much to local government in this country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the contribution made to civic society by people like Theresa Stewart. It is the backbone of our nation. These are people who give up their time and often go above and beyond the call of their duty to ensure that local government is as strong as it can be. Whether time can be found for a debate in Government time I cannot promise him, but I think a debate in Westminster Hall in praise of those who engage in civic life is well worth having.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
People in Dudley South, such as my constituent Amy in Kingswinford, often find pavements unusable because of inconsiderately parked cars. May we have a debate in Government time on action to tackle pavement parking and progress made since the excellent Pavement Parking (Protection of Vulnerable Pedestrians) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) in 2015?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Although I always view myself as a friend of the motorist, there are, it has to be said, limits, and pavement parking can be a serious inconvenience for pedestrians, particularly those with mobility or visual impairments or—something that has had a great effect on me in recent years—with perambulators or pushchairs. [Interruption.] Even I sometimes push the perambulator! I have done it myself, I can confirm. I see that my reputation lies in tatters as I admit to having pushed a perambulator, but actually it is quite fun.
Cars parked on the road get in the way, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset succeeded with his private Member’s Bill. The Government are consulting on options for tackling the problem. One must not always assume that the answer to every problem is ensuring that more fines are issued. Sometimes gentle encouragement and telling motorists that they ought to behave themselves is a good way of proceeding.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Zoos and aquariums play an important role in the visitor economy. My constituency is fortunate to have not only the Blue Planet aquarium but part of Chester zoo within it, and like everyone else, they have been struggling. The Government set up a £100 million fund to support zoos and aquariums, but the criteria for it are so restrictive that only about £2 million has been paid out so far. The deadline for applications for the scheme is Monday, and at the moment, it does not look like it will achieve its purpose. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State on Monday on what he will do to ensure that this scheme benefits zoos and aquariums as it was intended to?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The scheme was set up to help zoos and aquariums and to ensure that they are given particular support during the pandemic. As with any scheme, if there are issues, it is quite right that they should be raised with Ministers and that Ministers should be held to account. If the hon. Gentleman has not been successful in doing that with the relevant Minister, I will of course facilitate a full answer to any questions he has.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
In response to the impacts and challenges posed by covid-19 to aviation, the Prime Minister rightly established the global travel taskforce to consider further how Government can support the sector. When will it likely report, and may we have a statement at that time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. The global aviation sector has suffered exceptionally badly from the pandemic, and it is right that we find ways to support aviation in Britain. On 7 October, the Secretary of State announced the establishment of the global travel taskforce to explore a testing regime for international arrivals and to support the safe recovery of international travel. The global travel taskforce will consider how a domestic testing regime for international arrivals could be implemented to boost safe travel to and from the UK and allow UK residents to travel with confidence. The taskforce will report back to the Prime Minister very shortly. We have previously explained that we do not currently endorse testing passengers immediately on arrival at airports as a means of avoiding the 14-day self-isolation period, but I will of course pass on my hon. Friend’s comments to the Secretary of State.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
May we have a debate in Government time on encouraging people to participate in the civic process? If we did so, it would be an opportunity for me to encourage my constituents in Broomhouse, Mount Vernon and Baillieston to object to the planning application from Patersons to increase both the capacity and the lifecycle of a site that has blighted the residents of my constituency for many years.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise these sorts of issues on the Floor of the House. It is one of the opportunities that we have as Members—to make it clear that we have concerns about local decision making. He is being an active champion for his constituents. It may not surprise him to know that I do not know the details of the planning issue at hand, but he has raised it on the Floor of the House successfully.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Earlier this week, I received a letter from Forrester Boyd, which is a major chartered accountancy company that serves my constituency. It has drawn my attention to the fact that the major banks are refusing or holding long delays in opening new accounts for businesses and the self-employed. At a time when many businesses are having to diversify and new ones are setting up to meet specific needs during the pandemic, this is an intolerable situation. Could I ask the Leader of the House if he could arrange for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box, show how much the Government deplore this situation and urge the banks to provide a decent service to new businesses?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am exceptionally glad that my hon. Friend has raised this matter, because I have had exactly the same issue in my own constituency. I had thought that it was a one-off, with just one or two people getting in touch to say that they could not open business accounts, but it is clear from my hon. Friend that this is a more widespread problem. As the Leader of the House, it is difficult to raise issues on one’s own behalf as full-throatedly as one can sometimes from the Back Benches, so my hon. Friend raising the matter gives me the opportunity to raise it more full-throatedly. The Government have always made it clear to lenders that they should be open to new customers if that is operationally possible for them. I hope that the banks will ensure that they are able to do so, although they are, of course, operationally independent.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) [V]
Bath it is a world heritage site and its protection is of national importance. Currently, 40-tonne heavy goods vehicles can go over the grade 2 listed Cleveland bridge, causing structural damage on a regular basis. The Leader of the House, as my constituency neighbour, will know exactly the bridge I am talking about. In 2012, the council sought to establish an 18-tonne weight limit to fulfil its duty under the law to protect this heritage asset, but the Department for Transport said that the council could not do that. The Government’s preferred option is to resolve the issue via the Western Gateway transport board, but after eight years the people of Bath are still waiting. How do the Government intend to resolve the situation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As the MP for the countryside surrounding Bath, I am only too aware of the problem, and, indeed, of the congestion in the city represented by the hon. Member. The council, under its previous administration, was considering a bypass to link the A46 with the A36, which would of course mean that Cleveland bridge would no longer be needed. I am not entirely sure that the current Lib Dem control of the council is as enthusiastic about this plan as its predecessors, but it would provide a solution and it is a matter that the local council could push forward.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I have a number of extremely concerned Carshalton and Wallington residents who live in a block of flats with cladding on. I will not name the block so as not to prejudice their case, but the residents are essentially trapped; they cannot move, sell or rent their property. I know that this is not the only block in the country facing problems like this, so can we have a debate about support for such residents, who are essentially trapped through no fault of their own?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Father of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), also alluded to this issue. It is a matter that the Government take extremely seriously, especially following the Grenfell tragedy. The Government are providing funding to get dangerous cladding off homes. We are proposing the most significant building safety reforms in almost 40 years, and are committed to ensuring that people are safe and feel safe in their homes. Some £1.6 billion of taxpayers’ money is being spent to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding, making homes safer as soon as is practicable. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this question and for the work that he is doing for his constituents to bring the issue to the attention of Ministers. I will certainly pass on the details that he has brought to the House to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On disused coal tips, the Leader of the House knows well that a large part of the Tylorstown tip fell into the river at the beginning of the year, after Storm Dennis. I understand that the Coal Authority, a UK Government agency, has done some investigation of all the disused coal tips in the country. There are some 2,000 in Wales alone, but there is no full list of coal tips in every part of the country. Could we have a debate on this subject as a matter of urgency? I have a terrible fear that with further climate change problems, we will see more coal tip landslides. Of course, we want to make sure that people’s houses and livelihoods are safe, but if we do not even know the nature of the problem, we cannot work out how much money there is for it. I have written to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; could the Leader of the House encourage him to see me before the spending review is compete?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of which I am aware, not least because my constituency is a former mining area. There is a disused coal tip in the constituency that has become a feature of the landscape in the decades since mining stopped. The anniversary of Aberfan was not that long ago, so this important issue is at the forefront of people’s mind. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the UK-wide agency, and I will ensure that what he has said in the House is passed on to it, in the hope that a fuller answer can be obtained for him from it. I cannot promise to be the Chancellor’s diary secretary.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
The Speaker was outraged that the new national lockdown was leaked to the media, rather than announced in Parliament first. The Prime Minister was furious and set up a leak inquiry. Last week, I asked the Leader of the House for a statement this week, so that Parliament could scrutinise the process. Instead, we have had media reports that Cabinet Ministers have been cleared of any involvement, and that the focus is on No. 10. Now we have the resignation of Mr Lee Cain, and the suggestion that he is responsible for the leak. This is not good enough. Parliament must be able to ask Ministers questions about this. Will the Leader of the House guarantee a statement next week about the leak inquiry?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend mentions Lee Cain; may I say what a fantastic public servant he has been? He was instrumental in ensuring that the Vote Leave campaign was successful, has made a huge contribution to this Government, in which he was an important figure, and will be a loss to it.
As regards announcements to this House, the Prime Minister and Mr Speaker were indeed seriously displeased by the leak, and that the House was not informed as the Prime Minister had intended, but there are opportunities to question the Prime Minister about the leak inquiry at Prime Minister’s questions; I am not convinced that it deserves a specific statement of its own.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On top of the pandemic and the economic crisis, York has experienced two floods this year. Last week, the River Ouse reached 4.22 metres, which is a real stress and strain on businesses and residents, not least as it is only five years after the devastating floods of Storm Eva. We have yet to see mitigation; we have only had the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs promising a flood conference in York this year, which clearly is not happening. We need more than promises: we need action. Will the Leader of the House ask the Environment Secretary to come to the Dispatch Box and make a statement about how the Government will approach flood resilience? My constituents have had enough of flooding, year in, year out.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) last week, it is a terrible concern for people when they face flooding, and recurring flooding. That is why the Government have an unprecedented plan of expenditure—I think that over £5 billion will be spent on flood relief, and that Yorkshire will get the largest amount. I understand that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) has specific concerns, and I will certainly pass those on to the Secretary of State.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
For too long, second home owners in Cornwall and elsewhere have been able to avoid making any contribution to local services by registering their homes as businesses, thus avoiding council tax, and then benefiting from small business rate relief. The sense of injustice has deepened this year as some of the second home owners have gone on to benefit from the grants that the Government made available to support businesses through the pandemic. In 2018, the then Local Government Minister, who now happens to be the Chancellor, stated that the Government would look into closing that loophole. Can we have a ministerial statement to update the House on what action the Government are intending to take to close the loophole as soon as possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know this is a matter of significant concern to my hon. Friend. The Government are aware of the concerns that some second homes that are also available for letting are listed by the Valuation Office Agency as non-domestic properties and therefore liable for business rates rather than council tax. Depending on their rateable value, many of these properties qualify for small business rate relief. The Government have consulted on possible measures to strengthen the criteria that need to be satisfied for holiday properties to be assessed for business rates, and the Government’s full response will be set out in due course.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Yesterday in the covid-19 debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), revealed:
“When the pandemic started, we produced 1% of our PPE needs in the UK. By December, we will be providing 70%”.—[Official Report, 11 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 1022.]
She seemed to regard that as cause for self-congratulation. However, although it is a tribute to British industry and British workers, it reveals shocking complacency in allowing the situation to develop, which has meant lost resilience, lost industry and lost jobs—and that is the case across public spending. Can we have a debate so that we can demand that the Government put Britain first and prioritise buying to support British jobs, and send a clear message to any bureaucrat who wants to stand in the way of change: “Get on board or get on your bike”?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman must be absolutely delighted, therefore, that we have left the European Union and will end the transition period on 31 December, because once we are out of the European Union we will be able to develop our own procurement policies. We will not be bound by EU red tape. We will be free to adopt either what he suggests or not. It will be liberty restored and a day of legend and song.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
In recent weeks, a number of colleagues from across this House have been subject to an increase in abuse, including threats against them and, most concerningly, against their families. This should not be something that is just accepted as part of the job. Will the Leader of the House update the House on whether the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights will be actioned in due course?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I agree that nobody in this House should feel unsafe. Mr Speaker himself, as a Deputy Speaker—the Chairman of Ways and Means—ran a very effective procedure of ensuring that Members could get access to safety installations in their homes, have personal safety devices, and could make their offices safe as well. I would urge all hon. and right hon. Members to look into what support can be given. It is available and it is there to be taken up. As regards the report of the JCHR, the Government apologise for the delay in their formal response, but the Home Office will be responding shortly.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) [V]
In the UK we have a Government willing to break international law and in America we have a President who refuses to accept the result of a democratic election. Does the Leader of the House share my concern about the dangers posed by such acts, particularly the example they set to others across the globe, and does he therefore agree that the defining principles of democracy and the rule of law should be debated by Members in this House as soon as possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am sorry to say—actually, I am rather glad to say—that I am not answering for the United States Government; I am answering for Her Majesty’s Government. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is an excellent piece of legislation. It is quite right that we defend the British national interest and that is what this Government will do. The Bill was debated fully in this House.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Can we have a statement on the impact on lives and livelihoods of the blanket measures that we are now under, and when we are released on 2 December, will we ensure that such blunt measures are not used again?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There will be a general debate on covid on 18 November, when my right hon. Friend will have the opportunity to raise these points. I cannot pre-empt the decisions that will be made prior to 2 December, but everybody hopes that our liberties will not be destroyed. Nobody wanted to take them away, but as the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) pointed out, 50,000 people have died with covid. It is a very serious problem, and difficult decisions needed to be made.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House, as well as every other Member of this House, will be acutely aware of the 3 million excluded people who have fallen between all the Government covid schemes. Many of them are facing, and have faced for the past few months, destitution and poverty. We had a debate about two or three months ago on the 3 million excluded. Would it be possible to have another debate, but this time in Government time, on those people who are facing such gut-wrenching problems?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We all have great sympathy for those people who have been excluded. We all have constituents in that situation, and it is important to raise their cases. Inevitably, even though £200 billion of taxpayers’ money has been spent, as the Chancellor set out, it is not possible to save every job that is in existence at the moment or was in existence at the beginning of March, but enormous efforts have been made. As regards a debate, the Government have set out a lot of Government time for debating covid. That is an opportunity to raise the subject in the round, and that obviously includes the people who are excluded.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Britain’s heritage is under attack, ironically from those missioned to be the guardians of it. The National Trust, while losing money and sacking staff, has commissioned an expensive review of its properties’ links with colonialism, including Churchill’s Chartwell; unheroic characters at the National Maritime Museum are re-evaluating Nelson’s heroic status; and the custodians of the Churchill War Rooms are claiming that they need to look again at Churchill’s legacy. Can we have a debate on how these charitable organisations’ purpose is being perverted by political posturing, as they all seem to be in the thrall of the militant Black Lives Matter movement? Mr Deputy Speaker, defending our history and heritage is our era’s battle of Britain.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would like to reiterate the points made in the letter sent by my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary to museums recently that they are not political campaigning institutions and they should not be intruding into today’s politics. But
“Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules,
Of Hector and Lysander, and such great men as these
But of all the world’s brave heroes, there’s none that can compare
With”—
Boadicea, Alfred the Great, Richard the Lionheart, the Black Prince, Henry V, Francis Drake, Prince Rupert, Marlborough, Wolfe, Nelson, Moore, Wellington, Gordon and Montgomery, among others. These are great heroes and we should celebrate them, and I have not even mentioned—but I will now—Caractacus. Caractacus so impressed the Romans that, when they took him to Rome in chains, they freed him because they thought he was a fine and noble warrior. We should be proud of our history, and proud of Caractacus.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Sir John, you were on personal terms with a lot of those people, weren’t you? [Laughter.]
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
Throughout this pandemic, staff at Coventry City Council have stepped up to the challenge, doing amazing work to support residents in need, but a decade of vicious Conservative cuts to budgets have taken their toll on local authorities, and now this crisis has further hit finances at the city council. Will the Leader of the House give Government time to discuss not only compensating councils for the financial hit of the pandemic, but providing them with funding to invest in the city and meet the community’s needs—from building more council houses to reopening youth centres?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It would be a great pleasure to have a debate praising the Government for the amazing support we have provided to local councils during the pandemic—taxpayers’ money—with £3 billion to help councils through this period, £400 million to support children, £1.1 billion to support local businesses, £919 million in additional un-ring-fenced funding, £465 million to support test, trace and contain activity, £100 million to support leisure centres and £32 million to support the clinically extremely vulnerable. There is £7.2 billion in total for local authorities and £24 billion of taxpayers’ money for their local businesses. Should the hon. Lady want to ask the Backbench Business Committee for a debate to praise Her Majesty’s Government, I hope it will be granted.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The situation on covid remains very grave, but there are some encouraging signs that in our capital city the number of cases continues to be considerably lower than in much of the rest of the country. With that in mind, will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to come to the Commons to enable us to discuss a regional approach, which might enable London to leave lockdown more quickly than other parts of the country in order to safeguard our economy and save livelihoods?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The plan, as my right hon Friend knows, is that we will move back to a local system on 2 December, but it is certainly worth passing on her point to my right hon. Friend, and I will ensure that he gets that message shortly.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said that there is evidence that human rights standards may not have been upheld in the way that people in care homes, particularly those with dementia, have been treated during the pandemic. There is a Westminster Hall debate later today on the effect of covid on people with dementia, but, given the seriousness, importance and urgency of this finding, can we have a ministerial statement on what the Government are doing to rectify this matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady always raises the most important points at business questions and I am grateful to her for raising that because, across the whole House, there is concern about the suffering of people with dementia during this incredibly difficult period. As she rightly says, there is a Westminster Hall debate later on today and there will be a ministerial response to that. If, after that debate, she feels that the response is not complete enough, she can contact me or raise it again next week at business questions, and I will see what I can do to get her further information.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
As a proud vice-president of the Cotswold Canals Trust in Stroud, I want to place on record my huge congratulations to the trust on winning an awful lot of money—over £8 million—from the Lottery Heritage Fund to connect our canal towns. This is the culmination of years and years of work that has included local people, hundreds and hundreds of volunteers and our councils as well. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising all involved and find time for a debate, so that we can look at the importance of our canals and waterways in our post-covid recovery?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the canals of the Cotswolds and her hard work to support them as well. I offer my congratulations to the Stroud canals team and welcome the fact that lottery funds—£8.9 million—are being awarded to such causes. I am happy to say that, thanks to the stewardship of the Canal & River Trust, our canals are in rude health and well-funded by a mixture of commercial and charitable donations. England’s canals are a beautiful reminder of our industrial heritage and today provide some of the defining characteristics of our country’s landscape, from Birmingham’s Venice-beating network of canals to the picturesque Kennet and Avon canal in my own constituency, which is even better than those in Venice.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Numerous Members have asked about virtual participation for those of us who are unable to attend the Chamber owing to Government advice—in essence, requesting reasonable adjustments. The answer of the Leader of the House has been no. On the 25th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the 10th anniversary of the Equality Act 2010, what message does this send to clinically extremely vulnerable people? What advice would he give me, and to anyone requesting reasonable adjustments, for seeking legal recourse to ensure that no one is discriminated against?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would say that reasonable adjustments have been made, because extremely clinically vulnerable MPs are able to contribute. They are able to have a proxy vote, so their vote can be recorded. They may participate, as the hon. Lady has just shown, in the interrogative parts of Parliament’s activities. We need to get the balance right between what can done by MPs who are extremely clinically vulnerable and what allows Parliament to carry on doing its job. I fear that that is the key point.
I hope Members will understand that although their contributions have reflected their experiences and their concerns, and those of their party, it is our responsibility to consider Parliament’s work as a whole. It is not just about the duty of individual MPs, but about the duties of our Parliament to the British people. That means that we need to be here physically for debates, votes, Bill Committees and statutory instrument Committees, because the business of Parliament needs to continue. Therefore, where it has been possible and sensible to adapt, where business has been able to continue with adaptations, that is what has been done, which is how the hon. Lady was able to appear moments ago.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Further to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), may I say that my constituents and I are very patriotic people but we are worried that aspects of our history are being woke-washed? Will the Leader of the House invite the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make a statement on the protections we can afford our nation’s war heroes from the left-wing, culture-cancelling attacks we are now observing?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Woke-washing sounds extremely painful, and I hope we will be woke-dry-cleaned pretty quickly, so that we get rid of the wokeness. I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, because we have had an avalanche of miserable, Britain-hating nonsense about our history and our culture filling the airwaves in recent months. We have only to look at Extinction Rebellion’s behaviour at the Cenotaph yesterday to see that. Left-wing troublemakers are determined to ignore our history and smear our past heroes, and not even show respect to those who gave their lives for our freedom. Her Majesty’s Government are clear about our history and our culture: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a fantastic nation with a first-class history. As my right hon. Friend the Culture Secretary said, we should never bow to the activists who want to scrub our history bare and start from year zero. We must retain and explain all aspects of our noble island’s story for the benefit of future generations.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Coastal communities, such as the gorgeous South Shields, have been hit hardest by regressive Tory policies and now by the pandemic. Members from across this House signed my letter to the Communities Secretary in September asking for a release of dormant assets to aid coastal community recovery. I know that the Communities Secretary and his team have been preoccupied recently, after his prosperous constituency was awarded £25 million earmarked for deprived areas, but will the Leader of the House please urge his colleague to respond to us?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The towns fund, to which the hon. Lady refers, is a really good way of helping high streets to improve and of ensuring their viability, and it is available up and down the country. It is an important and successful initiative, which is helping to restore high streets that faced such difficult times and have found it even harder during the pandemic. I refer her to what I said about the amounts of money made available to local government bodies during this pandemic; unprecedented levels of support have been provided, showing the strength of the centre in supporting the localities, including her constituency.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
May I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Leader of the House on the success of Parliament Week last week? In Beaconsfield, I took part in several virtual question and answer sessions with secondary schools, where the question raised time and again was whether secondary schools and students could have a definitive answer on future exams in England. There was much anxiety about that. Students just want to know and to have the ability to plan for the future, so may we have a debate, in Government time, on the importance of school exams in England for the future and wellbeing of young people? Given that it is perfectly possible to hold exams in a socially distanced manner or online, does he agree that we need a definitive agreement or commitment from the Department for Education on exams continuing next year?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Exams will go ahead next summer, as they are the fairest and most appropriate way to measure a pupil’s attainments. We are ensuring that students now have more time to prepare for their exams next year, and AS-levels, A-levels and GCSEs will mainly be held three weeks later to help to address the disruption caused by the pandemic. We are taking great steps to support all children to ensure that they do not fall behind because of the pandemic, with a £1 billion catch-up plan, £650 million of which was in the catch-up premium, helping pupils to make up for lost time in education, and £350 million in the national tutoring programme, a package of targeted funding for the most disadvantaged pupils. So steps are being taken, and exams will take place because they are the best way of judging students’ progress.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is now some four months since Baroness Cumberlege produced her report “First do no harm” on the problems caused by vaginal mesh, Primodos and sodium valproate. After four months, we have still had no firm action on this, so can we now have a debate in Government time to discuss this important issue and hear what the Government are proposing to do to implement the recommendations of the Cumberlege report?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I actually gave evidence to the Cumberlege report, as I think the hon. Lady knows, on the question of Primodos, so I have an interest in the response to that very important report. I will therefore take this up, as the hon. Lady is asking me to do.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Last year I was elected on a clear promise to level up in Burnley, and a key pillar of that is securing the towns deal that we have missed out on for so long, which will help to drive forward our local economy. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government remain committed to extending towns deals to even more places, and will he go further and give his support to Burnley’s bid?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am not sure that I can freelance and support Burnley’s bid, but I wish my hon. Friend every success with it and commend him for being such a dedicated campaigner for his constituency. The towns fund is a wonderful opportunity for regeneration throughout the regions, and he has been making a very good case for Burnley. I would say, as regards the criticism of the towns fund, that the Government completely disagree with the Public Accounts Committee’s criticisms of the towns fund and its selection programme, which was comprehensive, robust and fair. The towns fund will, as my hon. Friend says, help to level up the country, creating jobs and building stronger and more resilient local economies. Those on the Opposition Benches should be ashamed of themselves for not welcoming this effort to help—
Mr Rees-Mogg
It has been discredited only in the minds of those who never wished to give any credit to it in the first place. It is a great scheme. It is an important scheme, and I am afraid the Public Accounts Committee got it wrong.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
Given that the ongoing restrictions relating to social gathering numbers will prevent businesses from hosting their annual much deserved Christmas parties, could the Leader of the House tell us whether the Treasury and HMRC plan to review the use of the social benefit allowance this year? If they do not, will he join me in urging them to do so and perhaps to allow for a transfer of the tax allowance to enable employers to provide our key workers with a gift equivalent to thank them for their efforts throughout this most challenging of years? Does the Leader of the House agree with me, and will he support me in ensuring that this can happen?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is always dangerous for any Leader of the House to trespass on matters relating to decisions that will be made by the Treasury. The Treasury will make its decisions and announce them in the fullness of time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I should like to thank the Leader of the House for his statement. Before the next ministerial statement, on Her Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee, we will have a three-minute suspension to enable the safe departure and arrival of Members of Parliament.
Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Her Majesty the Queen will, in just over a year from now, mark the 70th anniversary of her accession to the throne. As the House will hear from the Culture Secretary in a moment, the Queen’s platinum jubilee will be marked by national celebrations.
A platinum jubilee has never been achieved by a sovereign before in the history of this country. Hon. Members may feel that it would be appropriate for both Houses of Parliament to present a gift to Her Majesty to mark this historic occasion. In 1977, to mark Her Majesty’s silver jubilee, the fountain in New Palace Yard was built. In 2002, to mark the golden jubilee, the sundial in Old Palace Yard was installed. In 2012, to mark Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee, the stained glass window in Westminster Hall was created. The House will therefore be pleased to hear that arrangements are in hand for a gift to Her Majesty from Parliament to mark her platinum jubilee in 2022.
Preliminary arrangements are being made. A cross-party project board, with Members from both Houses, has been established to decide on this gift and oversee the delivery of the project. Following his work organising the diamond jubilee gift, I have asked the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) to lead this project. As was the case in 2012, when hundreds of parliamentarians contributed towards the diamond jubilee gift, this gift will be funded by personal contributions from Members of both Houses entirely at their own discretion. It is proposed that no public funds will be spent on the gift. I will be outlining more details of the gift and the ways in which hon. Members may contribute, if they wish to do so, in the new year.
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a brief and important statement about the Government’s plans to mark Her Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee in 2022. The 6th of February 1952 marked the dawn of a new Elizabethan age in our United Kingdom. For a nation emerging from the rubble of the second world war, the new monarch represented an opportunity for a fresh start and a brighter future. The seven decades since have seen a huge amount of change, progress and—at times—turmoil. Fashions, technologies and many Prime Ministers have come and gone, but throughout there has been one constant: Her Majesty has been the golden thread that binds us, uniting our kingdom.
As you said, Mr Speaker, 2022 will represent an extraordinary milestone for Her Majesty, for the country and for the Commonwealth. No British monarch has ever celebrated 70 years on the throne, and I know the entire country will want to come together to celebrate Her Majesty’s remarkable reign, reflect on her legacy and look forward.
To honour this extraordinary historic occasion, the Government are working with the royal household and devolved Administrations on an extensive programme that will unite every generation in all 54 countries of the Commonwealth, from the south Pacific islands to the Canadian Arctic, in celebration of Her Majesty. There will, of course, be the traditional nationwide fanfare of street parties and celebrations, building up to a special four-day platinum jubilee weekend that we will celebrate by moving the late May bank holiday to Thursday 2 June and adding an additional bank holiday on Friday 3 June.
We are working with the United Kingdom’s leading creative minds to make this a jubilee weekend to remember—one that mixes the best of British ceremonial splendour and pageantry with cutting-edge artistic and technological display, recognises the global contribution made under Her Majesty’s reign and offers thanks for her seven decades of unwavering public service. It will involve a mixture of spectacular moments in big cities, as well as local events in towns and villages across all our United Kingdom.
We will of course continue to honour some proud jubilee traditions. When Her Majesty’s great, great grandmother, Queen Victoria, reached her 50th year on the throne, she issued a special medal to mark her golden jubilee. Her Majesty has graciously approved plans to issue her own platinum jubilee medal, to be given to those who work in public service, including the armed forces, the emergency services and the prison services.
As you said, Mr Speaker, Parliament is preparing its own jubilee gift, organised by you, Sir, the Lord Speaker and, of course, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), and we are working on a series of legacy projects that will serve as an enduring tribute to Her Majesty.
We will of course unveil further plans in the coming months as they develop, but 2022 will be a landmark year for the United Kingdom. The platinum jubilee will be the jewel in the crown of a series of events showcasing the very best of this country to its people and to the rest of the world, including the Birmingham Commonwealth games and Festival UK 2022. After a very difficult year where we have come together to fight the common enemy of coronavirus, I am sure that the House will want to join me in looking forward to happier times for our great nation, when we will be united in celebration instead.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I very much welcome the statement and the announcement that you just made. I thank the Secretary of State for setting out the terms of his statement, published last night, and I join him in his desire to look forward with optimism to this celebration.
We warmly welcome the good news that Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee will be recognised by an extra bank holiday, as I am sure do many people up and down the country. The Secretary of State’s reference in his newspaper article today to the celebration in 2012 of the London Olympic games evokes for many of us a much happier time—one when we all came together to celebrate and mark our shared values. We all look forward to a time when we can have street parties, watch live performances, listen to live music and be together. Those are all things whose absence is so keenly felt at the moment.
Of course, 2022 is already shaping up to be a big year of celebration, with the centenary of the BBC and the hosting of the Commonwealth games in Birmingham. It is in very large part due to the Queen herself that we see the success of the Commonwealth as a group of nations working together, despite huge differences and the historical context from which it was formed. We look forward to hearing more about the plans to make these celebrations bring together our whole United Kingdom, as well as the Commonwealth, as we get nearer to 2022.
The numerous qualities displayed by Her Majesty throughout her long reign of dedicated service—in particular, her incredible work ethic, her kindness and her patience—represent the very best of our values as a country. As we live through one of the most difficult periods of her reign, it was a source of comfort to millions when the Queen addressed the nation earlier this year. Her promise that “We will meet again,” echoing the words made popular by Dame Vera Lynn, who sadly passed away this year, were especially poignant for millions of people for whom the Queen has been a constant in their lives.
The Opposition echo the Secretary of State’s hopes that the country will emerge from this dark period in time for these celebrations and that they may be a way to mark a new optimism for our future as we reflect on the great changes that have taken place over the past 70 years.
Oliver Dowden
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, and I am very glad that we will be able to proceed with this on a cross-party basis. She was absolutely right to highlight also the centenary of the BBC, which will of course take place in 2022, and Her Majesty’s role in the Commonwealth and, indeed, the comfort that Her Majesty gave the entire nation in the darkest days of the coronavirus. This in turn, in 2022, will be our opportunity to thank her for all she has given the nation.
Mr Speaker
Let us head up to the west midlands to visit the Chair of the Select Committee, Julian Knight.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) [V]
I welcome this announcement; it is right that our United Kingdom recognises Her Majesty’s lifetime of service in this special and unique way. Does the Secretary of State agree that this bank holiday could also provide an opportunity for a reset for UK tourism, and will he commit to carrying out the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s recommendations for the tourism sector: a national campaign to restore consumer confidence in tourism, a tourism data hub and the implementation of a full review with the Treasury on long-term support for the tourism sector?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the challenges faced by the tourism sector. Tourism is about bringing people together; doors have been slammed shut and planes grounded, and it has been a very difficult time. I very much hope that 2022 will be a moment when the sector can really take off and we can showcase the very best of our United Kingdom around the world. We will be taking advantage of this opportunity to boost tourism, and I am of course carefully examining all the proposals that my hon. Friend has outlined.
Mr Speaker
Let us head up to Ochil and the SNP spokesperson, John Nicolson.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Seventy years in the one job is a remarkable achievement, and we on these Benches congratulate the Queen on the occasion of her platinum jubilee. My mother, who died this summer, was the same age as the Queen. A left-wing, pro-European Scottish nationalist, she always had a bit of a soft spot for her contemporary. Mum was not a natural monarchist, but she shared a sense, as so many of that generation do, that they had gone through a dark time together; the war, she felt, had given them a bond.
The UK has changed beyond all recognition in the seven decades since the Queen came to the throne. In 1953, we were still living with the brutal consequences of a war that had seen slaughter on an unprecedented scale all across Europe and the far east. We were a new nuclear power; rationing was in place; and we were to have a new national health service treating people on the basis of need, not money. Families like my own no longer needed to live in fear of facing a choice between food and medicine. It was an age of deference: our colonies were demanding and getting independence; and there were stirrings of demands for Scottish independence, with the first SNP Member of Parliament elected in Motherwell. Westminster MPs were arguing about Europe, however, so perhaps some things have not changed that much. We recognise the years and dedication Elizabeth I, Queen of Scots, has put into a job she might not have chosen.
Politicians often have a peculiar idea of what the Queen is going to enjoy when they arrange parties for her—who can forget her look of elation when standing in the dome with Peter Mandelson one damp London Hogmanay? So I make a plea to the Secretary of State: try to arrange a shindig she would really enjoy—maybe a ceilidh; at 96, I think she deserves it.
Oliver Dowden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and perhaps I should put on record my thanks to the Scottish Government, and indeed the Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments, for their support in bringing this together. He is absolutely right to highlight both the constants and the changes throughout Her Majesty’s reign. He is also absolutely right that we want to make this a party and a celebration to remember. One of the things that was always put up on the wall during the Olympic games was, “Just make sure it’s not like the millennium dome celebrations.” I shall not comment on it this time around, but we are ensured that we have the very finest brains and minds to make sure that it is a great occasion.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend recognise the sense of duty of not just the Queen but the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, who visited Harlow citizens advice bureau recently in recognition of its hard work? In paying tribute to the royal family, will he also pay tribute to Harlow CAB, which has done so much to help those who are struggling or facing difficulties in their lives?
Oliver Dowden
I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to Harlow citizens advice bureau and, indeed, citizens advice bureaux up and down the country, which, as I know from my constituency, have done so much to support people during this difficult coronavirus. He is absolutely right to highlight the role of other senior members of the royal family. All of them will join in marking this celebration and be involved in events up and down the nation during 2022.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
The platinum jubilee is a wonderful prospect and we know that the Queen loves Scotland. May I say, as a Scottish MP, that that love is deeply reciprocated? I suggest to the Secretary of State that one way to mark the jubilee would be to give each and every school the length and breadth of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland a small seedling tree. Irish yews could be given to schools in Northern Ireland, Scots pines in Scotland, English oaks in England and Welsh oaks—the sessile oak—in Wales. The pupils could plant and nurture these trees as a long-term project and it would teach them about the environment, our native species and what climate change and global warming is all about. It would be their contribution to helping the environment of our country.
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good suggestion. I am trying to resist the temptation to reveal some of the plans that we are working on, but I can say that we are looking at the idea of a Queen’s green canopy, working with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. We will plant trees up and down the country.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I got terribly excited yesterday when I heard that my right hon. Friend would be making this statement, and of course I welcome his announcement. Will he commit to coming forward with further statements when he can announce as part of the celebrations an unveiling of a new statue of Her Majesty the Queen and a statue of Dame Vera Lynn? And will he fix something that is an obvious omission? Previously, every time we have had a jubilee celebration, there has been a city status competition, and we need that so that Southend becomes a city.
Oliver Dowden
I must say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when I was looking at the call list, I had an inkling that this might come up. Of course, we are considering exactly that proposal and we will make further statements shortly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for the encouragement that he gives us all across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in relation to the celebration. I, for one, am delighted to hear the wonderful plans for Her Majesty’s jubilee. It excites me to my core as a loyalist and as someone who supports the royal family. I am not alone in this. I represent Strangford and, as is the case across all Northern Ireland, we have a massive community of service personnel; their loyalty to the Queen and to duty saw many of us through tough times. Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that as well as being a part of the national events that he has referred to, Northern Ireland will see additional funding to ensure that we are able to celebrate our Queen as we so wish to do? How will that funding be allocated in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Oliver Dowden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We want to ensure that this jubilee is celebrated by all generations and people from all different backgrounds and all nations of our United Kingdom. In terms of funding, we are discussing the settlement with the Treasury as part of the spending review. The principal role of Government will be to ensure things such as the security of events, policing and so on. We will look for private contributions for individual celebrations, but we will work through the details of that and come back to the House shortly.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
It is great to follow my friend, who also happens to be the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). On that theme, as a long-term friend of Northern Ireland and a member of Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, may I ask that when the Secretary of State looks at the programme, he ensures that a senior member of the royal family spends some time over those four days in Northern Ireland, where—as my right hon. Friend, I and all Members fully understand—Her Majesty is held in huge regard by the people who live there?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the affection for Her Majesty shown by the people of Northern Ireland, and I am quite sure that senior members of the royal family will be travelling to Northern Ireland as part of the celebrations of jubilee year.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the update from the Secretary of State, and given the year that we have all had, this is a welcome announcement indeed. He is in such a generous mood, so will he tell the House, as a commitment to the Union, whether he has had chance to address calls from across Wales to commemorate St David’s Day with its own dedicated bank holiday? I also hope that the platinum jubilee medal will be made at the Royal Mint in my constituency, and I would appreciate it if he confirmed exactly what conversations he has had with the Welsh Government about their involvement in commemorating the Queen’s platinum jubilee.
Oliver Dowden
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We are working very well with the Welsh Government and my officials are in close contact. I have written to my opposite number in Wales. On her point about St David’s Day, there are many calls for bank holidays, and I am sure those will be considered through the normal process, which is overseen by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. On where the medal will be minted, she has made a strong case and I will take that into consideration.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
The celebration of Britain’s first ever platinum jubilee will mean that the eyes of the world are placed firmly upon us. As well as showing our deep appreciation for Her Majesty’s years of unwavering dedication to public service, does my right hon. Friend agree that the jubilee celebrations present an exciting opportunity to showcase the very best of Britain’s cultural and artistic talents, including from those in Bishop Auckland?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the great talent in her constituency. It is one of the great opportunities of this jubilee to harness the talents of the creative industries and the best of British tech as we look back in ceremonials and forward with new concepts. I am sure that people from her constituency will contribute to that process.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
As we come out of the coronavirus pandemic and look to recover over the next few years, it is vital that we focus our money and attention on those most in need of our support. Does the Secretary of State not agree, then, that in this time of economic hardship we should not be spending excessively on ceremonies, pageantry and celebrations, but rather should focus on supporting those least well off and those hardest hit by this pandemic?
Oliver Dowden
Of course, we are providing support for those hardest hit, although I shall not go through all the detail of that at the Dispatch Box now. I am of course mindful, and I know the royal household will be mindful, of ensuring that money is spent wisely through this process.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I dissociate myself from the rather ungracious remarks made by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar). I warmly welcome the platinum jubilee bank holiday and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his statement. Does he agree that these celebrations ought to be truly national, and will he join tens of thousands of people from Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland in expressing deep appreciation of Her Majesty’s unblemished and extraordinary record of public service?
Oliver Dowden
I am delighted to join the people of Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland in expressing that. This is the point about the jubilee: I hope that everyone across the nation will have their own way to show their thanks to Her Majesty, whether that is in street parties, celebrations or carnivals. Many ideas will come up through this process.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I want to place on record my respect and admiration for the manner in which Her Majesty has served our country and beyond—her work ethic and sensibility in a life devoted to public service spanning an incredible seven decades, which puts the likes of me to shame. Given that our world-leading creative industries, including those in and around Slough, have been particularly hard hit by the covid pandemic, will the Secretary of State make every effort to ensure that they play a central role and that all their talents are utilised in celebrating the Queen’s platinum jubilee?
Oliver Dowden
I am very happy to give that commitment. I have been very mindful of the opportunities for the creative industries. Of course, it is not just the platinum jubilee. We also have the festival of the United Kingdom in 2022, on which I am working closely with Martin Green; that will also create many opportunities for the creative industries.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
During my seven decades, I have only ever known one Head of State. This leads me to make a political point. I hope that I will not be accused of will be accused of lèse-majesté; it is only a small-p political point. Street parties are great and all that sort of stuff, but could we also proclaim the virtue of the monarchical system during the celebrations? After all, if we were tempted to become a republic, we could have President Trump or President Macron as Head of State, or, even worse, a grey, colourless figure like the German President.
There is another political point that we could proclaim, which is that the only reason that we have a Union between Scotland and England is that we had a Union of the two Crowns and James VI of Scotland became James I of our country. That is another thing that we could proclaim: our United Kingdom.
Lastly, we could proclaim the fact that the Queen is the Head of State of several Commonwealth countries, particularly very important ones such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Can we take that opportunity to proclaim that union, which is particularly important for culture, trade and defence following Brexit? Perhaps a senior member of the royal family could take the opportunity to visit those countries.
Oliver Dowden
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight all three points. I am an ardent monarchist, and the jubilee provides an opportunity to remind us of the benefits of monarchy. He is absolutely right to talk about the role of the Commonwealth. Although plans are still being developed, I am quite sure that members of the royal family will wish to visit other Commonwealth nations as part of this process.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
I fully recognise and respect the service undertaken for almost 70 years by Queen Elizabeth I, Queen of Scots. My parents’ generation held her in great affection, and they took me to a street party to celebrate her coronation. However, my next street party attendance will definitely be on the occasion of Scotland gaining her independence. Another bank holiday will be welcome, bringing us nearer to the European average and providing folk with an opportunity to reflect on how this country has changed over the last 70 years.
Oliver Dowden
I am quite sure that many millions of Scots will look forward to a party celebrating Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee more than to a celebration of such narrow nationalism.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I, too, welcome today’s announcement. Does the Secretary of State agree with the importance of ensuring that these celebrations truly are nationwide in every community? Could he help to arrange, perhaps via the national lottery, for some small grants to be made available to community groups so that they can organise events on those important days?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course we will be working with the national lottery, and we will be looking at ways in which we can seed and support such celebrations in every part of the country—the four nations and all parts of England.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I have a birthday at the start of June and I still have fond memories of the silver jubilee, when a bus conductor spotted my third birthday badge, stopped the bus outside a bakery and bought me a red, white and blue cupcake. But jubilees are not just about parties; they are a time to reflect on and celebrate change. The world of 2022 will be very different from that of 1952 or even 1977, so what will the Government be doing to ensure that young people—and adults, for that matter—can celebrate the many technological and scientific changes, and, importantly, the massive positive social changes, that we have seen over the seven decades of the Queen’s reign?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that jubilees are a celebration of both continuity and change. One theme that we are looking at as part of the jubilee celebrations is the important role of young people, and we are engaging a lot with young people as we develop the plans. We are also looking at technological developments. As we celebrate the jubilee, I hope that we will also be able to showcase the very best of British technology.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) [V]
I had the huge privilege of being Lord President of the Privy Council for two years, and I saw at first hand how incredibly seriously and devotedly the Queen carries out every single one of her constitutional duties. Does my right hon. Friend agree that she really has been a rock for the world in a time of such turbulent change and so many challenges?
Oliver Dowden
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: the monarch does not just exercise a ceremonial role. Her Majesty genuinely takes a deep interest in matters of state, as many Ministers and former Prime Ministers will attest.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
As part of the jubilee celebrations in 2012, the Queen visited Vernon Park in my constituency, and we had a brilliant party, celebrating the best of Nottingham and the best of Britain. We are ready to do it all again 10 years on, whether that is in Vernon Park or the many green flag parks in my constituency. I seek from the Secretary of State his commitment to hold events around the country and his personal support for an event in north Nottingham.
Oliver Dowden
I am happy to give my personal support to an event in north Nottingham and, indeed, in every town and village up and down our nation. The one thing I might resist committing to, given our experience during the diamond jubilee in 2012, is doing anything on the River Thames again.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The celebration of the platinum jubilee is for not only the residents of South West Hertfordshire and this country but people throughout the Commonwealth. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a real opportunity to reaffirm the links of fellowship and affection throughout the nations of the Commonwealth, which help to truly make global Britain happen?
Oliver Dowden
I am a fellow Hertfordshire MP, and of course, Her Majesty the Queen has close links to Hertfordshire, since that is where the Queen Mother grew up. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of the Commonwealth. The links we have to Commonwealth nations are one of the great strengths of our nation, and no one has done more to promote the Commonwealth than Her Majesty the Queen.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
The Secretary of State mentioned the Queen’s astonishing unifying effect, which we saw most recently in her address to the nation during the first covid lockdown. As one of the many millions of Scots who the Secretary of State rightly said will be celebrating the Queen’s platinum jubilee, will he assure me that the Queen’s ability to unify the four nations of the United Kingdom will be reflected, and will he encourage the Scottish Government to reflect that in whatever jubilee celebrations take place, including in my city of Edinburgh?
Oliver Dowden
I am quite sure that the city of Edinburgh, which is home to a royal residence, will play a central role in the celebrations in 2022. Of course, in celebrating the platinum jubilee, we will celebrate the remarkable Union of our four nations—possibly the most successful union of nations in modern history.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
In the long history of our nation’s monarchs, Her Majesty is one of the greatest ever, and her platinum jubilee will be a significant and wonderful moment. Our nation, and certainly the people of Harrogate and Knaresborough, will want to recognise and thank her for her wisdom, dedication and service and then celebrate it. Will there be events to celebrate up and down the country and throughout the year in which my constituents can participate?
Oliver Dowden
I am sure that all the people of Harrogate will play their role in the celebrations. There will be year-long celebrations, and then on the four days of the bank holiday weekend, there will be different moments. We will be reflecting, thanksgiving and celebrating. It is not just a party; it is really a moment to say thank you to Her Majesty.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I feel a bit sorry for the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), only knowing one queen. I have known quite a few in my time; some of them have even been members of royal families. One of the great changes that has happened during this Queen’s reign is that gay men have managed to achieve phenomenal changes in social attitudes in this country. There are many people able to marry the people they love, and that was not possible when she came to the throne. I just hope that this will be a genuinely diverse celebration. I am sure it will, and I fully welcome it.
I hope that it will not just be big events in big cities, but that there will be big events organised from the centre in small towns, in places such as Treorchy, which would run a brilliant event. We have lots of male voice choirs, and we even have a few drag queens, so we could put on a really good show. I hope that the medal will be minted in the Mint—I cannot think of anywhere else where one would want to mint anything other than in the Mint, the Royal Mint, in fact, in Llantrisant.
One tiny word of caution. I remember that, in the 2002 celebrations, because it was a long weekend, there were lots of medical problems because the NHS had not really got itself together to think about how to deal with lots of people with long-standing medical problems. We need to think about that, but otherwise, let’s have a great old party.
Oliver Dowden
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support. He raises an important point about the NHS, and I will pick that up with our colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care. He is absolutely right to highlight the huge changes that we have seen in our nation, but, at the same time, we have had this constant of Her Majesty. That is the essence of the celebration. He is absolutely right about diversity, and it is so important that everyone in our nation feels they can come together and celebrate, and that the celebration reflects the diversity of modern Britain.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
And we have even had the first openly gay Member of Parliament elected as Deputy Speaker under her reign.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
With the positive news this week that there is a vaccine on the horizon, we can look forward to a future in which we can start to get back to normal. Will my right hon. Friend work with me to assist those in North Devon who will be planning to celebrate our monarch, who has served us in both good times and bad?
Oliver Dowden
Yes, of course. I am sure that North Devon will put on a fantastic show to celebrate Her Majesty the Queen’s platinum jubilee and, further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), there are opportunities to have celebrations in each part of the UK, in every town and village, and to come together for larger national celebrations as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State for the statement he has made today, and we will now suspend for three minutes for the safe departure and arrival of Members of Parliament.
Point of Order
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Wes Streeting
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for the chance to make this point of order on behalf of my constituent Harpreet Chahal, regarding her husband’s visa application. This has been ongoing since March. Her husband’s visa application was initially refused, but the decision has since been overturned. Her husband Mr Singh submitted his documents, including his passport, to the Home Office, but they have not heard back for weeks. The reason I raise this as a point of order is that I have written to the Home Office and made a number of representations. My most recent letter, at the end of September, has gone unanswered. The complication here is that Mrs Chahal has given birth to a baby and the father has not had a chance to see his wife or his child for months. I do not usually raise casework in this way, but this is such an awful case and it points to wider issues that I know Members across the House have experienced in terms of correspondence with the Home Office. Even if there is a delay, I think it is right that the Home Office should keep us informed so that we can keep our constituents informed. That is why am I raising it in this way.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for prior notice of the point of order. Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear on several occasions that when Members of Parliament write to Government Departments, those Departments have a duty to respond to the Member of Parliament as quickly as possible. Members on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order and I hope they will make absolutely certain that the Department is made aware of it.
Backbench Business
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Refugee Communities: Covid-19
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House is deeply concerned by the ongoing humanitarian crisis facing refugees across the globe; has considered the secondary effects of the covid-19 pandemic on refugees and displaced persons in fragile or low-income states; and calls on the Government to provide urgent support to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries and communities as they deal with the covid-19 pandemic.
I am incredibly grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, to its co-sponsor my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and to cross-party colleagues who supported the call for it.
If the pandemic has taught us anything, it is that we are interconnected as a global village. We breathe the same air, drink the same water and enjoy a shared humanity that transcends borders. In that spirit, this debate addresses the plight of the world’s refugees in the face of coronavirus, and calls on the Government to do more to help.
This is not just a crisis across Asia, Africa and the middle east; it also affects Europe and the UK, as we have seen desperate people make perilous voyages across the English channel this summer and the terrible tragedy of refugees drowning at sea. These are desperate people exploited by criminal gangs and failed utterly by the international community.
As the MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, I can claim some connection to the word “refugee”.
It was originally coined by the French Huguenots fleeing religious persecution after 1685, many of whom came to Spitalfields in my constituency and left their mark on the east end’s streets, architecture and heritage.
The east end was home to many thousands of Jewish refugees in the 1880s. Jewish refugees from Portugal gave us fish and chips, and much else, of course. After 1881, Jews fleeing pogroms in the Russian empire came to the UK, and in the 1930s they came fleeing the Nazis; they included my hon. Friend from the other House, Lord Dubs, who escaped in the Kindertransport train. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude for all that he has done, and continues to do, to fight for refugee children. It is a great shame that our Government have not taken up his powerful case for our hosting refugee children.
We have accepted refugees who have fled civil war and conflict in many parts of the world, including the Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin, and people from eastern Europe, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia and Iraq. As a nation at our best, we provided them with a welcome home, and a chance to succeed. We have benefited, of course, from their contribution to our politics, culture, economy and much else, which has added new dimensions to our Britishness. Of course, there are also the incredible contributions of many great figures, such as Karl Marx. There have been contributions to our business community, too—the founder of the Tesco family came from my constituency—and to many other fields.
The landing has not always been soft. There have always been bigots putting up barriers, and blaming and stigmatising refugees, but they have thankfully been in a minority. The UK can be proud of welcoming refugees, and of its global contribution to protecting them, for example through the role that Clement Atlee and Ernest Bevin played in the 1950s in founding the United Nations and the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. There was also, under the Labour Government, the establishment of the Department for International Development, which this Government have sadly abolished in the middle of a global pandemic. I know the Minister will say that it is business as usual, despite the merger of DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; I hope so, when it comes to protecting the poorest in the world, who need our support.
Today, the refugee crisis is on a scale that none of us could have foreseen. Nearly 80 million people—more than the entire British population—have been forced out of their home by conflict and persecution. Among them, nearly 26 million are classed as refugees, over half of whom are under the age of 18. These children and young people have been uprooted and displaced at the most important time in their life. Millions of stateless people have been denied nationality and citizenship; access to basic rights, such as education, healthcare, and employment; and freedom of movement. They are often crowded into unsanitary camps, in which, despite the efforts of global non-governmental organisations, national Governments and the international community, there are huge issues in accessing healthcare. Life expectancy is incredibly low and infectious disease is widespread in them—and this is before we take into account the impact of coronavirus.
Over half of those affected by the Syrian refugee crisis have been displaced into refugee settlements. There are camps in Chad housing Sudanese refugees; camps on the Tunisian-Libyan border; the Kakuma camp in Kenya, one of the largest in the world; and camps in Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan and Yemen. Of course, millions of Syrian refugees are being hosted by Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and many other countries. One of the biggest camps in the world, in Bangladesh, is for the Rohingya people fleeing murderous violence and what the UN has described as ethnic cleansing; there is an International Court of Justice case on genocide committed by the Myanmar military and Government. Millions of people are living in that camp in temporary accommodation. I saw at first hand the impact on people, the vast majority of them children and women, of the unimaginable violence and genocide committed by the Burmese military. These people cannot work, and are traumatised by what has happened, having lost everything. Homes and villages were burned down; their mothers were raped in front of them, and their fathers and the young men in their family were murdered. Those were the testimonies that I heard when I visited those camps in 2018.
There is also the Syrian crisis, which we have been witnessing for many years. I visited the Beqaa Valley in 2013, at the beginning of the crisis, and saw the impact of that conflict on the children in particular, but also on the men and women. The situation persists, and the international community has failed to force the Syrian Government to end the war. Many have argued, including the president of the International Rescue Committee, David Miliband, that the camps should be closed down, with refugees being allowed to integrate into communities and to work. We also need to do more to enable the right of return for refugees, which means that much more action is required of the international community to look at ways of dealing with the root causes of the conflicts that have often led to people being forced out of countries—whether it be Syria, Myanmar or elsewhere.
The tragedy is that the huge financial commitment required to host the sudden influx of refugees is placed on the shoulders of the countries that are least able to afford it. Eighty four per cent of the world’s refugees are living in developing countries, and seven out of the top 10 developing countries hosting refugees are considered fragile states in the OECD’s fragility framework.
Although many countries suspended their refugee resettlement schemes due to the coronavirus pandemic, many of them have now resumed, but not here in the UK. The Government have also cruelly voted down the Dubs amendment, which would have guaranteed family reunion rights for child refugees after our withdrawal from the EU. I call on the Minister today to think again and work with his colleagues in the Home Office to make that happen. If there is one way to pay tribute to the courage and determination of Lord Dubs, who was a child refugee himself, this would be the way to do it, and I hope the Minister will take that on. The UK has accepted only a small number of refugees and asylum seekers, amounting to about 0.25% of the UK’s total population. Let us compare that with what some of the poorest countries are doing in hosting hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, refugees.
This year, on top of all the problems facing refugees, we have seen the impact of the pandemic. We know that covid-19 thrives in crowded, cramped conditions where people cannot wash their hands frequently and where medical assistance is extremely limited. We know also that the Moria refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos, which is one of the biggest in Europe, desperately needs assistance. CAFOD is warning about the Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon, saying that the concern for the large refugee populations is that social distancing, self-isolation and frequent handwashing are nearly impossible in the communities in which they live. This problem is widespread—whether we look at Syria, Lebanon, Bangladesh or elsewhere.
From the Greek islands to Gaza and from Bangladesh to Botswana, the pandemic is set to sweep through the world’s refugee camps, and we need to do more. The United Nations Secretary-General has said that the covid-19 pandemic
“is menacing the whole of humanity–and so the whole of humanity must fight back,”
That is surely the right approach. In early April, more than 200 Members of Parliament signed a letter to the Prime Minister, which I co-ordinated, calling for urgent support. Those calls remain necessary. Our call was for the UK Government to support the UN’s $2 billion global humanitarian response to covid, to scale up the public health response, to support refugees who need help, to deliver personal protective equipment, to work with international partners, the World Bank and the IMF to cope with the impact of covid in middle income countries, and, of course, to support the UN General-Secretary’s call for a global ceasefire, including any UN Security Council resolution for a global ceasefire, to de-escalate conflicts in many of the parts of the world that are giving rise to the forced displacement of people.
The Government have gone some way to provide humanitarian assistance, but we call on the Government to do more on this particular agenda—on ending conflicts, holding to account certain Governments who are not doing enough, and also working with the international community to provide the much-needed funding.
For many years, I have campaigned with colleagues from across the House on the Rohingya crisis, so I want to focus my final remarks on the plight of the Rohingya people who have faced, as I said earlier, incomprehensible atrocities, killings, torture, executions, mass deportations, the razing of villages, and women and girls enduring gang rape and other forms of horrific sexual violence. I heard their testimonies at first hand when I went to Rakhine state in 2013 and then in 2017 and then to Cox’s Bazar, which hosts a million refugees from Myanmar who have been persecuted.
We have just recently marked the third anniversary of hundreds of thousands of people fleeing to Bangladesh to escape the genocide, but the genocidal violence against the Rohingya in the summer of 2017 did not come out of the blue. It came from a combination of decades of persecution, systematic discrimination and the denial of citizenship and basic human rights. In Myanmar, there has been and continues to be a significant escalation of violence, and the UN continues to document violence against children, including killings, maiming and sexual violence. The recent clearance operation was among the worst, and hundreds of thousands of Muslims who live in Burma continue to be vulnerable.
Earlier this year, The Gambia lodged a case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice. Canada and the Netherlands have formally joined the case. As penholder for Burma in the UN Security Council, the UK should follow suit, and I have called the UK Government to do so time and again, as have others. I hope the Minister will be able to take that on and follow the lead of The Gambia, the Netherlands, Canada and a number of other countries in the prevention of genocide. This particular case is so important, because it will prevent the Burmese military from committing further atrocities and prevent people from having to take their lives in their hands once again. That is why it is so important that our Government support that move.
In terms of what we do next and how we provide support to those who desperately need it, I draw attention to the calls by former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who has said of the refugee crisis:
“This is not a problem in far-off lands that rich countries can ignore”.
There is growing demand that the Governments of the developed world, including our own, shoulder more of the responsibility. It is in our interest. That means we need to provide funding. I know the British Government are doing some of that, but we need to go further. We need to lead the way, working with the new US Administration. We need to act to try to ensure that there is a proper global health and economic recovery plan for those countries, because that is what will stem the rise in conflict, the increase in refugees and people being forced out of their homes, and it will help to reduce conflict.
We need to double funding to the World Bank for emergency aid. We need to provide more support to the International Monetary Fund to help those countries, so that they do not end up being desperate and the economic troubles do not cause further conflict and division, thereby causing more people to suffer and end up as refugees. We also need to do more to tackle climate change, which will create more refugees. In Bangladesh, 30 million people are likely to become climate refugees, so there is a great deal that we need to do going forward.
I hope our Government will take a stronger role in the international arena. If global Britain means anything, it means our responsibility to help the poorest in the world, because it is in our interests to do so. If we do not, those refugees out of desperation will want to flee and come to the shores of Europe, and we have seen the shameful experience over recent years where we have not been able to respond as generously as some of the poorest countries have.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she agree that we must do our part in the UK, particularly when, as we did just after I was elected in 2015, this House voted to bomb Syria? I did not vote for that, but none the less, a majority of Members did. Where we are bombing countries, we need to be taking responsibility when people are displaced from those conflicts.
Rushanara Ali
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that many conflicts have been caused by failures of the international community, so we bear a responsibility, whether it is Iraq, Libya or Syria. We need to act. We need to provide refuge to those who end up being displaced, and also we need to take action at the international level to bring an end to the conflicts that continue to rage.
In conclusion, we need our Government to take action, not only to provide the humanitarian assistance, but to work hard to hold to account Governments who are causing persecution, Governments who are failing to protect their populations and Governments who are actively responsible for ethnic cleansing and genocide in countries such as Myanmar. We also need to take a stronger role in mobilising support in the international community to provide more assistance to those countries; refugees are among the most vulnerable in the world, and covid has exposed them to even graver danger. We must protect them against the virus. We must press the world’s Governments to step up aid programmes, end conflicts, tackle poverty and prevent the deaths of tens of thousands of displaced people around the world. If we are to tackle this pandemic, in the words of the United Nations Secretary General,
“we are only as strong as the weakest”.
This is not just a matter of humanitarianism; it is also a matter of self-interest.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
May I ask Members to be mindful that we have not only the call list for this debate, but another debate to follow? Both debates are on important subjects, but it all has to finish by 5 o’clock, so please be mindful as to the length of your contributions.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this debate and for her speech, which demonstrated her own commitment to this agenda. As she said, she represents a part of London that demonstrates the proud history of this country in welcoming some of the poorest people from around their world to make their home here and make an enormous contribution to our national life. I pay tribute to her and I agree with much of what she said.
In this crisis, as a country we have turned inward somewhat; we have looked to our own problems and challenges. We have discovered our neighbourhoods and lived more locally. We have discovered, in many ways, that we are citizens of somewhere, each of us in our local lives, yet we are also citizens of the world. As the hon. Lady said, we know that the poorest people are most at risk and most vulnerable to the effects of the global pandemic. I am incredibly proud of the UK’s record this year. The Government have committed significant sums—£750 million—to the global fight against covid-19, much of it for the poorest countries in the world, with £300 million alone to be spent in the region of Syria this year.
Beyond the immediate response to the crisis, we have a very proud recent record of contributions to the imperative of building up the global economy and the economies of the poorest countries in the world. I wish to draw attention to a remark made by the World Bank last month, which observed:
“With the notable exception of the UK, which has been an absolute leader, the contributions by governments have been…flat or declining”.
It is talking about the contributions we made of nearly $4 billion to support the poorest economies in the world, which were more than those of the United States, Japan, France and many other leading countries.
Much more can be done, and I recognise many of the points made by the hon. Lady, but I wish to focus on what we here in the UK are doing for refugees, where we still have major responsibilities to fulfil. She mentioned unaccompanied children, so I wish quickly to make the point that I regret that Opposition Members persist in pretending that this Government are somehow hostile to family reunion for refugee children—that is patently untrue and it would be political madness if it were true. Their making that point is irresponsible, as it causes fear and anxiety where none is needed. The Government are absolutely committed to creating reciprocal arrangements with the EU to ensure that unaccompanied children can continue to be reunited with their families, and I have confidence that that will happen. There will be a review of the routes that unaccompanied children can take, which will be presented to Parliament and be accountable to this House.
Another area where we need more progress is on refugee resettlement more generally. I hope the House will acknowledge that the UK’s record in recent years, simply in terms of the numbers of refugees resettled here, is the best in Europe and one of the best in the world. For understandable reasons, the resettlement programme has been halted this year. I entirely understand why—the host countries have restrictions on access and travel and our local authorities are hard pressed enough as it is—but I urge the Minister to give the House and councils an update on when they expect resettlement to restart and on whether the new UK resettlement scheme, the global programme, will replace the current system for refugees from the middle east. I know that my council in Wiltshire is keen to know the plan and is looking forward to clarity.
Perhaps a more significant question than how many refugees we can receive in this country is the question of how we receive them and what sort of help we can give them. As I have said, I think our Government are generous, but they are only as generous as a Government can be. They can only give out money and give people rights to services. That is what Governments do. Refugees get free accommodation, free healthcare and free education. They also get their council tax and utility bills paid and they get a weekly cash allowance, but that is all the Government can do. We can argue that they could give more cash, but they cannot provide more than money. Human beings need more than money, especially if they are new to a country or an area.
Hannah Bardell
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman probably means well, but his characterisation of the UK system certainly does not chime with the constituents I see coming to my surgery week in, week out. In particular, he talks about what this Government can do, saying that all they can do is give cash, but I disagree with that in the strongest possible terms. In Scotland, as I will set out in my contribution, we set up a scheme where Syrian doctors, nurses and health professionals have been able to retrain and come to Scotland, and they are now at the forefront of fighting the covid-19 pandemic. I am sorry, but I do not buy what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Surely he and his Government must recognise, as the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) said in her speech, that so much more can and should be done.
Danny Kruger
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I absolutely agree that there is more that can be done than giving out money, but it is not just the responsibility of Government to do that. That is the point I want to make. We need more than welfare, and more than a roof over our heads. Our needs are higher up the hierarchy of needs than that. We need friends and we need culture. We need agency, responsibility and a sense of purpose and belonging, and we need work to do, as she says. All of this is the responsibility of all of us in society.
I want to end with another tribute to the Government, this time for the community sponsorship scheme, which was first introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was at the Home Office. It was inspired by the way in which refugees in Canada have been resettled over many decades. It is an inspirational model whereby refugees—individuals and families—are received into a community by a local community group working with the local authority and the public services. They provide so much more than a house and welfare. They provide English language support and employment and training support, and they provide friends and opportunities to access local social networks, faith communities and so on.
There are two such groups operating in Wiltshire, and they are doing a tremendous job. They have supported families to integrate properly into our communities in a way that the council on its own would never have been able to do. For example, we have a tailor that we did not have before in Wiltshire, working away; we have a painter and decorator; and we have people working for the council. We also have a whole range of new volunteers making a tremendous contribution to our community. These are the new Huguenots that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow referenced. They are enriching our county and our country, and they are welcomed by local people. This is the model we need much more. These community-sponsored refugees are in addition to the 5,000 a year commitment, but I think it should be the basic model by which we receive and welcome refugee families into our country. This is the model; this is the way we will build a more integrated community and fulfil our obligations to the world.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate on covid-19 and its effect on refugee communities, and I would like to place on record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on leading the charge. At its core, this is about the injustice of millions being forced from their homes by genocide, hunger and war, and the injustice that 85% of refugees find shelter not in the richest nations but in low and middle-income countries where healthcare systems are already under-resourced and overstretched. It is also about the injustice of the pandemic now threatening the most vulnerable displaced people far from their homes. As David Miliband, CEO of the International Rescue Committee, said:
“We know coronavirus doesn’t respect borders and that it hits the vulnerable hardest”.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that there are 86.5 million people today who are refugees—stateless, internally displaced or seeking asylum.
Like many hon. and right hon. Members, I recently had the pleasure of visiting a refugee camp, thanks to the efforts of the Yunus Emre Institute. The camp in Gaziantep, on Turkey’s border with Syria, is home to thousands fleeing the civil war. Turkey has opened up its heart and borders, providing compassion, shelter and food to Syrian refugees. I met refugees learning new skills and heard about their efforts to find work. One thing that stayed with me is its sheer size and scale, and I think that is true for camps across the world. The Kakuma camp in Kenya has roughly the same population as the city of Oxford. The Tindouf camp in Algeria has the population of Lincoln. The Adjumani camp in Uganda has the population of Durham. Bangladesh, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow mentioned, hosts almost 1 million Rohingya fleeing genocide, over 600,000 of whom are concentrated in the Kutupalong-Balukhali expansion site—more people than the city of Manchester.
These camps are vast, sprawling settlements filled with people traumatised by violence, malnourished, preyed upon by people-traffickers, and anxious about their future. Camps across the world, from Syria to Jordan, from Bangladesh to Calais, and in and around Yemen, have one thing in common—they are overcrowded and susceptible to infectious disease. In Cox’s Bazar, for example, there are 40 people per 1,000 square metres. In Moria in Greece, there are 204 people per 1,000 square metres—a situation made worse after terrible fires there. People are sharing toilets and showers, unable to socially distance, with no space at all for self-isolation.
When the pandemic first struck earlier this year, many of us were concerned that it would rip through refugee camps, but over the summer, although there were some tragic deaths in camps, the reports from the aid agencies were encouraging. Through isolating, enhanced sanitation and other measures, the scale of disaster that we feared was averted. Come November, that has changed, and all for the worse. The aid agencies, non-governmental agencies and people living in the camps are warning that we are on the brink of disaster. In September, The Guardian reported:
“Numbers of infections in camps across Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories have risen sharply throughout September.”
Similar reports are coming in from camps on the Greek island of Chios, from Mahama in Rwanda, from Ethiopia and Somalia, and from elsewhere. It is clear that we need an immediate programme of emergency aid—PPE, hand sanitiser, screens, soap, disinfectant, thermometers, oxygen hoods and other medical equipment, especially ventilators. We need doctors, nurses and paramedics on the ground. We need to maintain supplies of water and food to keep people healthy.
We need a UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that responds swiftly to the challenge. Many of us believe that it was an unforced error to merge DFID and the FCO. Now is the first major opportunity for Ministers to prove us wrong by the ambition and scale of their response to this crisis.
We should be cautiously optimistic about the prospects of a vaccine announced this week. Perhaps we have indeed turned a corner, but the vaccine will not come in time for thousands corralled in refugee camps. A cold winter is coming, and hundreds of thousands of people are at risk. The Minister must tell the House today what concrete plans Her Majesty’s Government are making to reach across oceans and borders to help our sisters and brothers and to save lives.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank hon. Members for showing great time discipline—I am really grateful for that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) for his contribution, which I think reflected a high degree of consensus on many of these issues across the Chamber, and was certainly seeking consensus on those issues where we all very much agree. I would like to spend my time focusing in particular on the impact that covid has had on three groups of vulnerable people for whom we have a particular responsibility. Those are people who have a no recourse to public funds status attached to their presence in the United Kingdom, refugee children and the people who are waiting for the recommencement—or perhaps hoping in the future for the commencement—of the new global resettlement schemes that we know are in progress at the moment.
Starting with those with no recourse to public funds, this has been the subject of a good deal of debate in Westminster recently. While there is a high degree of recognition that the NRPF status is an answer to retaining public confidence that people are not coming to the United Kingdom simply to access benefits and welfare support, in a time when there is a national crisis, as there is at the moment, it presents some particular challenges. When we begin to look beneath the surface of how the policy is operating in practice, we see the suggestion that it may be time for a reconsideration of the way we apply that policy.
We heard from the Minister during a Westminster Hall debate on this topic that, on average, 90% of requests to remove NRPF status are agreed by the Home Office and that they are agreed very quickly—generally, within a period of 28 days. I recognise that the NRPF status is complicated. For example, many people come to the UK on working visas with NRPF as a part of that. People who come as investors can be very wealthy individuals who are unlikely to face destitution, but the fact is that in the event that people face destitution, local authorities have a duty to step in and to provide financial support. Clearly, we are kidding ourselves in this place if we think that NRPF status means that there is no cost to the British taxpayer in providing that support, and we need to consider whether it is in the interests of the welfare of families who may be facing destitution as a result of that status to allow time for a reconsideration in line with what the day-to-day real practice of the Home Office has been in supporting this particular group.
Moving on to the question of refugee children, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes is absolutely spot-on in identifying that the UK has a very honourable and long-standing record when it comes to supporting refugee children. Since 2015, the numbers coming into the care of local authorities in England has, on average, doubled. There has been a very significant rise. A lot of the political debate has focused on those referred to in the Dubs amendment, but of course the practical experience of local authorities that have been accommodating young people is that that status, clearly defined as it appears to be in the Westminster political debate, is often illusory. Young people are brought to the United Kingdom on the basis that they have a family connection here, but if that individual is not in a position to take parental responsibility under the terms of the Children Act 1989, we are moving that child from the care system of one country into the care system of the United Kingdom, so it is not in practice a process that is largely about family reunion. That is less than one in 10 of the children who are affected.
Hannah Bardell
The point the hon. Gentleman makes about taking children from one care system to another seems slightly inappropriate—more than slightly inappropriate—given that we are talking about countries, by and large, that are war-torn and do not even have the basic structures of health and social care, never mind a childcare system. I think it is important that we focus on the reality of the many families who are displaced and what they are leaving, and the fact that they are not necessarily coming to the UK or other western countries out of choice, but out of desperation.
David Simmonds
The hon. Member makes a very good point about the context of many refugee children who come to the United Kingdom, but of course it is not a point that is relevant in the context of Dubs, which is what I was speaking about. The point of the Dubs amendment is that it committed the Government of the UK to go to other countries in Europe and identify children in those countries who are unaccompanied and bring them into our care. They were already, in the terms of the Dublin agreement, in a country that was defined as safe, whatever the circumstances that may have pertained before they left the country that they had been in before that had led to their becoming a refugee.
I would like, however, to highlight a particular concern. The UK’s response in respect of refugee children, commendably, has been the national transfer scheme. We recognise that, under the Children Act 1989, a child who is unaccompanied in the UK, by operation of law, becomes the responsibility of the local authority where they are. Local authorities such as Kent, my local authority of Hillingdon and Harrow next door have taken in significant numbers of children, and other local authorities around the country have stepped up to say that they would be willing to offer places to support those young people as well.
There has been a good deal of debate about the remarks made by some concerning activist lawyers, but it has been brought to my attention that a number of those young people awaiting transfer to other local authorities that are willing to take them in order to create more capacity for the United Kingdom to support refugee children are being advised—legally speaking this is absolutely correct—that they are within their rights to refuse to move. It would be really helpful if Ministers gave some attention to how we can ensure that the national transfer scheme can do its job effectively.
Additional funding has been provided so that young people can be supported by local authorities that are not the ports of entry, but if young people are being told that they should refuse to co-operate with the process, the system will gum up and we will lose the capacity we have to provide that support. That is a genuine concern. Those lawyers are acting entirely within their rights, but none the less it calls into question our ability to provide the most effective support we can and increase our capacity to take in more refugee children.
On the vulnerable persons relocation scheme and where it goes next as a global relocation scheme, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes made the robust point that many of us are waiting to hear what the new scheme will look like when it comes into operation. I heard an announcement that we were beginning plans to resume the VPRS—the Syrian resettlement scheme—because there are already a number of families identified for that safe, legal route to come to the United Kingdom who, because of covid, have not been able to make the journey here. I very much welcome the news that we will see those moves resuming. The UNHCR describes that resettlement scheme as the global “gold standard”, and two former Prime Ministers and the current one do deserve credit for maintaining a life-changing route into the United Kingdom that satisfies that standard of being safe and legal.
While the UK remains the biggest donor outside the United States on resettlement and aid efforts, access to that safe and legal route is incredibly important. Therefore, like my hon. Friend, I would welcome hearing from the Minister when we might expect that programme to commence to ensure that we continue our commendable and honourable efforts on refugee resettlement in the global covid crisis.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on securing this important debate. As she said at the outset, we are united in our common humanity in terms of how we treat refugees and asylum seekers, and we should always remember that refugees are people first. That should be the context for our policies and how we behave towards refugees. They are people who have lived through unimaginable horrors—stuff that many of us have absolutely no comprehension or understanding of. Quite frankly, who would uproot themselves, their lives and often their families and make perilous journeys across land and sea unless they had no other choice?
I have listened to some of my constituents, and quite frankly I do not know how they have survived what they have been through. When I hear some of the less positive things said about refugees and asylum seekers, it really strikes home how important it is that we all stand up, make these points and put them on the record. Among the Government’s catalogue of cock-ups this year, their response to the refugee crisis, particularly with respect to those involved in the channel crossings, was one of their finest. Not only was it wholly incompetent, but it was devoid of compassion. I repeat what I have just said: I ask all of us to try to put ourselves in the shoes of a refugee or asylum seeker before passing judgment.
UNHCR estimates that there are nearly 80 million people displaced across the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) has already mentioned. The key drivers of displacement—conflict, famine and climate change—have continued during the pandemic. The importance of the international community, including the UK, working together to tackle these drivers cannot be understated. I hope that the Minister can provide reassurances that the assimilation of the Department for International Development into the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office will not lead, now or in the future, to international development and peace making being less of a priority than they need to be. Again, my hon. Friend also mentioned that.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The hon. Lady cites a figure of 80 million refugees. Having dealt with refugees and worked for the UNHCR myself, I know that there is a difference between a refugee and a displaced person. Does that 80 million include the category of displaced persons, which by definition means people who have been chucked out of their home or village but remain in the country? That is quite an important distinction. I wonder whether the 80 million includes displaced persons. If it does not, there are a damn sight more than 80 million.
Debbie Abrahams
I was citing statistics, for which I have a reference, that refer to them as displaced persons. I am very happy to provide those, which are actually from—
Debbie Abrahams
Yes.
Contrary to some of the disgusting racist rhetoric about refugees on social media platforms, most displaced people find refuge in countries neighbouring their homes. We know—it has already been said—that it is the poorest countries, including Aruba, Pakistan, Uganda and Sudan, that provide refuge for the majority of asylum seekers, hosting more than 90% worldwide.
Having fled their country and claimed asylum, refugees often end up in the densely packed camps that we have heard about. Of course, by its very nature, covid thrives in those environments. These displaced peoples, the world’s most vulnerable, are forced to shelter with little in the way of healthcare or access to water, let alone PPE. At the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, where 76,000 Syrian refugees shelter, Médecins Sans Frontières has reported a covid outbreak in recent weeks. The head of mission there said that it is clear that the densely populated refugee camp can make it
“very difficult for people to follow simple preventive measures such as handwashing, wearing a mask and physical distancing.”
Self-isolation is another matter. In this country, we are rightly told to cover up, to wash our hands and to make space, but that simply is not possible for many refugees, at home and abroad. As I said, self-isolation is near impossible in the conditions in which many live.
At home, in response to the covid pandemic, the Government decided to pause the refugee resettlement scheme in March. I was interested in the comments made by the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on this matter. We know that other countries—France, Spain, Italy and Germany—have already had reinstated their schemes, so I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why we have not yet done so and when he expects us to.
In lieu of safe routes, we have seen thousands attempt the extraordinarily dangerous channel crossing—a crossing that recently claimed the lives of five members of an Iranian-Kurdish family. Without any form of safe route, more will attempt that dangerous journey. The Government say that most of these crossings are facilitated by criminal gangs seeking to exploit vulnerable migrants trying to reach the UK. According to the Immigration Minister, so far this year 24 people have been convicted and jailed for facilitating illegal immigration. I applaud that, but, again, without the implementation of safe routes to the UK, more people will make these journeys and risk their lives in an attempt to seek safety. As well as covid-19 having devastating impacts on refugee communities abroad, in our own country refugees are also suffering. My constituency is home to a number of refugee families, and I have had casework where those seeking asylum have had their asylum applications delayed as a result of the pandemic. My experience of the length of asylum applications is certainly not that it is the six months that the Government say it is; it is closer to two years, and I have some asylum seekers for whom it is stretching into years after that.
To add to this hiatus—this pause in people’s lives; they cannot get on with living their lives—by having it extended by the pandemic must feel like purgatory, and it has had a huge emotional impact on the families involved. For asylum seekers in a house in multiple occupation, not only is it difficult to socially distance, but with £5.39 a day to cover everything, buying PPE and hand sanitiser cuts deeply into their allowance—although I know some food banks, including my own in Oldham, have been providing them. In this environment, it is understandable that for many asylum seekers poor mental health is made even worse.
Other people have raised the difficulties they have faced after asylum has been granted. Many support services have been closed and some refugees do not have access to the internet or phones. Local authorities, as throughout this pandemic, have felt the brunt of the pandemic and faced difficulties in housing residents. I have had reports of refugees becoming homeless after receiving their legal status, as the Home Office has continued to remove people from Serco housing with nowhere left for them to go. One woman took 53 days to receive accommodation after being given leave to remain, relying on the kindness of strangers when the Government withdrew support without her having any accommodation whatsoever.
I know these hardships faced by my constituents will be replicated across the country. Refugee Action has spoken of the impact this has had on the physical and mental wellbeing of refugees. It has also highlighted its frustration about the ability for organisations to operate, citing difficulties with the co-ordination of services, remote learning and maintaining contact with those they are supporting. In Oldham, I have seen first-hand the extraordinary work performed by the food bank and other charities, such as the British Red Cross, Revive and the Boaz Trust in Manchester, who have supported the most vulnerable people in society throughout the pandemic, many of whom are from the refugee community. It has struck me throughout this pandemic that it is those who have the least who are doing the most, and I urge people: if you have the opportunity, please do participate. Before the covid pandemic, these charities used to organise meetings and I also urge that, where possible, these meetings be reinstated.
Asylum seekers and refugees want to work—they want to contribute—but we have a system that does not afford refugees the dignity and respect they deserve, and the pandemic has exposed these glaring issues. I know of medical professionals from Syria who want to work but who are not being allowed to, and I again urge the Minister to speak with his counterparts in the Home Office.
It was fantastic news at the beginning of the week when we heard about the success of the covid vaccine trials from the Pfizer and BioNTech partnership, but that provides a salutary lesson: it is a German couple who started out life as Turkish children and became migrants who have managed to do this. This is a fantastic good news story, and we should learn from it. The Government must help all people to use their abilities and to flourish in this great country of ours, including our refugees and asylum seekers.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on securing this important debate.
This year, especially during the first covid lockdown period, much has been said and written about people attempting to reach our UK shores by boat. That treacherous crossing covers 18 miles of water between mainland Europe and Dover. We have heard the comments from pundits and politicians who want to build walls, either physical brick barriers as favoured by a former President or floating marine fencing ideas, allegedly investigated by our own Government.
Whether through increasing patrols of our waters, putting people in cages, prison cells or detention centres indefinitely, or leaving them statusless and unable to work, join family or simply make a home, the narrative is clear: they are unwanted and unwelcome here. They are detained, locked up, cut off and encamped in muddy, disease-ridden, ramshackle, makeshift and flimsy canvas or cardboard shelters that are not fit for purpose, and not fit for families, for children and for pregnant women—not even for animals.
To everyone who has ever shared anti-immigrant hatred and fear on social media, I would like to say, “Imagine it was you. Imagine it was your family. Imagine that you knew that staying in their place of birth was so dangerous that it was better, safer and a little less horrifying to attempt to cross an incredibly lethal stretch of water in an unsafe boat—overcrowded, ill-equipped and with the chance of drowning a very real possibility.”
In countries such as ours, we seek thrills and recreate fear by taking up certain pursuits. We set ourselves challenges and push ourselves to the limits of our endurance. We leave our comfort zones and get up off our sofas, run marathons and fling ourselves out of helicopters, mostly to raise money for those we want to help, those less fortunate than ourselves. Refugees are, of course, much less fortunate, and they do not get to go back to their sofas after an adrenalin rush as we can. Every hour of every day lived in a war-torn country, those dangerous thrills that we seek are an unavoidable way of life. Dodging bombs and bullets, persecution, torture, prison or death sentences are real-life everyday scenarios. Every single day, someone may not return home safely from school or work. Every day can simply be a fight to stay alive.
When those people—having spent months, decades or a lifetime living with everyday danger and risks as well as death, fear, terror, pain and loss—decide that they cannot endure another day of that and step up the danger to unimaginable next levels by seeking to trust a stranger who they have heard might help them to get out, how can we blame them? They sell what they can, get hold of whatever money they can and put their lives and their families’ lives in the hands of anyone offering a route out.
The Government rightly talk about the vile practices and lack of humanity of people traffickers, the criminals and gangs seeking to profit from people’s suffering, but what is the alternative for those desperate enough to risk their lives? When they do, what awaits them if they survive the journey here? The covid pandemic has greatly increased an already significant backlog in processing asylum applications. Charities such as the excellent Kent Refugee Action Network, or KRAN, do their best to support young, mostly unaccompanied asylum seekers. Kent County Council is struggling to meet the housing needs of those needing urgent accommodation as there is not enough affordable housing across east Kent. This is a particular problem for young people when they reach the age of 21. Young people are isolated, facing the lack of a college place, often of any decent accommodation at all and of any help with language, and they have no way to connect online to learn or access services or to find missing family members.
With the proper support, young refugees can and will contribute much to our society. They want desperately to work, become British citizens, pay taxes and raise families like several generations before them. We have many examples of those who have come to Britain seeking asylum, fleeing terror or war. To name just two, one of the best of people, as we have heard before, is Lord Alf Dubs, an incredible man who has dedicated his life to the safety of children who, like him, had to escape to a new place; and Gulwali Passarlay, a former asylum seeker, is the author of “The Lightless Sky”.
I urge the Government to pledge directly to help those countries in dire need of aid so that we create fewer refugees, fewer homeless and displaced desperate people, and less of a food, insecurity and climate emergency, and to allow the still relatively tiny numbers of the most desperate people to seek asylum here and a safe new start.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), who is active in her community in supporting those groups that, in turn, support refugees. In certain counties such as Kent, more is asked of some of our coastal communities, and it is wonderful to see the help that comes forward, as she said, from many disadvantaged people, who perhaps see in those images on television something of their own past.
At a recent event in my constituency, to which I invited Lord Dubs, the audience were asked, “Who here has an experience of a refugee?” Nearly everybody put up their hand. Many of my constituents are either children of refugees or have a real heart for refugees.
As my hon. Friend said, a tiny number of people who migrate to the UK are refugees, which is why we must redouble our efforts to stamp out the terribly cruel scenes that we see on our television scenes. One such example is the tragic death of Mercy Baguma, a refugee woman who died on her own, apart from her young baby, who was found a day later, crying and malnourished. Tragically, that is how this woman was found, in a flat, which had been provided by the Home Office.
I am sure a lot of this comes down to the fact that covid has made people so much more isolated. Had this woman had someone to reach out to her and had there been a visitor, perhaps a member of a faith community from a church, mosque or temple, who popped in to see her, we would have known about her. In my constituency, the Muswell Hill Methodist church refugee group is being hampered in its efforts to keep up the visiting and a phone call just is not the same.
I pay tribute to the Centre for Survivors of Torture and War Trauma and the Helen Bamber Foundation, which look forensically at the various physical and mental tortures that individuals have experienced in their journey as refugees or in their war-torn countries. Those are the sensitive situations that people come from, which make them terribly lonely when they arrive in the UK.
I want briefly to mention the important work of the British Red Cross for those who seek family reunion. We are very aware that there is a safety issue for people seeking to regularise their status and join family here in the UK. Some people have to travel for days to have their paperwork stamped. Will the Home Office, together with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, look urgently at that, particularly when people are unsuccessful? They have often made a big, expensive and unsafe journey, perhaps with small children and other family members, only to be unsuccessful in their request for asylum or refugee status. I am sure that we can find an easier way, in this day and age, with the technology that we have, such that the recommendations from the British Red Cross could be urgently adopted, without further ado.
I want briefly to highlight two fantastic civic society campaigns, which have certainly seen the light of day here in the Commons, but which are definitely worth mentioning in the context of the debate. The first is Lift the Ban, which is about lifting the ban on asylum seekers working. Once people have requested asylum, they then have six months. The campaign requests that, in the period after that, people can apply for work. We in this House know that many refugees are over-qualified. Some of those who have had to escape are perhaps architects, university professors or engineers, and they bring a special skillset. Of course, those skills often are not recognised, but we are all aware of the wonderful refugee whose name escapes me, but who ended up as a cleaner in the NHS. He speaks like a BBC presenter; he is wonderful. He reminds us of the contribution to the NHS that so many refugees have made.
The amendment tabled by our own Lord Dubs has been the subject of discussion today. The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) rightly mentioned the burden that falls on local authorities and the fact that they must be paid adequately to look after refugees. There is no point doing these programmes on the cheap, especially for younger refugees, who have particular mental health trauma. They need proper services and proper support. I hope that in his concluding remarks, the Minister will give us a response, even if just to confirm that he will speak to the Home Office about lifting the ban on asylum seekers working. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said, it is terrible that people have applied for work but are sitting around lonely, unable to work. Lifting the ban on asylum seekers working would not only assist our job market but assist those refugees to integrate much quicker, wherever they find themselves.
As we debate the new arrangements for refugees following Brexit, bearing in mind that they are a very small part of the total number who migrate to the UK each year, I hope we will look carefully at how we could implement the Lord Dubs amendment in a way that is fair and recognises the important work of local government, but provides for those who are most affected by war in their countries and have family members here. There is a way forward, and we must do it properly, in conjunction with local authorities and best practice.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who speaks passionately and eloquently about this issue. I echo her request for clarification on the ability of asylum seekers and refugees to work. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this much-needed debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting us the time to speak on this vital issue.
The world is undergoing a global pandemic, and although the measures are often not perfect and support does not always go far enough, for those with a roof over their head, support from covid economic packages sometimes means that there is a lifeline. We must remember that at the end of 2019, there were almost 80 million people displaced from their homes, of whom 40% were children, many fleeing bombs, bullets and persecution. For them, the pandemic is much more severe.
No mother or father ever dreams of fleeing bombs with their children, trying their utmost to ensure that their children can see another day, but that is the reality for so many refugee families. In recent times, we have seen the direct results of this from the Syrian crisis and those fleeing Burma, Sudan, Palestine and many other countries. I mention that because, when speaking about refugees, some have deliberately or ignorantly ignored the tragic reality of their background. Tragically, many have perpetuated rhetoric towards refugees that is not only misleading but hugely dangerous. It is important that we not only stand up to the hatred that is unfairly directed towards refugees but ensure that we provide them with clarity, support and kindness.
I hope that those who have been misled by racist stereotypes suggesting that refugees are some kind of uncivilised invaders of the west, coming here to steal their railway jobs, will take their time and listen to this debate. The reality is that 90% of refugees are not hosted in Europe or the United Kingdom. Nearly 90% of the world’s refugees live in developing countries, which often struggle to provide basic services. The UK does not even come in the top 10 countries that host refugees. Additionally, according to the United Nations, there are more than 25 million refugees in camps around the world who are currently facing particularly acute obstacles in the fight against covid-19.
Refugees are not travelling on expensive airlines for a new role as expats in a new land. They are fleeing war. They are making perilous journeys across dangerous land and sea, often dying on the way. Just a few weeks ago, Rasoul Iran-Nejad, his wife Shiva Mohammad Panahi, and their two children Anita, nine years old, and Armin, six, drowned as they tried to reach Britain by boat—an entire family gone. Can we even begin to imagine the trauma, stress and fear for parents fleeing and taking such a dangerous journey? If we cannot extend to them the support they desperately need, the very least we can do is show some compassion and kindness and stop the dangerous anti-migrant rhetoric.
I am sorry to say that that goes for the Government too. In recent years, the Government have stepped up their anti-migrant rhetoric. This summer, the Home Secretary suggested that Navy warships should be deployed to tackle the rise in people crossing the English channel. Just over a month ago, news broke that Home Office officials had debated whether wave machines should be used to push back dinghies to France, and that the Home Secretary had considered relocating refugees to Ascension Island or St Helena—remote islands in the middle of the Atlantic ocean. Those plans were condemned by the UK’s representative to the UN.
Added to this, the Home Secretary lashed out at “activist lawyers” giving legal support to those seeking asylum and refugee status in the UK, and attacked “do-gooders” advocating reform of the asylum process. Lord Dubs has already been mentioned today, as he came to the UK as a six-year-old refugee fleeing Nazi Germany. He has said that the comments made by the Home Secretary were
“so hostile and quite unworthy of a British home secretary.”
If we are going to be sincere in truly helping refugees, we have to challenge the hate-filled rhetoric about refugees that is unfortunately peddled. Sadly, this Government need to take a real, hard look at how they are adding fuel to the fire. As human beings, we should consider how we would like to be treated if we were one of the families desperately fleeing death.
At the height of this pandemic, the effects on refugees have been exacerbated. In my constituency of Bradford West and across the country, we have experienced refugees and asylum seekers in crisis over the covid-19 pandemic. The reality is that pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing destitution and poverty among the refugee and asylum seeker community. Internationally, conditions are much worse, so morally, the UK should play its part.
On 22 July, the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs tried to avoid parliamentary scrutiny by quietly announcing up to £2.9 billion of cuts to the aid budget as Parliament headed into recess. Given the scale of need for refugees, will the Minister confirm that the UK will not turn its back on people fleeing persecution, and outline whether his Department plans to cut funding for refugees in the 2020-2021 financial year?
I am very proud to come from Bradford, the city of sanctuary. I thank those who work hard to support asylum seekers and refugees across Bradford. Of course, the reality of the situation is not always tragic. From bringing fish and chips to the UK, to the chairman of my local synagogue in Bradford, Rudi Leavor—who published the memoirs of his own journey to the UK only a few weeks ago—the cultural contributions made by refugees here in the UK and around the world enhance our lives, and are to be remembered, celebrated and welcomed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank everyone for their contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for initiating the debate and setting the scene so well. This issue is vitally important. As we have heard today, refugee communities are some of the most vulnerable groups in the world. That has also been highlighted in a number of debates over the last fortnight or three weeks in both the Chamber and Westminster Hall. Today is an opportunity to make that very point to the Minister in the main Chamber.
These refugees have lost their homes and their livelihoods, often due to horrific violence, and they face countless overwhelming challenges such as finding sources of income, adequate shelter, and healthcare and treatment, all of which are exacerbated by the global pandemic. Last week, there was a debate in the Chamber about the vaccine. At that stage we did not know that there was going to be an announcement, but we were asking whether the vaccine would be available across the world. The last people to get any vaccines or any help throughout covid-19 are the refugees. It is those people who are at the end of the queue; very often, they are so far back that they are at the end of the end of the queue. As Refugees International has stated:
“For refugees, COVID-19 is a health crisis, a socio-economic crisis, and a protection crisis.”
To illustrate the incredibly stressful economic problem faced by refugees, let me quote Tearfund’s country director for Jordan and Lebanon, Karen Soerensen, who said:
“Many of the refugees we work with rely on cash in hand for informal work day-to-day.”
I am old enough to remember back to the ’60s, when money was not plentiful, and—let’s be honest—many of us lived hand to mouth. That was the way it was, because money was not available in the way that perhaps it is now. I can understand when people have to live day to day, and have to work to buy food for their family for the next day. These people can only buy a day’s food at a time and they do not have savings to fall back on. People are stuck indoors in cramped conditions. Deliveries of bread, water, gas and medicine are permitted but unaffordable. When I hear those prices on TV programmes and read about them in the papers, I find it impossible to believe that anybody can afford those things. The consequences of the restrictions people now face are overwhelming. Without work, their families will not be able to eat. It is a terrible situation for people who have already suffered so much. Our thoughts and prayers should be with all those families.
In addition to those challenges, many marginalised communities in countries around the world have faced intensified discrimination since the outbreak of covid-19. The UN Secretary-General has described this phenomenon as a “tsunami” of xenophobia. Refugees and migrants often already face significant stigmatisation from host communities, and this has been exacerbated by the covid-19 crisis. According to the UNHCR:
“Even though it has no scientific basis”—
but that does not stop people saying it—
“refugees and asylum seekers are held responsible for spreading the virus in many countries during the pandemic.”
That is absolutely outrageous and untrue, but when people are fearful they do and say things that are untrue.
That is also the case with certain Governments, who are using the virus to advance policies that harm refugee and migrant communities, under the banner of protecting public health. For example, Uganda has announced the suspension of reception of all new refugees and asylum seekers, which harms the rights and safety of those individuals. Compassion is sadly missing.
The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) referred to Lord Dubs and the work he has done for refugees, particularly the Kindertransport children. My constituency of Strangford and my council area of Ards were recipients of some of the Kindertransport children back in the late ’30s and early ’40s. I never fail to be struck by the poignancy of TV programmes that show those children, who were separated from their parents, coming across and resettling in England, Northern Ireland and, in this particular case, Millisle and Carrowdore in my constituency. Many of them stayed and never went home. Our relationship and historical ties with Germany are very important.
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief. I am very pleased to see the co-chair, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), sitting on the Opposition Front Bench as the shadow Minister, and I know she will register some of our concerns as well.
I want to discuss the plight of the Rohingya Muslims. I said in a Westminster Hall debate last week that Rohingya Muslim refugees, who have already suffered extraordinary violence, are now suffering again in camps in Bangladesh due to covid-19. I put on the record my thanks to Bangladesh for what it is doing, but, while we can only do so much, we cannot abandon those people. The restrictions placed on humanitarian agencies by the Bangladeshi Government are isolating Rohingya refugees and having a devastating impact on their wellbeing. Those restrictions range from humanitarian organisations being permitted to do only certain types of work, or to do it in a certain way, to them being allowed into the camps for only a set number of hours or, in some cases, not being allowed in at all. Therefore, they do not even have the data about the help that people need.
The impact of the restrictions has been so great that in June many Rohingya perceived the secondary impacts of covid-19 containment measures to be a greater threat to their overall wellbeing than covid-19 itself. That shows the extreme conditions that some people are living under. While many acknowledge that covid-19 is a risk, it is seen as secondary to more immediate risks such as shelters collapsing, having safe and accessible toilets and being able to feed their families, which they are unable to do without the support of humanitarian agencies and, indeed, the NGOs.
Finally, although this does not just affect refugees, I want to make a point that I do not think has ever been made here before. I was thinking about it beforehand and want to put it on the record, because I do not think we can overlook this issue and right hon. and hon. Members may well not be aware of it. It would be remiss of this House if we failed to express our concern about the hundreds, possibly thousands, of African migrants who are being forcibly detained in horrifying covid-19 prisons in Saudi Arabia. According to a recent investigation by The Sunday Telegraph, the Saudi Arabian Government are keeping potentially thousands of African migrants in “heinous conditions” as part of a drive to stop the spread of the virus. Again, there is this perception of the virus where people think, “They’ve got the virus”. Well, no, they do not. What are you doing to help them? Absolutely nothing. Sorry, I am not talking about you there, Madam Deputy Speaker; I am talking about the Saudi Government.
These poor prisoners are kept in squalid, disease-ridden and dehumanising camps, in intense heat, with limited access to food, water and sanitation. They are often subject to beatings and ridicule from prison guards. The conditions are so terrible that at least one young boy, who had not even had a chance to see life, took his own life to escape the torment. Others have died from heatstroke and other afflictions. There is simply no reason for a country with the wealth and resources of Saudi Arabia, one of the richest countries in the world, to treat people this way, especially people who have committed no crimes and whose labour Saudi Arabia has used and depended on for years.
I know the Minister may not be able to give me an answer on this today, but I would appreciate it if he would give me an answer in the near future, if at all possible. I urge him to investigate this issue as a matter of urgency, and I request an update about any discussions he may have or be able to have with his Saudi counterparts. I also urge him to do everything in his power to work with the international community to ensure that refugees are not forgotten in this time of crisis and that they have all the support they need.
It is truly tragic that these people, who have suffered unimaginably, more than we can ever have in our minds, are yet again facing such a severe threat. It is our duty in this House to speak up and speak out for all those people and do what we can to protect them.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“With the clothes on their backs, they came through a storm, And those that didn’t die want a better life. And they want it here.”
That quote is from the pilot episode of “The West Wing”, which I have been re-watching for inspiration and, in these strange and difficult times, comfort. They are the words of the poetic and prophetic writer Aaron Sorkin, as said by President Josiah Bartlet in the series. They sum up so well the plight and experience of so many refugees, which we have heard about in spades today.
Before covid-19, the plight of refugees across the world was of epic and catastrophic proportions. What they are now experiencing has, as we have heard, only exacerbated that horrific situation. So I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) on securing this debate and pay tribute to her for such a fantastic and passionate speech, because it is vital that we shine a light on the experiences of refugees and asylum seekers, now and always. I have a fear that the media saturation about what is happening domestically with covid-19 means we will lose sight of their plight.
I think often of the book “In Extremis” by Lindsey Hilsum, which was about the life of Marie Colvin, who was killed in Homs, in Syria. The hon. Lady talked about bearing witness, and how she has gone to Burma and to Syria, as Members of this place and journalists should, to bear witness to the experiences, report back and come home to do what is possible to make their lives better. We can all imagine that the restrictions on journalists travelling mean that we are not hearing the stories and experiences of those at the forefront of the refugee crisis and the covid-19 crisis, as we would like to.
I pay tribute to all the Members who have spoken today. I wish to share some reflections from my childhood. I grew up in Livingston, in West Lothian, and my mother had a friend who was Chilean. He had escaped the Pinochet regime in Chile on the underside of a lorry, with literally the clothes on his back, because his name had been added to a list of those targeted to disappear. My early experience as a child was of hearing those stories and experiences, but I would imagine that they are very different from the level of the experiences we have heard today of asylum seekers and refugees, who are having to fight for not only their lives, but their health.
As the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said, we are an interconnected and global village. She spoke of the history of refugees coming to the UK, what they have brought and how they have enriched our society. She spoke of the Rohingya refugees and the way that the Myanmar Government and military have treated them, and I absolutely echo the concerns that she raises in that regard.
I may not have agreed with the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) on everything that he spoke about, but he did say that we are all global citizens. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said that we know that covid does not respect borders, but urgent supplies are needed and the FCDO response is not enough. He also referenced the merging of DFID and the FCO, which is a major error. Many of us have raised concerns and would agree with that.
The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) spoke of the responsibility that local authorities feel and the resource that is needed. Again, I may not have agreed with everything he said, but he made a fair point.
We have heard about the £1 billion that the UK pledged to respond to covid-19. It includes support specifically targeted at forcibly displaced populations. Donating money to the situation is of course admirable, but as we have heard time and again, the UK is not taking its fair number and doing its bit in that regard. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) summed that up when she said that the UK does not even come in the top 10 countries that accept refugees. She also spoke about the insidious and discriminatory immigration policies, Ascension Island and the concerns about the language being used by those in the UK Government around “activist lawyers”. We are in a very dangerous place as a family of nations in the UK when the Government of the day in the UK talk about those who uphold the rule of law and fight for people who are marginalised as “activist lawyers”, rather than as people who are trained and trying to do their best to hold the Government to account and make sure that the rule of law is adhered to. I would caution the Government and I ask the Minister to set the record straight on that.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the vaccine and his concerns about that, which I share. I have a company in my constituency, Valneva, that has received UK Government funding, which I advocated for strongly. I was very pleased to hear that the UK Government were not going to put all their eggs in one basket. This is something that I discussed with the company when it was awarded that funding. It is making huge progress, but refugees are some of the most vulnerable, if not the most vulnerable, people in the world and we have to make sure that they are at the forefront of getting those vaccinations. Of course, everybody will need to get one and they will be prioritised appropriately, but it concerns me and the hon. Member that the people who are most hard to reach and most vulnerable will potentially be at the end of the queue.
I was shocked by what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said. I had a line in my speech about the experience of refugees and of asylum seekers—that we in this country have a host of programmes where very privileged folk are put through their paces in survival skills, such as “I’m A Celebrity…Get Me Out Of Here!” I mean no ill will to the programme or those endeavours, but there is something—I do not know what the words are—that does not sit well with me that we make those kinds of programmes when refugees are literally fighting for their lives to get across the world. It was Gandhi, was it not, who said that the measure of a civilisation is how it treats its weakest members, but refugees and asylum seekers are not weak. Arguably, they are some of the most tenacious, resilient, stoic folk on the planet, and I think there is an irony in the fact that these TV programmes are made.
It would not be a surprise to Scots that our First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said that the UK Government
“can rest assured that any proposal to treat human beings like cattle in a holding pen will be met with the strongest possible opposition from me.”
That was in reference to the Home Secretary admitting to exploring plans to incarcerate refugees on an island off the west coast of Scotland while they were being “processed”. The inhumane language used by this Government is an absolute international disgrace. I do not know about anybody else, but when this Government’s policies start looking and sounding like a dystopian TV series that I think many of us have watched, then we have huge problems.
In Scotland, we have pursued a programme called the guardianship scheme, which one of my MSP colleagues, Angela Constance, has spoken about passionately and had a debate on just last week. For the past 10 years, Scotland has proudly run the guardianship service in conjunction with the Scottish Refugee Council and the Aberlour Child Care Trust. In those 10 years, 700 children from 38 countries, speaking 40 different languages, have been supported to rebuild their lives in Scotland across 29 local authority areas the length and breadth of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Bradford West talked, as did others, about the contribution that refugees make. In closing, I want to highlight the scheme that we have developed in Scotland that means refugees can come to work in our NHS and are literally at the forefront. We must remember, as another Member said, that we are all human beings, and refugees and asylum seekers have faced some of the worst conditions, but many have skills and want to come here and contribute. That this Government stop them doing that is a shambles and shames us all. So I call on this UK Government to put fairness, decency and humanity at the heart of their immigration policy, because at present it stands as an international disgrace.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for her perseverance in securing this important debate and her continued commitment and passion to ensure the voices of the most vulnerable and marginalised in this country and around the world are heard. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed today: the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). They all made excellent speeches highlighting not just the plight of refugees, but their vital contribution not just here in the UK, but across the world.
What this debate and the numerous ones in recent weeks —whether on Rohingya, Syria or equitable access to covid-19-related tools—show is the depth of feeling and support for development from across this House. I am proud to be standing here and responding as the shadow Secretary of State for International Development. The importance of the International Development Committee in ensuring these topics continue to be highlighted cannot be overstated. Does the Minister agree with me and Members from across this House that a distinct Select Committee focused on the Government’s development work and use of UK official development assistance is vital to ensure that these important issues are raised and that constructive scrutiny, which actually all Governments should welcome and encourage, remains in place?
In the last decade, at least 100 million people have been forced to flee their homes due to insecurity either outside or within their country’s borders. They have fled conflict, famine, environmental disasters and persecution. Some 18 million people remained displaced in 2019, nearly double the number in 2010. That is more than 1% of the world’s population. Despite the scare stories that this Government and their allies have been known to tell, the overwhelming majority of those people forced to flee their homes and countries are hosted by poorer countries. I know Members also raised this, but almost three quarters of all refugees remain in a country neighbouring their own.
The reality of why people flee their homes is heartbreaking, and we should never allow the statistics to let us forget the stories behind each number. In 2018, I met a young boy in northern Uganda in a child-friendly space providing children with psychosocial, welfare and emotional wellbeing support. He had seen his father killed in front of him at only 12 years old, and had no knowledge of where his mother was. He took his four younger siblings and fled from South Sudan to safety in Uganda, making that journey on foot. People do not choose to flee their homes unless there is no alternative for them.
As the poet Warsan Shire put it in her moving poem, Home,
“no one leaves home unless
home is the mouth of a shark
you only run for the border
when you see the whole city running as well”.
The story of the boy from South Sudan is just one of myriad devastating situations that force people to flee their home.
Over the coming decades, we are likely to see a huge increase in climate refugees. The UN has estimated that there will be 200 million people fleeing environmental disasters by 2050. Those disasters include the cyclones that we have all seen, but also droughts, floods, land degradation, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification, which directly and indirectly impact lives and livelihoods. Despite that, over the past decade, the UK Government have directed billions of pounds of public money into fossil fuel projects around the world, through UK Export Finance and the aid budget, including CDC investments.
Some 90% of the £2 billion invested in energy deals after the UK-Africa investment summit last year went on fossil fuel projects, and the Minister’s Government are funding fossil fuel projects in Mozambique using more than $1 billion of public funds. COP26 has been delayed for a year; we are looking to build back better, and ensure a safer, fairer world after the pandemic, and there are still opportunities for the Government to act and show clear leadership before they host that meeting. Will the Minister today commit to ending support for fossil fuel projects overseas, both from the aid budget, including the CDC investments, and from UK Export Finance, as a matter of urgency?
It is not only climate change that impacts migration; so, too, does the destruction of the environment and biodiversity, which affects people’s lives and livelihoods. From the Amazon to Borneo, habitats are being destroyed by legal and illegal deforestation and degradation, forest fires, over-grazing and cultivation. As well as working with those countries, we need to consider the impact that we have here. That is why I ask the Minister to support the amendment on due diligence that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has tabled to the Environment Bill.
On food insecurity, more than 250 million people face extreme hunger—a situation that coronavirus has made even worse. Of those, about 30 million adults and children could be tipped into facing famine unless there is urgent additional support. No child should face growing up with famine or malnutrition, so can the Minister explain when his Government will make a pledge to the Nutrition for Growth summit?
Those are just a few of the drivers behind people fleeing their home. We have heard about a number of others today. When people flee, we have to make efforts to support them, especially in the interim before they can safely return home. That support includes immediate humanitarian assistance, and measures to ensure that they can live full, prosperous lives—measures on providing education, healthcare and job opportunities, so we are not faced with a lost generation of children in many refugee camps. Of course, in order to do this, we need access to those living in camps, and to those who are internally displaced.
During the global coronavirus crisis, the situation for people who have already lost so much has got even worse. Many live in camps where even basic amenities, such as soap, clean water and basic medical supplies, are often in short supply. Can the Minister explain what recent steps his Government have taken to support refugees’ access to basic sanitation? In Syria, we have seen failure after failure to open up borders, or even retain existing border access. Can the Minister explain the UK Government’s strategy for dealing with the veto by Russia and China at the Security Council on this issue?
The UK has a long, proud history of standing with refugees. We helped people fleeing Slobodan Milošević’s genocide in the 1990s, and we helped 10,000 children flee the Nazis on the Kindertransport before world war two, enabling them to build new lives in our country. Despite the Government retreating from that proud history, today communities right across Britain have shown, by helping refugees from countries such as Syria, that their commitment continues to run deep. I am lucky to have met a number of them who have started a new life in Birmingham, including one—her name is Nour—who came to Parliament last year to listen to a debate that I secured on English for speakers of other languages.
Refugees do not want to leave their homes. Their stories are tragic: leaving behind their homes and livelihoods and embarking on a journey of uncertainty. That is why the work that we do here, and with the multilateral institutions, is something of which we should all be immensely proud. It is something that should motivate us to support those who are seeking refuge and a safe place to call home. With the strategic direction and the size and shape of his Department still to be determined, will the Minister recommit his Government to supporting those who seek safety and sanctuary in another place or country, and can he tell the House what the overall overseas development assistance spend towards supporting refugee communities was in 2019 and the projected spend in 2020 and 2021?
Finally, as we have seen during the pandemic, when given the opportunity, refugees have made an enormous contribution in the effort to tackle the coronavirus crisis, including in our NHS in its hour of need. Will the Minister ensure that talk of the importance of helping refugees and displaced people to become productive equal partners in their communities is recognised and acted upon across the whole of Government?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
It is good to be back at the Dispatch Box. We all worry about our own personal health and that of other families around us, so it is good to come together to discuss the health and fragility of people and refugees from around the world, most of whom, as the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) said, are outside this country, although the ones with whom we are more familiar as constituency MPs are within this country.
I thank the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing this debate. Her regular parliamentary questions come from her travel throughout the area and from her advocacy. I recommend to the House her article in “Politics Home” entitled “Poor conditions in refugee camps make them a ticking time bomb for Covid”. Although a small contribution by volume, it covers all of the major points.
Although, party politically, we always go backwards and forwards on these issues, I genuinely believe that we have more in common here than we disagree on. That is not to say that we should not debate the periphery rigorously, but the broad thrust of what we want to do is the same. I always like to distil things down into a few words, but the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) distilled this issue down into two words: people first. It is very easy to talk about internally displaced people, refugees, acronyms and numbers of 80 million, but this all boils down to one person, one family. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) said, we get up off the sofa to do ridiculous things by way of sport or endurance, but we are talking here about the lives of people who do not have any homes to go back to. Covid has made that situation a lot more complex.
Since the outbreak of the pandemic, we have been deeply concerned about the impact specifically on refugees and forcibly displaced populations, and so it is hugely welcome to discuss this as an issue. The latest figure quoted is 80 million and that includes internally and externally displaced people and refugees—people who have been forced to flee their homes as a result of persecution, conflict, violence and human rights violations. As many Members have said in different ways, one does not leave one’s home or flee across the border unless things are pretty dire. More people are internally displaced within their own countries. That is often less talked about. In fact, just to put a different number on it, one person is forcibly displaced every two seconds around the world, and that has happened for many, many years, rather than it being a temporary matter. In total, more than 1% of the world’s population at any given time is forcibly displaced, which is clearly shocking and serves as a stark reminder of the derailment of normal humanitarian hopes and aspirations, and that is further magnified by covid.
Mention was made of the promises of money. We have diverted £1.3 billion of aid to covid-specific issues, a proportion of which is specifically to assist those in the most vulnerable areas. We should be proud as a House and as a country to be spending 0.7% of GNI on international aid. The good news that GDP has come up a bit faster domestically will have an impact on what we are able to spend in the international community going forwards. That is good news not just for the UK economy, but for what we can do in terms of international development.
The impact of covid is massively amplified for vulnerable and marginalised groups such as refugees and other displaced people. There are currently 28,000 reported cases of covid across 100 countries that UN refugee agencies have as people of concern. That gives a broad number, and I hope to put a little bit of context around that as I continue.
Many find themselves living in close quarters without access to healthcare or shelter. They are in crowded camps in urban settings, where social distancing and basic handwashing are a challenge, as is isolation, and the idea of shielding is just for the birds; it is unrealistic. Even the aspiration we have in terms of density is three times greater than the density in Sao Paolo, which is one of the most populated towns in the world. Even if we get the density we aspire to in camps, it is still very close quarters.
Refugees also have the problem of not being able to access essential services, whether those are linguistic or legal, or to have basic information. We are all concerned about the secondary impacts of covid around the world, and those are just as important for refugees, and potentially more important relative to the impacts on the UK. There is less opportunity to learn, earn a living, save money and access basic assistance, and they are much more likely to face eviction and school closures. They are much more likely to be blamed for covid. There is rising xenophobia, to paraphrase the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and other risks. That can lead to all sorts of additional problems.
We know that around the world there will be greater gender inequality. Girls’ education in particular will be derailed. There is increased domestic violence and the risk of sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment. That again, sadly, is particularly the case for refugees. There will be marginalisation, social exclusion and stigma, which may mean that health services are not prioritised for those most in need.
The areas where people are refugees are predominantly to be found in neighbouring countries, which already have weaker health systems, weaker water systems and weaker sanitation systems. They are already very much under pressure, so our aid budget is aiming to assist on covid overall, but British expertise is also working to stop the spread of covid.
Members mentioned vaccines, which we are delivering through Gavi and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations. The Prime Minister was clear earlier this week that world leaders have a moral duty to ensure that vaccines, treatments and tests are truly available to all, and that will be the best defence to enable collective security and reduce the risk of outbreaks. It is in those people’s interests, but also in the national interest.
Catherine West
May I briefly press the Minister on the question of the paperwork that needs to be done for certain people trying to reunite with family members in the UK? Given the covid restrictions across various parts of the world, will his Department look at eliminating the need for travelling to those places in person and do those things online, as per the request of the British Red Cross?
James Duddridge
We work very closely with the British Red Cross and fund a number of those pieces of work. The issue the hon. Member describes is not simple and is largely one for the Home Office team, but I will discuss it with them. Our ambassadors work closely with the Home Office in post. I recognise the difficulty. The reality is that very few people are travelling at all across the developing world, and that is probably right, because infection rates are higher in some of the countries where they would be going. We should reflect on that in terms of how we provide humanitarian support through local people and local mechanisms, rather than having people getting on planes and potentially spreading the virus.
Mention was made of providing ventilators. Often the most effective aid is very, very basic—providing water and soap, countering communications around covid and providing very basic PPE. We are not talking about full bodysuits, but a basic mask that people can use when they are getting out and about. That tends to be where we are focusing as an international community.
Jim Shannon
I understand that there are some 90,000 ventilators in the United Kingdom, of which only 4,000 have been used. Is there some possibility that the ventilators that we have could be used there?
James Duddridge
Theoretically yes, but in reality no, on the basis that most places also need oxygen; it is more complicated. I am conscious of the time, so with the permission of the House I will not take any more interventions and will rattle through some key points.
I was going to go through a number of examples on the African continent, which I deal with, but sadly I cannot. I will say, in response to the hon. Member for Strangford, that Uganda is one of the best countries at taking in refugees. I have seen how it provides land and building materials. Clearly something is happening short term there, but I give credit for that.
We also have a crisis within a crisis, because there is the normal crisis of food, famine and drought, particularly in South Sudan, Yemen, north-east Nigeria and Burkina Faso. I recently travelled to South Sudan, where, sadly, there were many stories like that of the boy whom the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) met. That trip is an example of our not keeping up our development expertise—business as usual—but doing better than business as usual. I was able to go to Jonglei, meet the governor, see people and the agencies and then go back and do the political role, which is where the solution is long term. The World Food Programme has been in Jonglei state since 1963 in various ways, year after year, so in 2020 we must look back and say, “If we are still feeding people, what are we doing wrong?” What we have been doing wrong is not supporting the politicians, giving that FCO help alongside the DFID help. That is a good example of where we are being joined up. I am sure I will be held to account at the Dispatch Box in other areas where we are doing less well.
Cox’s Bazar and Bangladesh were mentioned several times. I will not repeat the million figures and the nuance of that, but as of 10 November there were 345 cases among Rohingya refugees in Cox’s Bazar set against 5,000 cases in the wider host community. Owing to limitations in testing and information, there are solid suggestions that covid is worse in refugee camps than elsewhere. We are concerned about that trajectory. Early on in the developing countries, covid cases were largely in the diplomatic and economic districts from people coming back off flights, but there is an increased contagion that we should be worried about. While the formal data does not support it, there is some anecdotal data about deaths over and above the averages.
On the broader point, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) said, in defending the Government’s position, we are among the largest resettlers, specifically of unaccompanied children. The UK does more to support unaccompanied children than any EU member state. Last year we saw asylum claims from unaccompanied children accounting for about 20% of all claims made in the UK and EU. In the year to June, 5,800 vulnerable children came, and 44,000 children—both unaccompanied and accompanied—have come since 2010. As hon. Members consistently said, most refugees are in neighbouring countries or are internally displaced persons.
This has been an eclectic debate, from “The West Wing” to praying in aid Karl Marx and the Tesco brothers for different reasons. It shows the power of the House. Madam Deputy Speaker, you have been very good—as ever I would love to go on, but I have already overrun.
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to my hon. Friends and hon. Members across the House for their powerful speeches and to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), and the Minister for their responses. Although the debate has exposed that we have much in common, we also have differences of emphasis. I hope that, if we can focus on one thing, we can build common cause in forging a much more positive narrative about how we speak of refugees and asylum seekers in our own country and elsewhere.
Too often in recent years, the rhetoric—particularly in our political narrative—has been so cruel and so intolerant that it has been deeply painful to observe. That vicious rhetoric, which sometimes, sadly, has been encouraged by certain political figures, has dehumanised refugees and asylum seekers. The othering of refugees and asylum seekers, from wherever it comes—whether it is in sections of the media or in our political discourse—has to stop. I hope that we can all work on that together, to try to build a more positive image and narrative of the contributions of refugees in our country and elsewhere.
During this pandemic, we have all been exposed to the fragility of life by seeing people in our own communities and among our families and friends get sick and some, sadly, die. I hope that we remember not only that refugees have to deal with the spectre of coronavirus, but that many have endured conflict and, as we heard, have seen family members killed and experienced rape and torture. In many conflicts, rape has been used as a weapon of war against women. We also heard about the mental trauma suffered by all refugees, but particularly refugee children and women.
As others have said, it is imperative that we work together to tackle some of these issues. We have all highlighted what can be done domestically on the “no recourse to public funds” issue, on protecting refugees in our country, on allowing them to work in order to make a living and make a contribution, and on protecting children and revisiting the Dubs proposals. We also need greater ambition in our Government to look at the global challenge—to look at leadership together—and to invest what will be in the trillions to help economies recover and to protect the millions of refugees around the world. As others have said, we also need a proper, fair way of distributing the vaccine, which is a great source of optimism for us all.
Finally, the Minister did not address a couple of points that I felt he should have addressed and on which I hope he will work with his colleagues. One was my request for the UK Government to join the Netherlands and Canada on the Gambia case in the International Court of Justice—the genocide prevention case—so that we can redouble our efforts to prevent further atrocities and the further prosecution of genocide by the Myanmar Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House is deeply concerned by the ongoing humanitarian crisis facing refugees across the globe; has considered the secondary effects of the covid-19 pandemic on refugees and displaced persons in fragile or low-income states; and calls on the Government to provide urgent support to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries and communities as they deal with the covid-19 pandemic.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will have a three-minute suspension for cleaning.
Smokefree England: Covid-19 and PHE Abolition
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Government’s ambition for England to be smokefree by 2030; notes the increasing disparities in smoking rates between the richest and poorest in society; further notes the effect of the covid-19 outbreak and the opportunities and risks provided by the reorganisation of public health on the UK’s ability to achieve this ambition; and calls on the Government to set out the further steps it plans to take to deliver a smokefree England by 2030.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I am also grateful to every Member who has given up their time to speak, especially the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I believe has already had two questions and a speech today—and I suspect that he still has an Adjournment debate ahead of him.
This debate is on an issue that is close to my heart. I must declare an interest as a former chair of the Gateshead tobacco control alliance. As the prevention Green Paper acknowledged, achieving the smokefree 2030 ambition will be challenging, especially in deprived communities where smoking rates are higher. On current progress, Cancer Research UK estimates that these communities will not reach the 5% ambition until the mid-2040s. This is simply not acceptable. Indeed, in County Durham, adult smoking prevalence is 17% compared with 13.9% nationally. This rises to 27% among people in routine and manual occupations. On top of that, 16.8% of mothers smoked during pregnancy compared with 10.4% in England.
Smokers in the north-east lose around £600 million because of unemployment and reduced income due to smoking. For working smokers, weekly earnings are on average 6.8% lower than for non-smokers, equivalent to £1,424 less per smoker annually—and this, of course, was prior to covid-19, which is disproportionately harming the health of local economies of already disadvantaged areas. Helping smokers to quit will benefit not just their health and wellbeing but their incomes, helping to level up disadvantaged communities. Smoking is also responsible for half the difference in life expectancy between the rich and the poor. For every person who dies from smoking, another 30 are suffering from serious smoking-related diseases. Disturbingly, every week in England, almost 2,000 children take up smoking, two thirds of whom will go on to become regular smokers.
With 1,500 people dying from smoking-related diseases every week, there is no time to waste. The tobacco control plan published in 2017 was for five years, which comes to an end in 2022. It has already been overtaken by events and is no longer fit for purpose in the light of the ambition for England to be smokefree by 2030, the decision to abolish Public Health England, and the Government’s manifesto commitments to increase healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035 while narrowing inequalities. If a new tobacco control plan is to be put in place in a timely manner, it needs to be in development now. The Minister may remember that the last plan was published two years after its predecessor ran out of time. We need bold announcements from the Government on tough new measures, along the lines set out in the “Roadmap to a smokefree 2030”, which has been endorsed by the all-party group on smoking and health, if we are to achieve a smokefree 2030. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government are developing a new tobacco control plan, and if not consider doing so urgently? Will he further commit to publishing a new tobacco control plan in 2021, setting out concrete measures for delivering on the smokefree 2030 ambition?
Britain is a world leader in tobacco control, having driven down smoking rates by 60% since the start of this century. However, the Government’s decision to abolish Public Health England without a clear plan for the future risks undermining this hard-won progress. The success in tobacco control has been driven by combining national population level interventions with comprehensive actions at regional and local levels.
The national function is currently provided by a combination of the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England; what is crucial is not where the function sits, but that it has protected funding and continues to exist. Furthermore, while inequalities in smoking rates remain, where regional tobacco control programmes have been in place there has been a significantly higher rate of decline. Regional programmes, such as those led by Fresh in the north-east, provide an effective bridge between national and local activity and between local authorities and the NHS. The Government must publish a clear plan setting out the future of Public Health England’s health improvement and wider functions; that is crucial if we are to achieve the Government’s interlocking pledges not just to achieve a smokefree 2030, but to increase disability-free life years, reduce inequalities, improve mental health and reduce obesity and alcohol harm.
The covid-19 pandemic makes action to reduce smoking prevalence all the more urgent. Chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, respiratory diseases and diabetes account for about 89% of all deaths in the UK and are also linked to higher rates of mortality from covid-19. A robust and sustainable approach to health improvement is vital if we are to tackle the leading causes of chronic diseases, namely smoking, obesity and alcohol and drug abuse.
However, the impact of smoking is not limited to the UK. It is estimated that at least 8 million deaths around the world every year are linked to tobacco, more than for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria combined. Over 80% of the more than 1 billion smokers in the world live in low and middle-income countries. In addition to the human cost, the impact on already overstretched health care systems puts a heavy economic burden on those countries, adding to the difficulties LMICs face in recovering from the global pandemic.
That is why we can all be proud that the UK, as a global leader in tobacco control, is providing funding via Official Development Assistance to support implementation of the framework convention on tobacco control in low and middle-income countries. The funding was £15 million over five years for the World Health Organisation’s FCTC 2030 project to support low and middle-income countries to implement tobacco control measures. The FCTC 2030 project has been very well regarded; however, funding is due to come to an end. Extending this funding will accelerate progress in ending the global tobacco epidemic, support FCTC 2030 beneficiary countries to recover from covid-19 domestically, and as the UK leaves the EU maintain our position and as a global leader on tobacco control.
This is a matter of development funding so it requires broader support than just from the Department of Health and Social Care, but the Minister’s support for the proposal would greatly facilitate the likelihood of success. Will the Minister therefore commit to supporting extending the UK’s funding for the FCTC 2030 project beyond 2021?
Aside from our international commitments, it is important that there is a focus within the UK at regional and local authority level. Smokers from deprived communities with higher smoking rates tend to be more heavily addicted than those from more affluent communities. Deprived smokers are just as motivated to quit as other smokers, but it is harder to succeed when people are more addicted, when smoking is more commonplace and when cheap, illicit tobacco is widely available.
Regional tobacco control programmes have been effective in tackling these disparities, as shown most clearly by the example of Fresh in the north-east, which is the longest-running and only surviving regional office for tobacco control. When Fresh was founded in 2005, smoking prevalence in the north-east was much higher than the average for England, at 29% compared with 24%, and the disparity was growing. Since then, the north-east has seen the greatest decline in smoking prevalence of any region, and smoking prevalence is now only a little higher than the England average. Smoking rates have also fallen faster among routine and manual workers in the north-east compared with in England as a whole. As a result, although the differential between routine and manual and professional workers declined in the north-east between 2012 and 2017, it has increased in England as a whole. The success and value of Fresh’s work is clear, and I commend it for its vital work in the region.
After the public health grant to local authorities was cut in 2015-16, the funding provided by local authorities for regional offices in the north-west and south-west was cut completely. Even in the north-east, funding has been significantly reduced. New funding streams are therefore needed. In addition, there are stop smoking services that act as a highly effective and cost-effective way of supporting smokers to quit. However, there is a stark inequity in the local authority offer to smokers across England. In some areas, stop smoking services have been scaled down or decommissioned altogether, whereas elsewhere local authorities have sustained or developed their services.
An Action on Smoking and Health and Cancer Research UK report published in January looked at the state of local stop smoking support and found that among the local authorities that still had a budget for stop smoking services, 35% had cut that budget between 2018-19 and 2019-20. That was the fifth successive year in which more than a third of local authorities had cut their stop smoking service budgets. Financial pressures caused by the cuts to public health funding and the wider pressures on local government finances are the major reason for that. The public health grant, which funds local authority tobacco control, has been cut by around a fifth in real terms since 2015-16, falling from £4 billion in ’15-16 to £3.2 billion now.
Analysis by the King’s Fund in 2018 found that wider tobacco control and stop smoking services were among the biggest losers in planned budget cuts and that these cuts have been accompanied by a 38% decline in the number of smokers setting quit dates at stop smoking services since 2015. Among pregnant women, the number setting quit dates has fallen by a fifth. This is one of the many failures of austerity, so will the Minister confirm that the Government will reverse the cuts made to local public health budgets to ensure that local authorities can play their part in delivering a smokefree 2030?
We must also recognise the value of social marketing campaigns, which have immediate impact, can be targeted with precision at disadvantaged smokers and can be highly cost-effective if carried out at a regional and national level. Such campaigns play a particularly important role in motivating smokers to try to quit. In 2016, Fresh worked with Smoke Free Yorkshire and the Humber to implement a hard-hitting quit smoking campaign aimed at raising smokers’ awareness of the links between smoking and 16 types of cancer and to trigger quit attempts, reaching millions of people. It is now thought to have been among the most successful quit campaigns to have ever been run in England in terms of awareness, attitudes and actions taken, with around 10% of people who saw it making a quit attempt—that is around 72,000 smokers. However, this regional activity is threatened by local authority budget cuts, which led to the decommissioning of the regional offices in the north-west and south-west. A smokefree 2030 fund imposed on the tobacco industry, as proposed in the Green Paper consultation, would provide vital funding for national and regional anti-smoking mass media campaigns.
Another important regional issue is the impact of illicit tobacco, which is concentrated in poorer communities. Cheap and illicit tobacco provides easier access to tobacco for children and reduces the incentive for adults to quit. In 2009, Fresh, along with colleagues in the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber, established the North of England Tackling Illicit Tobacco for Better Health programme, originally with pump priming from a Department of Health grant. The aim was to increase the health of the population by reducing smoking prevalence; reducing the availability of illicit tobacco, therefore keeping real tobacco prices high; developing infrastructure to aid information sharing, identification of illicit markets and enforcement action; reducing the demand for illicit tobacco through campaigns raising awareness of the issue; engaging with relevant health and community workers; and finally, regularly monitoring smokers’ attitudes and behaviour to measure the effectiveness of the programme.
Between 2009 and 2019, the illicit market share declined by a third in the north-east from 15% to 10%, and enforcement was enhanced. That compares with the national market share of illicit tobacco in 2018-19 and of manufactured cigarettes, with a share of 34% for hand-rolled tobacco. Elements of the original north of England programme have been sustained by Fresh in the north-east, including insight-led demand reduction programmes. Fresh now leads the national Illicit Tobacco Partnership, supported by ASH and other partners. However, the 2013 National Audit Office recommendation that this approach be rolled out nationally has not yet been adopted, while essential regional activity to tackle illicit tobacco and reduce smoking among children and young people has been put at risk by cuts to public health grants since 2015-16. Does the Minister agree that regional activity to get illicit tobacco off our streets should be sustainably funded?
Finally, I would like to raise the regulation review. While we await the Government’s response to the prevention Green Paper consultation, I hope the Minister can tell us what has happened to the Government’s response to the consultation on the Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015, which closed in September last year. A response to that consultation was due last December, and almost a year on, there has been no word from the Government about when it will be published. The Government are also required to review the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and the Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015 by May 2021. They should set out the timetable for the consultation process for both sets of regulations as soon as possible. We are therefore awaiting the Government’s response to two consultations and the launch of two more, which need to be reported by the end of the financial year. Can the Minister confirm when the Government will deliver on all four of those?
I recognise that I have posed a lot of questions, and I thank the Minister and the House for their time. However, those are questions that need to be asked and answered if we are to achieve the smokefree 2030 ambition that is shared right across the House.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this debate and on her introductory speech? I am going to start in time-honoured speaking fashion by telling you, Minister, what I am going to ask you, and then elucidating on that—
Liz Twist
Sorry. I will start by telling you, Madam Deputy Speaker, what I am going to be asking the Minister and then perhaps expanding on that. First of all, Minister, I will be asking you about the tobacco control plan, which my hon. Friend has already referred to. If we are going to achieve the smokefree by 2030 ambition, that needs to happen quickly, and I will be asking you what you can do—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady really must refer to the Minister, because when she says “you”, she is talking to me.
Liz Twist
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting carried away.
I will be asking the Minister what he will be doing to ensure that vital maternity safety programmes, such as the saving babies’ lives care bundle, can get back on track. I will be asking him what he will do to develop a national strategy for reducing rates of smoking in pregnancy among women from disadvantaged communities, learning the lessons from the areas where the greatest declines have been seen in smoking in pregnancy. I will be asking him how he will ensure that mental health trusts are required to implement National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and that the Care Quality Commission is directed to assess that when it carries out its inspections. Finally, I will be asking him what steps he will take to ensure that smokers with mental health conditions receive evidence-based advice about switching from smoking to vaping.
I want to elaborate a little further on those issues. As a result of comprehensive action at national, regional and local levels, significant progress has been made over the years on bringing down smoking rates in England. The 2019 prevention Green Paper’s commitment to make England smokefree by 2030 was an appropriately ambitious and welcome commitment to continuing this important mission. However, a year on from the end of the Green Paper consultation, we have yet to see the Government’s response or their promised and much-needed further proposals, which would enable us to meet the 2030 ambition.
Despite our national progress, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable illness and death in England. Each year, smoking kills more people than obesity, alcohol, drug misuse, HIV and traffic accidents combined. Smoking is a particular challenge in my constituency of Blaydon, where 17.4% of adults smoke, compared with 15.3% across the north-east and 13.9% nationally. Smoking costs Blaydon £1.8 million every year, largely as a result of NHS treatment costs, lost productivity due to ill health and premature death caused by smoking. For communities such as Blaydon, achieving the smokefree 2030 ambition will be tough, but it remains essential for the health and wellbeing of our community. However, analysis by Cancer Research UK finds that on current trends, disadvantaged communities such as my own will not become smokefree until the mid-2040s. This rate of progress is not acceptable and not affordable for our most deprived communities.
The last tobacco control plan was two years late, as we have heard. It should have been published in 2015, and it was delivered in the summer of 2017 only because of the commitment of the then Health Minister, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who I am pleased to say has just joined us. The tobacco control plan that he introduced included the ambition for a smokefree generation, and now that the Government have committed to deliver this by 2030, the pressure is on. Our current tobacco control plan is set to run out in 2022, leaving an eight-year gap in which, according to Cancer Research UK, the rate of smoking prevalence decline must be 40% faster than our current trajectory if our nation is to meet the 2030 tobacco control plan commensurate with the scale of the ambition to be smokefree by 2030.
I shall turn now to the NHS long-term plan. The successful delivery of the plan is essential to the achievement of the smokefree 2030 ambition. The plan published in January last year sets out welcome commitments to tackle smoking in the NHS. By 2023-24, NHS-funded tobacco dependence treatment will be offered to all hospital in-patients who smoke; all pregnant smokers and their partners, too, if they smoke; and all long-term users of specialist mental health and learning disability services who smoke.
The evidence is clear of the benefits this will bring, both to smokers and to the NHS. Smokers are 36% more likely to be admitted to hospital and smoking is responsible for almost 500,000 admissions each year in England. One hospital patient in four is estimated to smoke. The increased demand that smoking places on NHS treatment capacity translates into an enormous financial burden. Each year, smoking costs the NHS around £2.6 billion, including avoidable secondary care costs estimated at £890 million a year. The cost in the north-east to the NHS is around £132.3 million a year, with smoking in Blaydon alone responsible for around £300,000 of that. Across the north-east, it is estimated that implementing the long-term plan commitments at just 40% coverage, as is aimed for by the end of 2021-22, would deliver net savings of nearly £12 million to the NHS in the north-east.
In the north-east, progress towards implementation of the long-term plan’s commitments on smoking is well under way. Treating tobacco dependency is one of two key priorities for the north-east and north Cumbria integrated care system population health and prevention work stream. To focus efforts across the region, a dedicated north-east Smokefree NHS/Treating Tobacco Dependency Task Force was established in 2017. The taskforce has provided strategic direction, developing regional resources and facilitating partnership working with all stakeholders, including NHS trusts, local authority tobacco commissioners, Public Health England and primary care.
As of April 2020, all NHS trusts in the north-east had achieved smokefree NHS status by implementing updated smokefree NHS policies and pathways to identify and treat smokers from admission, in line with national guidance. Across the north-east, trusts have established good links between hospitals and community stop-smoking services funded by local authorities to ensure treatment started in hospital is continued after patients leave hospital. Trusts are training staff to build capacity. They have also signed the NHS smokefree pledge as a clear and visible way to show commitment to helping smokers to quit and to providing smokefree environments.
Elsewhere, progress has not been so heartening, and it is clear that the funding and focus promised by the long-term plan are much needed. An audit of smoking cessation advice and services in NHS acute hospitals, published earlier this year by the British Thoracic Society, concluded that there is poor adherence to national standards and slow progress in identifying and treating smokers. In fact, in many cases the situation is worse than at the time of the last audit in 2016. One smoker in two is not asked whether they would like help to quit. Only one hospital in three has a hospital-funded smoking cessation practitioner, compared to one in two in 2016. Referral to hospital smoking cessation services is available in only four out of 10 hospitals. In 2016, the figure was more than half.
Progress on the long-term plan’s commitments has also not been immune from the impact of the covid-19 pandemic. Early implementation sites chosen to stress test the new tobacco dependency treatment pathways set out in the long-term plan were due to start in April, but this had to be delayed until last month. With winter approaching, and the risk of co-circulation of covid-19 and seasonal flu looming, there is a real risk that work to deliver the long-term plan’s commitments on smoking could be derailed. If we are to achieve the smokefree 2030 ambition, addressing smoking where contact with smokers is greatest is an opportunity that must not be missed
Let me turn to smoking in pregnancy. The Minister is as concerned as I am about this issue, on which there is too little progress. This needs to be a major focus of the next tobacco control plan. Ensuring that more pregnancies are smokefree not only protects the baby as it grows and reduces the risks of complications such as stillbirth and miscarriage; it also gives children the best start in life. NHS England has included addressing smoking as a key part of the initiative to reduce stillbirth and neonatal deaths through its saving babies’ lives care bundle, which is designed to encourage trusts to implement evidence-based measures to improve the safety of pregnancies. However, as with other aspects of NHS activity, this work has been undermined by the impact of covid-19, with a key aspect—carbon monoxide breath tests for all women—currently suspended. I understand that there are also reports from local authorities’ stop-smoking services that fewer pregnant women are being referred for them for support by maternity services. What will the Minister do to ensure that those vital maternity services get back on track as a matter of urgency?
Despite work in the NHS, progress has not been made anywhere near swiftly enough. There are big variations in the performance of different parts of the country. In a soon-to-be published analysis, Action on Smoking and Health finds that rates of smoking in pregnancy have increased in the past five years in a third of clinical commissioning groups, while declines have been seen in less than half, or 44%. It is therefore hardly surprising that the Government seem so unlikely to achieve their ambition of reducing rates to 6% by 2022. In the north-east, we continue to have some of the highest rates of smoking in pregnancy in the country. These are driven by high levels of disadvantage in the region, but, unlike in some regions where rates have even increased, rates in the north-east have fallen in the past five years, from 17% in 2016 to 15% in 2020. Progress has been driven by the regional tobacco programme in the north-east and by the work of NHS England, Public Health England and local government.
The Minister might be interested to hear that a recent analysis by The Times found that areas of the country that were likely to have seen big drops in rates of smoking in pregnancy were also more likely to have implemented financial incentive schemes to support pregnant women to quit. Evidence on the effectiveness of these schemes has been accumulating for many years; they have been shown to increase quit rates when implemented alongside evidence-based quit support. Such incentive schemes are in place in Greater Manchester and South Tyneside. Madam Deputy Speaker, I can see you looking at the clock, so I shall press on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
For the sake of clarification, there are very few people present and the hon. Lady is making important points, so, just for once, I am not putting her under any time pressure.
Liz Twist
As you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, this is an important issue.
I return to my point about developing a national strategy for reducing rates of smoking in pregnancy among women and the disadvantaged communities they come from. What does the Minister plan to do to ensure that those reductions are seen and that there is a continued decline in smoking in pregnancy?
Let me turn to smoking and mental health. The last tobacco control plan for England was widely welcomed for including a specific focus on smoking and mental health. With such high rates of smoking in the community and such little progress in reducing rates, this focus was long overdue. Progress has been made since the plan was published, with mental health trusts being set a target: to implement smokefree settings, in line with NICE guidance on smoking, by 2018.
However, despite that, an ASH survey commissioned by Public Health England to look at trust implementation found the following:
“Staff behaviour often enables smoking, with staff accompanying patients on smoking breaks every day in 57% of trusts.
In 55% of trusts, patients were not always asked if they smoked on admission.
Only 47% of trusts offered the choice”
of stop smoking medications
“in line with NICE best practice”.
The impact of covid-19 is likely to have further hindered the implementation of NICE guidance. The Mental Health and Smoking Partnership, a coalition of leading mental health and physical health charities, has raised concerns that some trusts have been rolling back what smokefree policies they had put in place. There are concerns that the Care Quality Commission is not assessing the implementation of NICE guidance on smoking in a consistent way, with trusts receiving conflicting messages on implementation from different parts of the system. Another question I ask the Minister is whether he will ensure that mental health trusts are required to implement NICE guidance PH48 and that the CQC is directed to address this when it carries out inspections.
Action in mental health in-patient settings is only the tip of the iceberg; most smokers with a mental health condition will never have an in-patient stay. The NHS long-term plan has committed to implement a universal smoking cessation service in mental health settings. A promising area for support in the community, and via primary care, is improving access to psychological therapies services, which were established in 2008 with the ambition of scaling up access to talking therapies. About 1 million people with depression and anxiety access IAPT services each year. It is estimated that about 28% of people with depression and anxiety smoke. Quitting smoking has also been found to improve depression, with the same effect as taking antidepressants, so there is a major opportunity to improve both mental and physical health by integrating smoking cessation support into IAPT services. Research by the University of Bristol is under way to explore the integration of support for smokers with these talking therapies, and the early findings are positive. Individual local services, such as Talkworks in Devon, have also started to explore the potential of integration. However, smaller-scale pilots, although important, miss the big opportunity to reach many thousands each year with additional support.
E-cigarettes are a major opportunity to help more smokers to quit, particularly those with high levels of dependency, common among smokers with a mental health condition. E-cigarettes have been shown to help smokers successfully quit at greater rates than traditional nicotine replacement therapies and to be popular quitting aids. Despite the need among smokers with mental health conditions and the potential for e-cigarettes to save many lives, the attitude towards e-cigarettes within mental health services remains varied. Two excellent examples of good practice in mental health trusts can be found in my region, where the Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust and the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust both offer e-cigarettes to their patients as a treatment option, alongside the provision of nicotine replacement therapies. Those trusts have shown not only leadership in treating tobacco dependency and implementing national guidance, but real pragmatism on vaping, which could save the lives of many smokers with mental health problems who may not otherwise be able to quit smoking.
Unfortunately, that pragmatism is not found nationwide, and in many trusts the restrictions placed on vaping are not dissimilar to those placed on smoking. Such inconsistency is also seen in staff attitudes towards e-cigarettes. New unpublished data gathered by ASH found that 46% of mental health nurses and 66% of psychiatrists had received no training on e-cigarettes. As a result, many are uncertain about the role of e-cigarettes in supporting smokers in their care. So I reiterate the last of my questions: what steps will the Minister take to ensure that smokers with mental health conditions receive evidence-based advice about switching to vaping? This is an important issue that requires persistence and detailed attention. I look forward to the Minister’s positive responses to these proposals.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who I have been questioned by many times. Thinking about today’s debate, I remember in early summer 2017, when I was standing down there at the Dispatch Box answering Health questions, being pressed by my then shadow, the lovely lady the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), on when I was going to publish the long-awaited tobacco control plan, which, as the hon. Member for Blaydon reminds us, was due to be out in December 2015. Rather to the surprise of my shadow that day and my officials sitting in the box, I said that it would be out “before the summer recess” and, true to my word, it was.
That was an early lesson for me in how to focus minds in the civil service, because I have never seen them move so fast, but more importantly, it set out some of the key ambitions for us to hit by 2022. The prevention Green Paper a few years later then set the course for England to be smokefree by 2030. I stand by the ambitions, both in the plan and in the Green Paper, 100%, and I believe with all my heart that they are completely achievable, but we will have to get our skates on, as has been said by the first two speakers, the hon. Members for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and for Blaydon. We will have to be very bold and make the most of one of the rare opportunities afforded to us by the covid pandemic.
I want to make just a few points today. On public health reorganisation, I have previously raised my concerns in the House about the future of Public Health England’s work to tackle issues such as smoking, obesity, inequality and air quality after the new National Institute for Health Protection comes online. I have no issue with the desire to take the health protection functions out and create the new institute based on the German model—it makes a lot of sense, and I have said so to the Health Secretary in public and in private. My concern is about the health prevention parts of Public Health England. On 1 September, I asked the Secretary of State whether he was considering bringing Public Health England’s expertise and significant experience in this area back into the Department. When I was travelling abroad representing the Government and I needed briefing on these issues, I always knew that there would be somebody who knew infinitely more than me inside Public Health England. I do not want to see that wasted.
I note that the Department has now established a programme of work to pick through this. The snappily titled population health improvement stakeholder advisory group has been formed and there are some notable names on there, such as Seema Kennedy, who was my successor as Public Health Minister; Professor Helen Stokes-Lampard, formerly of the Royal College of General Practitioners and now chair of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges; Professor John Newton from Public Health England; Dr Jenny Harries, whom many of the public will be familiar with as deputy chief medical officer; and Professor Paul Cosford, emeritus medical director of Public Health England and a truly excellent official—one of the best I ever worked with. There are some good people on there.
On balance, I would restate my call for the Department to recover these functions, and I refer the Minister to a pretty comprehensive piece of work published just this week by Policy Exchange, examining how a new deal for public health can build a healthier nation. It calls for the creation of a new institute for health improvement housed in the Department of Health and Social Care, reporting directly to Ministers and the chief medical officer, for a new funded national mission to improve the health of the nation. There is a lot of sense in that, and I recommend the report to the Minister.
Let me dwell for a moment on the word “funded”. I do not think—the record will show that I was always lukewarm at best on this idea—that the Government should proceed with the idea of ending the ring fence of the public health grant. I think it would be a mistake. That should be kept. It should be measured much more tightly and, if anything, I think it should be increased to help our directors of public health to do what works towards smokefree 2030. I am not making unfunded spending commitments. The prevention Green Paper, which I helped to draft and still think is a very credible piece of work, talks about the principle of making the polluter—that is, the tobacco firms—pay, as has been done in France and in the United States, and we should progress that to create a smokefree 2030 fund. I would be grateful if the Minister could reassure me that the Government are at least considering this option and what it might look like in practice.
The Government’s ambition for what we call “smokefree” is for a smoking prevalence in England of 5% or less in the next 10 years, but, as we have heard, significant action is clearly needed if we are to achieve this. The rate in Winchester, which I represent, may be 8.3%, but the national average is 14.1%, so there is a way to go. Smoking remains the biggest single cause of preventable death in our country today, and it is a leading cause of health inequalities. The issue is also one of inequality. About one in four people in routine and manual occupations smoke—about two and a half times more than people in managerial and professional occupations—and this gap has widened significantly since 2012, according to the Office for National Statistics. The inequalities are also geographic, as we have heard.
As a Conservative Member, I see becoming smokefree as a vital step towards delivering our manifesto pledges on extending healthy life years by five by 2035, reducing inequalities across the board, and, as the Prime Minister calls it, levelling up every part of our country. However, as the Green Paper concluded, this is an extremely challenging ambition for any Government. The all-party group on smoking and health has recommended a new tobacco control plan focusing on delivering the 2030 ambition, and that is an eminently sensible suggestion. Given how long it takes to get a tobacco control plan, even when making promises at the Dispatch Box, has the Minister commissioned officials to start work on renewing the TCP to set a course for the smokefree ambition? I think that Ministers will be doing that, with smoking prevalence going in the right direction, albeit not fast enough to meet our agreed ambition, but also off the back of the opportunity afforded to us by the by the pandemic.
The University College London smoking toolkit indicates that the pandemic has been a driver of quitting among smokers across all social groups, with the highest rate of people stopping smoking seen in the past 30 years. That is the good news. However, we cannot be complacent. Although it is true that many people have quit, there are signs that some have relapsed into smoking. In particular, there are worrying signs among the 18 to 24-year-old group that smoking rates may be increasing again and have certainly stopped declining.
Turning to the alternatives, the UK has long been a leader in traditional tobacco control measures such as the use of taxation, as we hear at Budget time; the smoking ban, which was a great credit to the Blair Government; plain packaging; readily available smoking cessation services; and numerous tobacco harm reduction policies using less harmful alternatives to smoking. I was often criticised in office both for promoting e-cigarettes too much and for not promoting them enough as an alternative. That suggested to me that I may have had the balance about right, but I will go further. Data from the ONS tells us that over half of smokers in this country want to quit and that, on average, smokers try some 30 times or more before giving up successfully. Of those who are successful, only 2% quit through stop smoking services, and over 40% use an e-cigarette. However, while many have quit using vaping, the fact remains—we cannot deny this—that nearly half of smokers in Britain have tried vaping but did not stick with it. On top of that, the figures now show that the number of vapers is falling, while some 1.3 million vapers have not fully made the switch and still continue to smoke at the same time.
Since the early 2000s, tobacco policy in the UK has been driven by the European Union through the tobacco products directive. That is about to change. May I therefore ask the Minister to speculate, as I know Ministers love to do, on what opportunities Brexit brings to advance our leading role as a tobacco harm reduction advocate? We may be leaving the political structures of the European Union, but I sincerely hope that we are not leaving our leadership role in this area when many countries around the world look to see what the UK does.
Our prevention Green Paper pledged—as, indeed, did I when in office—to
“run a call for independent evidence to assess further how effective heated tobacco products are, or are not, in helping people quit smoking and reducing health harms from smoking.”
The Government said that the call for evidence would be announced in summer 2020. Of course, we all understand why that has slipped, but I wonder if we might get a reaffirmation today, because recent word, including a parliamentary written answer on 21 September to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), who I know wanted to speak today, said that the Government would merely
“consider looking at this at a later date”.
It is imperative that the Government recommit to holding that call for independent evidence as soon as possible, so that the effectiveness of heated tobacco products can be assessed and smokers can have confidence that they are switching to a less harmful alternative.
I say that because there is growing evidence that adult smokers’ misperception of the risks surrounding vaping may be preventing them from transitioning to less harmful alternatives. Last month the excellent UK charity Action on Smoking and Health, otherwise known as ASH, which campaigns against smoking and is run by Deborah Arnott, published survey data showing that vaping in the UK had stagnated as a percentage of the total smoking population, after year-on-year growth. The charity blamed what it called
“unfounded concerns about the relative safety of e-cigarettes”
as a likely cause.
Given that public health authorities in the UK actively support and champion vaping as an alternative to smoking, that statistic shows how damaging inaccurate media coverage can be. To maximise the public health benefits of e-cigarettes, I think regulations should be risk-proportionate and reflect the scientific evidence base on the relative harms of cigarette alternatives and their potential for harm reduction. For example, when this Parliament’s Select Committee on Science and Technology, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), reviewed the scientific evidence on e-cigarettes, it recommended that the Government should move to a
“risk-proportionate regulatory environment; where regulations, advertising rules and tax/duties reflect the evidence on the relative harms”
of vape products compared with combustible cigarettes.
The UK Government have invested a lot of resources to understand the science behind these products, which I think has informed the pragmatic and progressive approach that successive Governments have taken to vaping regulation over many years. The results have been impressive, suggesting that it would be a strong regulatory model for other countries to consider. Given competing public health priorities, of course I appreciate that it is not as simple as it sounds, but I believe we should dedicate sufficient time and resource to understanding the science around vape products and their potential to improve public health. That is why I would like us to recommit to what it says in the Green Paper that I partly wrote.
Will the Government consider increasing the age of sale from 16 to 21? That could be a useful tool in the toolbox. ASH has suggested that the Government should consult on that as a means of reducing youth uptake. The call has been backed by more than 70 organisations, including Cancer Research UK, the British Heart Foundation and the Royal College of Physicians. I think it is well worth considering.
In conclusion, we should keep the ambition. We have never been short on the ambition, across the last Government, the coalition Government and this Government. We should tighten and update the plan, to bring it in line with the ambition in the Green Paper. We should stick to what we know works and be honest enough to say what does not. We should fund the directors of public health on what does work, and I have given a suggestion as to where I think that can happen. There is a lot riding on getting this right. A lot of people’s lives depend on us getting this right, and we need to do so for their benefit and for that of the next generation, so that another generation of young people is not weaned on to the damaging lifestyle that smoking can lead to. I have given a few ideas and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response at the end of the debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
For the second time today, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), given the knowledge he has of all the subjects we have covered in this debate and the last one. I thank him for his contribution when he was Minister, too. It is always good to see him in his place.
I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on what I think may be the first debate she has led in the Chamber. If it is, I say to her, “Well done and congratulations.” We look forward to many more contributions from her in this place. I was glad to add my name to the request to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate, and to work alongside the hon. Lady to highlight some of these issues.
I believe that freeing smokers from the tyranny caused by their addiction, and the damage it causes to their health and wellbeing, is an issue not just of health but of human rights. I am my party’s spokesperson for health and human rights, and this debate covers both those issues.
This issue is close to my heart, as I know it is for speakers on both sides of the House. Public health policies, which are the responsibility of the devolved nations, have a key role to play in tackling smoking, but so do the Government in Westminster and this debate. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. He and I have been good friends for a long time, and I look forward to his response because I know it will be positive.
I want to refer quickly, if I may, to the Northern Ireland Department of Health tobacco control strategy, which was implemented in 2012. It was clear that the Northern Ireland Assembly was trying to direct its action at children and young people, disadvantaged people, and pregnant women and their partners who smoked. A review of that strategy undertaken earlier this year found that Northern Ireland has met its target of ensuring that a minimum of 5% of the smoking population accesses smoking cessation services annually, but there is still a group of people who continue to smoke. I am conscious that people have freedom of choice, but we hope that they take note when we present them with the health issues.
That target was achieved, but we are not hitting our targets at population level. There was a target to reduce the smoking rate among manual groups from 31% to 20% by 2020. That rate still lingers around 27%, so that target has not been met. There was also a target to reduce smoking during pregnancy from 15% in 2010 to 9% by 2020. To date, however, that rate has barely declined, so we have hit problems in Northern Ireland. At the time of speaking, the rate is 14%, so we have reduced it by only one percentage point. Let us be very clear: smoking when pregnant puts babies at risk of avoidable harm, including stillbirth, premature birth and birth defects.
We seem to have done better on the target for 11 to 16-year-olds. I am really quite encouraged by that. There has been a reduction from 8% in 2010 to 4%. The target was 3%, so we are one percentage point shy of it, but what we have done there has been quite dramatic. Children who live with smokers are almost three times more likely to take up smoking than children from non-smoking households, which creates a generational cycle of inequality, with smoking locked into disadvantaged communities.
Will the Minister make contact—he probably has—with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and particularly the Health Minister, Robin Swann, to see what has happened there? I feel that we can feed off each other regionally in Administrations, to our advantage. If something is being done right in England, we want to know about it in Northern Ireland, and the same applies in Scotland and Wales.
The disadvantaged communities worst affected by smoking have also been hit hardest by the coronavirus pandemic. Smoking is a leading risk factor for all sorts of things, such as cardiovascular disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which have been identified by Public Health England as being associated with worse outcomes from coronavirus. When households stop spending money on tobacco, it can lift them out of poverty, and it increases the disposable income available to spend in local communities rather than lining the pockets of the transnational tobacco firms.
Those inequalities are a problem not just for Northern Ireland but in every part of the United Kingdom. The answer is more action at population level through Government interventions that support people, particularly in disadvantaged communities. I believe that the time is right for the Department of Health and Social Care to publish a new tobacco control plan that addresses UK-wide issues as well as those relating just to England—I believe that we should be doing this across the four regions—and provides solutions to the threats posed by Brexit as well as delivering on the opportunities.
Smoking on screen is an issue close to my heart; we have to find some way of addressing it. Smoking is rarely portrayed in an unattractive manner, or associated with negative consequences. Guidelines on smoking have been established by the communications regulator, Ofcom, but they are often not rigorously applied. The UK Government and Ofcom have committed to working with the British Board of Film Classification to ensure a consistent approach across the piece. On the tobacco control plan, I said in 2018:
“A clear causal link has been established between smoking initiation among young people and smoking on screen in the entertainment media. The impact is down to the amount of smoking that young people see, not whether it is glamorised or not.”
Young people may feel, sometimes unconsciously, that smoking is normal, and that we should all be doing it. However, its depiction is linked to greater risk of smoking uptake. In that earlier debate, I asked:
“Will the Minister ask his colleagues who are responsible for the regulation of film and TV in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to work with the Department of Health and Social Care, and press Ofcom and the British Board of Film Classification to ensure that their codes effectively tackle the portrayal of smoking in films and television programmes that are likely to be seen by children?”—[Official Report, 19 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 685.]
At the time, the Minister briefed that Ofcom and the BBFC were dealing with the issue; quite clearly, Minister, that has not happened to the extent that we would like.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman promised me that he would no longer address the Minister, but would take to addressing the Chair, in the way one is supposed to in this place. He speaks in this Chamber more than any other Member, and he knows that he must not address the Minister. I cannot understand why he persists in doing it.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will certainly endeavour to get that right.
In 2018, there was an explosion of new video on demand services, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, which are particularly popular among young people. Ofcom’s on demand programme service rules, governing video on demand services such as Netflix, have no rules at all on smoking. The use of video on demand continues to grow, so this problem will only get worse. Is the Minister prepared to look at that issue and address it?
The licensing of tobacco retailers is another issue that I spoke about in 2018 that bears raising again. In Northern Ireland, since 6 April 2016, retailers have been obliged to register with the tobacco register of Northern Ireland; the deadline for doing so was 1 July 2016. It built on similar schemes in Scotland and Wales. In 2018, we implemented a track-and-trace scheme that required every retailer to have an economic operator identifier code. That system was required by the EU tobacco products directive, but the Government have confirmed that it will continue after we leave the EU. Can the Minister confirm that all nations in the UK will continue to implement a retail register scheme? Will he ensure that officials at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs talk to their opposite numbers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales about their experience of the retail register scheme, and the lessons to be learned about it from the devolved Administrations?
Are the tobacco control regulations on e-cigarettes delivering on the twin goals of helping smokers to quit and protecting children from taking up smoking—objectives supported by all parties and all nations of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
There is a concerning loophole in our regulations: while it is illegal for e-cigarettes to be sold to children under 18, according to advice from trading standards, it is not illegal to give them out as free samples to anyone of any age. Could the Minister give us direction on that? How can we ensure that things are done correctly? I hope the Minister is aware of the article in The Observer in October that highlighted that a supplier working on behalf of British American Tobacco was caught handing out samples from BAT’s popular e-cigarette brand to a 17-year-old without carrying out any kind of age check. That contravenes the spirit, if not the letter, of the regulations. Given the importance of balancing the needs of smokers against any impact on young people, it is vital that a review of these regulations is undertaken. Will the Minister set a timeline for just that?
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to speak in such an important debate. I represent one of the less healthy constituencies in the country, but we could remove half of our health inequalities by being a smokefree community. That is what is at stake here. I therefore commend my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing the debate, which I understand is her first through the Backbench Business route, and congratulate her on her speech. She set out the challenge very well. The point she made about the current trajectory getting us there only by the mid-2040s was absolutely right. She also did the Minister an extraordinary favour in essentially laying down a tobacco control plan in her speech for you, Minister—sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will never do that again. The Minister could clip my hon. Friend’s speech directly from Hansard and turn it into a tobacco control plan overnight. I think we are almost there, so I hope to hear positive noises from the Minister when it is his turn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) also made a strong case. I was particularly struck by the points made about smoking in pregnancy and with regard to those with mental health issues. We know from Pareto’s law that on any great journey the last 20% takes as much energy as the first 80%, and that is definitely the case with smoking cessation, so we will have to take a granular look at which groups are still disproportionately affected and target resources specifically in a way that works for them.
I was cheered when I saw the name of the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) on the call list. As he is a former public health Minister, I knew he would have an awful lot of insight to share from his time developing the previous tobacco control plan. His story certainly made me laugh. I agree with him wholeheartedly on a number of issues, particularly when he said that we should get our skates on. I agreed with his points about Public Health England, which I will expand on soon. The case for keeping everything in one place is profound and compelling; I completely agree.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) seems to have perfected the art of being in multiple places at once, speaking in both Westminster Hall and here very quickly but with characteristic force and insight. I particularly liked the way he characterised this as a social justice issue, which is locked into communities. I relate to that from my home experience. I hope the Minister will address the point on e-cigarettes, which seems like a loophole that none of us would be particularly enthusiastic about.
Earlier this year, the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health invited me to speak at a roundtable to discuss the next steps to secure the ambition, which I share with the Government, for England to be smokefree by 2030. Both the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—she is responding to the Westminster Hall debate—and I highlighted the importance of cross-party working if we are to deliver that ambition. I want to reiterate that sentiment today. I thank the chair of the all-party group, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for inviting me to that event and acknowledge his tireless work in this space. I think it is only the nature of proceedings that has stopped him from contributing; I have no doubt he will be watching.
As the Minister said in our exchanges relating to tobacco last Tuesday, we can all be proud of the shared record of successive Governments over the last two decades in reducing smoking. I say everything in that context. We have a high degree of consensus in wanting to be smokefree by 2030, with that ambition shared by all. That was featured in the Government’s prevention Green Paper last year, which promised to build out a comprehensive approach. It has been more than a year since the consultation on the Green Paper closed, and we are still awaiting the Government’s response and the further proposals they promised, which are expected in January. Given that each day nearly 300 children start smoking, we cannot afford further delay, so the Minister ought to lay out a commitment on the timing of that response when he has his opportunity today.
In my city of Nottingham—colleagues have drawn on their examples from around the country, so I hope they will allow me to do so as well—21% of adults smoke, compared with 14% nationally. The figure is 29% among those in routine and manual occupations. One in six mothers smoked during pregnancy, compared to one in 10 nationwide, and smoking costs the people of our city about 75 million quid, £11.5 million of which comes in the form of NHS spending, which of course is under such pressure due to covid.
This is a social justice issue. It does impact on all communities, but not on all communities equally, and then, within this pandemic, has a compounding and knock-on effect on pandemic outcomes. The prevalence of smoking-related diseases—whether heart disease, respiratory diseases or diabetes—has undoubtedly impacted on the severity of the impact of covid on communities, especially ones like mine. Public Health England has identified these diseases as being very strongly associated with worse outcomes from covid. Of course, as we go into winter, with normal winter pressures and covid-related winter pressures, smoking puts extra pressures on our NHS. Again, there is much at stake for us.
In the covid context, I think we would all be encouraged by the rise in quit attempts and the success rates during the pandemic so far. Again, however, we know that that is not distributed equally. It tends to be older smokers in disadvantaged communities who are quitting in high numbers, not so much younger smokers. It is impossible not to think about the fact that the feeling going into a second lockdown is very different from going into the first. In the first lockdown people talked about ways in which they might improve their lives. I think I was going to re-learn French—I never did—but whether it was banana bread or committing to quit smoking, lots of people used that time very constructively. I worry about the impact of this second one, because there is definitely not the same level of optimism, if optimism is the right word. There will be people who quit six or so months ago who are feeling the pressure at this point, because quitting smoking is really hard. To those people, I think we would all send our solidarity and hope that they can keep going the course, because they are doing a brilliant thing for themselves and for their families.
I am greatly concerned by the Government’s decision to axe Public Health England in the middle of a pandemic. It seems a very odd thing to do. Certainly, without a clear plan for what the future of the health improvement work of PHE is going to be, it risks undermining the progress we have made on smoking and across all other types of health promotion issues. The success on smoking has been driven by a robust national strategy, strong regional delivery and effective, evidence-based local action. I think that is a really good model for smoking cessation and for all other areas of health improvements. I would be very keen to hear the Minister address the issue of when we are going to see an options paper for the future of PHE—I hope he will do so—but I also hope that he will commit to that model and be clear about how public health stakeholders are going to be able to contribute their views and expertise.
I am slightly surprised to have to say this, but, again, it would be good to hear a clear commitment, much in line with what the hon. Member for Winchester said, that the Government believe that this a national-level leadership role and that these functions ought to be together in one place. Whether that is in the Department, as the hon. Gentleman says, or stand alone, as they are currently, they should be in one place, taking a national lead and then providing support for the regional delivery and the effective local action. That has really worked so far, and I do not know why we would not want to do that. I would say to the Minister, as I have said to the Minister for public health—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds—that if the Government come to a sensible place on this, we will not run political victory laps. There is no value in that to anybody. I think we just need to get it done.
It is impossible to talk about Public Health England without relating it to public health cuts, which both my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon and for City of Durham did. I know these very well; prior to this election, I was the custodian of Nottingham’s public health budget for three years. Extraordinary cuts to local government, particularly in the poorest communities, have meant diminished public health services, but particularly smoking cessation services. After we have paid for demand-driven services such as drugs and alcohol or sexual health, there is not an awful lot left. I am not sure that the point the hon. Member for Winchester made about the public health grant ring fence is meaningful. I understood it and I agreed with it, but I think that, as a fence, it has a lot of holes. If we looked up and down the country, we would see a lot of public health spending by name that we would not necessarily consider to be public health by discipline. We need to reflect on the impact of those cuts, because they only create greater financial losses for us later, and I will come to that shortly.
Analysis by the Health Foundation shows that nearly £1 billion a year is required to reverse the real-terms per capita cuts, and that an extra £2 billion a year would be needed for adequate investment in the most deprived communities, and that is before the pandemic struck. I am very concerned that virtually all of our local authorities will have to draw up some sort of in-year budget to deal with covid costs. The promise was made by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government that those costs would be met. That is clearly now not going to happen, so, again, will those cuts come from public health budgets? That is something that we should all be very concerned about, because, as the King’s Fund characterises them, they are the falsest of false economies. The cuts have damaged not only stop smoking service provision, but all sorts of other provisions, such as health visiting, sexual health clinics and others, and they are storing up problems for our future. I hope the Minister, when he has his opportunity to speak, will confirm whether the upcoming spending review will include an uplift to the public health grant given to local authorities.
Similarly, it would be good to hear a recommitment to national level quitting campaigns, because in their heyday—2008-09—public spending in this area was in the tens of millions. It is not anymore and PHE’s budget for anti-smoking campaigns, including Stoptober, which was estimated in 2012 to have generated an additional 350,000 quit attempts in England—a fantastic figure—has fallen substantially now to £1.8 million, which is a quarter of what it was six years ago. Again, these things work. The Department clearly recognises that, and we should recognise the work that PHE did with Action on Smoking and Health during the pandemic on “Today is the Day” campaign, which was targeted at those communities where rates are the highest, including the City of Nottingham, and we are grateful for it. Therefore, those things work and I hope that we can hear a recommitment in due course.
Just to finish, how do we get to being smokefree by 2030? Following the prevention Green Paper, the Smokefree Action Coalition, which includes ASH, Cancer Research, the British Heart Foundation and the Royal College of Physicians, launched the roadmap to smokefree 2030, which is a really good read and was endorsed by all sorts of leading public health organisations and the all-party group. It also has some great recommendations that the Government should engage with, so will the Minister share his reflections on that important document? We do have to come to a position on the issue of the levy on tobacco companies. We should recognise the work that is being done by tobacco companies to reformulate to safer alternatives, but it is still a very profitable industry.
I was going to pull my punch on what I was going to say on this and leave it quite broad, but as other colleagues have been braver than me, I thought that I had better be a bit braver, too. I do not like hypothecated taxes. If we start opening the door to hypothecated taxation, we will never fund unpopular things ever again, as we will just increasingly create a tax regime that fits around that. Nevertheless, a smokefree fund is attractive and could be a way to try to improve funding for public health grant services. Therefore, again, if the Minister has a preferred way forward on that, I think that we could seek to find a political consensus on it, because we know that it would be a challenging thing to do, but it could also be a very important thing to do.
I am conscious that the sector has told us what it thinks it needs, so now it is time for us to reflect on that and that has to be through, as a matter of urgency, a new tobacco control plan. Again, I hope that we will hear from the Minister on that. There is no room now for flapping and no room for the two-year gap that we saw previously; we must get on with this because, on the current trajectory, we will not make it. I hope the Minister will commit to that as a matter of urgency.
In conclusion, this is a shared goal and it is a significant prize. There are weaknesses in our current approach that we must address now. If we do so and we act decisively, we will make one of the biggest public health breakthroughs that we have made in our nation’s history, so let us grab this moment.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
It is a pleasure, as always, to appear opposite the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). It is happening with regularity: three times on three different days last week and again today. Indeed, it is happening with a fair degree of regularity that I am speaking in front of you in this Chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is always a pleasure.
I thank all hon. Members for their participation in today’s debate with typically well-informed and important speeches. As the shadow Minister has alluded to, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), within whose portfolio this matter would normally fall, has been taking a simultaneous debate in Westminster Hall, so it is a rare pleasure for me to be able to speak at the Dispatch Box on this matter.
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this important debate. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, I think this is her first debate in her name in this Chamber, and, consistent with the principled approach that she adopts in this place to raising issues that she passionately cares about, she has done that today, and I pay tribute to her for doing that.
We should all recognise the significant achievements made on tobacco control over the past two decades through cross-party working. In that context, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, while I may not agree with everything that the former Prime Minister Tony Blair did, it is right that I recognise and pay tribute to him for his work in this space when he was leading the country. Smoking rates are now at their lowest ever level in England and the UK, and that is a great public health success story.
However, as Members have highlighted powerfully, there is no room for complacency. Smoking still causes more than 78,000 deaths each year, and there is much more still to do, which is why we announced our smokefree 2030 ambition. As Members will know, the UK is a global leader in tobacco control. Our commitment to tough tobacco control will continue after 1 January 2021. We laid the Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 on 28 September to reaffirm that commitment, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North and I debated recently.
The covid-19 pandemic, as we well know, has put a huge strain on our health and care system. The Government have published guidance regarding covid-19 and the risks from smoking, so this debate is very timely. The message has been clear that quitting smoking will improve a person’s health and recovery prospects if they are unfortunate enough to contract covid-19. It is important that we recognise the great work of local authorities—I will come to that later—and the NHS, along with the third sector, in their support to help smokers quit during these exceptionally challenging times. They have ensured that stop smoking services have continued and used the opportunity of the pandemic to reach out to more smokers to encourage them to quit. I thank them for the work they have done and continue to do.
Action on Smoking and Health has estimated that around 1 million smokers may have made a quit attempt during the pandemic, and that is good news. The Government have provided funding to support ASH’s “Today is the Day” campaign, to enable the stop smoking message to reach as many smokers as possible in some of the most deprived areas, and I pay tribute to ASH for its work. Public Health England’s Better Health Stoptober annual campaign has also continued at a national and local level to support people quitting during the pandemic.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his speech, which brought an important perspective from Northern Ireland to this issue. He mentioned two things that I want to pick up on. He asked whether I would engage with the Health Minister in Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, on this issue. Although this comes under the portfolio of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, I am due to talk to Robin Swann next week about other matters, so I will endeavour to shoehorn it into the conversation in the way that the hon. Gentleman so elegantly does with a number of topics in this Chamber in various debates. I thank and pay tribute to Robin Swann for all the work he is doing in partnership with us at this difficult time.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the role of Ofcom. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), who is due to respond in the Adjournment debate, is very near to the Chamber, if not present at this moment, and I suspect he will have heard the points made by the hon. Gentleman and will reflect on those in his work.
The Government are committed to levelling up society to ensure that no communities get left behind. That is why we announced our bold ambition for England to be smokefree by 2030 in the prevention Green Paper consultation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Nottingham North for rightly highlighting the importance of this being a cross-party issue, which typifies the approach that he takes to these matters in the House.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, who was an incredibly effective public health Minister. He is missed in that role and in Government, and I hope one day he will return to the Dispatch Box. He played a hugely important role in drawing up the current tobacco control plan for England. He also gave us some very good tips on how to speed up delivery within our excellent civil service if a Minister decides that he wants to accelerate clearance and implementation of a policy. The recent prevention Green Paper highlighted the urgency of tackling disproportionate smoking rate harms in deprived areas, which the hon. Members for City of Durham and for Blaydon highlighted. The Green Paper also highlighted the disproportionate smoking harm rates among the LGBT community, pregnant women and those with mental health conditions, which again goes to points that hon. Members made. I will endeavour to address those in just a moment.
In terms of that tobacco control plan, the points made about what happened last time and the fear of a gap, I reassure Members who highlighted the need for no gaps and for continuity that it is something of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds is very much aware. I know she would want me to reassure the House that she is working extremely hard on ensuring that effective measures and effective planning continue to be in place to address the challenges of smoking. Smoking, as has been alluded to, is one of the biggest behavioural drivers of health inequality in England and reduces life expectancy by 10 years on average. That accounts for half the difference in life expectancy between the richest and the poorest, which again Members have made very clear.
Turning to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Blaydon, although rates for smoking in pregnancy are the lowest recorded, they remain around 10%. Clearly she is right to highlight that that must remain a concern for all of us in government, in this House and in this country. More needs to be done to reach our national ambition of a rate of 6% for smoking in pregnancy by the end of 2022.
Public Health England continues to work closely with NHS England and NHS Improvement on their long-term planning commitments to offer all patients NHS-funded treatment services over the coming years, including a new smokefree pathway for expectant mothers and their partners. I am confident that progress will continue to be made to hit that target, but I know from experience that the hon. Lady, in her typically courteous but firm way, will continue to hold Ministers to account in achieving that.
Steve Brine
While we are on the subject, as the song goes:
“The saddest thing that I’d ever seen / Were smokers outside the hospital doors”—
name the band. It is not a national problem, but it is a big problem in some areas, which is why I made the point to the Minister—will he convey this to the public health Minister?— that it has to be a regional and local approach through the directors of public health. It is a much bigger problem in some towns than it is in others.
Edward Argar
I will not seek to outdo my hon. Friend in his knowledge of music or, possibly, his expertise in this area, but I will certainly convey that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds.
Alongside tackling smoking in pregnancy, a big challenge is to reduce smoking rates in those with mental health problems, as the hon. Member for Blaydon said, which remain significantly higher than the general population at 42%. The NHS long-term plan will also offer a new universal smoking cessation offer, available as part of specialist mental health services for long-term users of those services and in learning disability services. The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) will be looking into that, working in close partnership with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds, because it is important that we have a joined-up approach. The hon. Member for Blaydon highlighted in her speech the excellent practice in some parts of the country and in some parts of the NHS and the fact that that is not replicated everywhere, which goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester. It is important that we level up, to coin a phrase, across the country in using and sharing that best practice.
The Government are committed to a smokefree 2030, and we are developing the plans to ensure that is a reality. The plans will build on the good work already under way in the tobacco control plan and the commitments being delivered in the NHS long-term plan, to which, while the pandemic has obviously impacted on the NHS, we remain committed.
I said in my introduction that the UK is a world leader in tobacco control. That is demonstrated by how seriously the Government take our obligations as a signatory and party to the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, the FCTC. Tackling the harms caused by smoking is a global effort, with 8 million deaths a year worldwide linked to tobacco, 80% of which are low and middle-income country deaths.
The Government have invested up to £15 million in official development assistance funding to support the WHO’s FCTC 2030 five-year project, supporting up to 24 countries to improve their tobacco control and improve their population’s health. The project has received considerable praise from global public health and development communities and helped to raise the UK’s profile and strengthen our global reach. I am proud to say that the Department recently received a UN Inter-Agency Task Force on the Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases award for 2020 for the project. The project is in its final year and we are considering plans to extend it, depending on the Department’s spending review settlement for official development assistance. In a second, I shall address the point about the spending review raised by the hon. Member for City of Durham—I shall be very brief, as I am conscious that I need to leave a couple of minutes for her to reply at the end.
We continue to review the evidence on e-cigarettes, including their harms and usefulness in aiding smoking cessation. Although they are not risk-free, there is growing evidence that they can help people stop smoking, and they are particularly effective when combined with expert support from a local stop smoking service. The Government’s approach to the regulation of e-cigarettes has been and will remain pragmatic and evidence-based. The current regulatory framework aims to reduce the risk of harm to children, protect against the re-normalisation of tobacco use, provide assurance on relative safety for users and provide legal certainty for businesses. We will continue our work to appraise the evidence on new products, including e-cigarettes, and their role in helping smokers quit.
I note comments about proposals for future regulatory changes to help smokers quit smoking. Post transition period, this country will no longer have to comply with the EU’s tobacco products directive, and there will be opportunities to consider in the future regulatory changes that can help people quit smoking and address the harms from tobacco. Although there are no current plans for divergence, I would reassure the House that any future changes will be based on robust evidence in the interests of public health and will maintain this country’s ambitious and world-leading approach in this area.
The Department will be carrying out a post-implementation review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 and the standardised packaging of tobacco products by 20 May 2021 to see whether the regulations have met their objectives. Part of this review process will involve a public consultation to start before the end of the year for people to submit their views and evidence, and I hope that gives some greater clarity about timescales.
The Department has already conducted another post-implementation review and public consultation on various tobacco legislation, as the hon. Member for City of Durham mentioned, and we will publish a Government response shortly. I understand that the aim is to do so before the end of this year, although obviously a lot of work is being put into tackling the pandemic.
I hear what Members have said about the importance of public health grants and local authorities. Like the shadow Minister, I am a former cabinet member for public health. He would not, I suspect, like me to be tempted to try to fulfil the role of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by pre-empting the spending review. As for Public Health England and the future, we are engaging with stakeholders and will consider the best future arrangements for the wide range of non-health protection functions that currently sit in PHE. Our commitment to smokefree 2030 and to working collaboratively to maintain our ambitious agenda and our high standards in this area is undiminished; indeed, it is enhanced.
Mary Kelly Foy
I thank every Member for their contribution to this important debate: my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), the hon. Members for Winchester (Steve Brine) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and the Minister. I am glad that there is consensus across the House on the need to reach the target of a smokefree England by 2030. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank Deborah Arnott from ASH and Ailsa Rutter from Fresh who have been a continued source of support and knowledge in all things smoking-harm related.
I am aware that, at the minute, a significant amount of public health focus is directed at tackling the coronavirus pandemic, and rightly so. However, I hope that this debate serves as a reminder that there remain significant health inequalities in society. In our most deprived communities, these inequalities pose a grave risk to the health of countless people. While this has been exacerbated by the pandemic, without action the threat to our most vulnerable communities will only become more grave. It is vital, therefore, that the issues raised today are addressed. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted, tackling and addressing health inequalities is a matter of urgency.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government’s ambition for England to be smokefree by 2030; notes the increasing disparities in smoking rates between the richest and poorest in society; further notes the effect of the covid-19 outbreak and the opportunities and risks provided by the reorganisation of public health on the UK’s ability to achieve this ambition; and calls on the Government to set out the further steps it plans to take to deliver a smokefree England by 2030.
Peterborough United: Covid-19
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to present my case today, on behalf of Peterborough United football club, to be able to have a limited number of supporters attending their home matches. Let me make it absolutely clear at the outset that in putting forward the case to allow spectators, I do so with the intention of that happening after the lifting of the present restrictions. I wish to inform the thinking of the Minister so that when the easing of restrictions does take place, serious consideration can be given to opening up football stadiums in a limited manner, provided that proper social distancing and safety measures are implemented.
Earlier this year, pubs, restaurants, clubs, cafés and other venues were opened up after the period of the lockdown, but football stadiums were not. This time round, I hope it will be different, and I would like to put forward some reasons as to why I believe that should be so, with specific reference to Peterborough United FC, affectionately known as the Posh. I have the privilege of having the club in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire, which has in it some 40% of the total population covered by Peterborough City Council.
The club was formed in 1934, and after winning the Midland league title for five consecutive seasons, they were elected to the Football League in 1960. Currently, the club are at the top of league 1. The story behind the name “Posh” is an interesting one. Although the present club dates back to 1934, the Posh name first came to the fore over a decade earlier, almost certainly coming from Pat Tirrell, who was player manager of Fletton United, the previous users of the present club’s London Road ground. Pat announced at the end of the 1921 season that he was looking for “Posh players for a Posh team” to compete in Northamptonshire league, which subsequently became the United Counties league. Fletton United had previously been known as the “Brickies”. They reformed as Peterborough and Fletton United in 1923, and both nicknames were in use throughout the 1920s. Following the demise of Peterborough and Fletton United in 1932, the present club was formed two years later. There then followed a Midland league debut against Gainsborough Trinity on 1 September 1934, and this was greeted with shouts of “up the Posh” from the spectators.
The current owners of the club, Darragh MacAnthony, who is also chairman of the club, Jason Neale and Stewart Thompson, are totally committed to the Posh, as are the manager Darren Ferguson, chief executive officer Bob Symns and director of football Barry Fry. The city of Peterborough and surrounding area benefit economically and socially from the club’s continued success, drawing in millions of pounds of revenue every year, helping local tourism and making a huge contribution through the Peterborough United Foundation. It is not surprising, therefore, that the club enjoys the support of Peterborough City Council. Incidentally, the leader of Peterborough City Council, Councillor John Holdich, is retiring next year after over 40 years of public service. I thank Councillor Holdich for his outstanding dedication and commitment to the city and the surrounding area. I wish him and his wife Barbara much happiness following his retirement.
The covid-19 pandemic has been a massive challenge for us all, and has resulted in an unprecedented challenge for all football clubs. Of course, many other sports have also been affected, but I am confining my comments today to football, and specifically to the Posh. As we move forwards, and in anticipation of an easing of restrictions, the Posh’s CEO Bob Symns and his team have put an enormous amount of work into making preparations for a return to socially distanced competition at the Weston Homes stadium, where the club plays. The plans are intensely thorough and detailed, covering all aspects of how the stadium would operate on match days, with a reduced crowd and working on the basis of ensuring maximum safety for all concerned.
The stadium covers some 5 acres and has a maximum capacity of 15,000 spectators, but the club seeks permission to make provision for only 4,000 of its followers, and they are all season ticket holders. In the event that any one of those individuals needs to be contacted—for example, for test and trace purposes—the club has everyone’s contact details, including mobile numbers, email addresses and so on.
As for the preparations, entry to and departure from the stadium would be staggered. Every seat and every space in and around the ground and the stadium has been accounted for on a socially distanced basis. There is provision for single spectators, those arriving in twos, threes and so on. There is plenty of signage and hand sanitiser stations, and there are unique protocols and procedures for the various different areas and facilities. These include the entrance and exit points, home and away dressing rooms, the players’ tunnel, areas for the media and catering, car parking areas, turnstiles, the ticket office—the list goes on. There will be full deep-cleaning of the stadium, including the benches, control room, staff areas, media places and the like. These deep cleans will take place prior to and at the end of each match day. There will also be ongoing cleaning of some areas, such as toilets, entrances, door handles and light switches, between fixtures.
As one would expect in such circumstances, the club has made risk assessments, put in place contingency plans, provided for the proper training of staff, and ensured that there is an effective communication procedure and system. No detail has been overlooked, and that point is clearly made when I say that during matches there will be eight people whose sole responsibility will be to ensure that the balls used during the match are properly sanitised. Of course, if the club is going to do a proper job, it almost goes without saying that the corner flags and goalposts will also be thoroughly sanitised. As well as all these safety measures, a crucial point that I very much hope the Minister will take on board is that, unlike many other types of venues that were previously allowed to open to the public, the Posh’s stadium, and football stadiums generally around the country, are in the open air. They are therefore that much safer for fans and for all others attending.
In its preparations, the club has also worked very closely with other stakeholders. These include the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, the safety advisory group, the local fire and police services and the medical providers, including the ambulance service. Having read and considered the proposals, and after several conversations with Mr Symns, I can truly say that I believe that Peterborough United FC has provided a template that can be safely used by any club throughout the country. Let me add that when speaking with Mr Darragh MacAnthony, he assured me of his total determination to do whatever it takes to ensure that safety guidelines are adhered to, and said that the safety of everyone is of paramount importance on match days and more generally.
Moreover, Darren Ferguson, the club manager, also made it clear to me that he and all the players are totally committed to making this work. During training sessions rigorous measures are taken to ensure compliance with safety rules, and all the players are fully aware of their own responsibility in making sure that the message of health and safety and social distancing is effectively conveyed and adhered to by all the fans attending. My hon. Friend the Minister will also appreciate that currently there is no income for the Posh and many other clubs, and it is therefore absolutely vital that they are allowed to generate some much-needed revenue after such a long period without money coming in.
One aspect of the club’s work that does not receive as much attention as it ought to is the work carried out by Peterborough United Foundation, which makes a real and positive difference to the wider community. The values of the foundation are to ensure opportunities for everyone regardless of age, gender, ethnicity or ability, and its activities are centred around four themes: sports participation, social inclusion and community cohesion, health, and education.
The foundation’s activities include a school sports programme with after-school clubs and PE lessons, currently working with some 13 primary schools and delivering each week to around 1,000 children. Another programme involves going into schools and helping the development of teachers delivering PE, as well as helping children to gain important life skills, using four particular themes: to be ambitious, to be inspiring, to be fair, and to be connected.
There is, of course, a Peterborough United ladies’ team, as well as opportunities for girls who have experience of playing football to gain even more training at the Peterborough United girls elite and development centre, and there is also a programme for girls aged 11-plus, the majority of whom have not played football or taken part in much physical activity before. These girls and women come from a variety of backgrounds and abilities, and the foundation seeks to provide them with as many opportunities as possible to participate in football. The disability coaching programme covers both school and out-of-school sessions, and the foundation supports an adult deaf team that competes in the English deaf league south division, as well as providing coaching sessions for children who are deaf and hearing-impaired.
There is more. There is support for an adult amputee team, which competes in the English amputee football league. There are “healthy kicking days”, too; children take part in activities that teach them how to keep healthy and active and what foods to eat to maintain a healthy diet. Enterprise days are hugely popular, providing children with an opportunity to meet and work with many other children from different schools whom they would not normally see. A local organisation, Locate Accommodation, helps refugees who come to Peterborough, and the foundation offers football sessions to them over the summer holidays. Let it not be said that there is not provision for all age groups, because there is. There is walking football. The sessions are for participants of any age and are ideal for those who wish to continue playing football, but in a more relaxed, non-competitive and non-contact manner.
Opening up the club to spectators, even in a limited way, would serve another important purpose. It would allow the club to celebrate the life of Tommy Robson and his contribution to the Posh and the city. Last month, very sadly, Tommy passed away. He was a much-loved and admired Posh legend, and the first player to be inducted into the club’s hall of fame.
Tommy played for Northampton Town, Chelsea and Newcastle United before signing for the Posh in 1968 for a transfer fee of £20,000. He made 482 league appearances for the club and was twice named player of the season. Tommy later dedicated much of his working life to Peterborough and earlier this year was awarded the freedom of the city. Councillor Peter Hiller tabled a motion on Tommy’s award and said:
“Tommy is without doubt one of if not the most loved players ever to grace the pitch at London Road.”
The club has started a campaign to raise funds to erect a bronze statue of Tommy outside the club grounds. This would join a statue of Chris Turner, which stands outside the stadium. Chris was formerly a player, the manager and chairman of the club. Tommy’s son, Ian, has said that his father
“had an awful lot of love for the city and clearly the people loved him.”
Tommy’s daughter, Anita, added:
“I always knew he was a special man but to realise he was special to everyone up and down the country has been absolutely amazing.”
The chairman of the Posh supporters’ trust, Marco Graziano, has spoken of the chance for fans to pay their respects to Tommy inside the stadium.
When the present restrictions are released and restaurants, pubs, cafes, theatres, shops and a whole variety of places are opened up again, I very much hope that the Minister—who is not only a colleague, but a very good friend of mine, and for whom I have a huge amount of respect—will give serious thought to the points that I have made, especially the fact that, unlike many other venues, football stadiums and the grounds where Posh play are in open areas without any closed roofs or ceilings. I hope, too, that he will appreciate that that helps towards enhancing safety measures.
I invite the Minister to come to the Posh stadium himself, and to bring along his advisers and civil servants, so he can see personally what measures have been put in place. He can challenge and ask Mr Symns and others if he has any concerns. Above all, he can come to see the enormous work that has been put in place to ensure that Posh players can play safely, and spectators can come to enjoy watching the matches.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara) for introducing the debate and for the contributions he has made towards this important topic today.
Football clubs such as Peterborough United are vital parts of their communities. They have unique social value and enjoy rich histories. My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for his club. I know this well. We have spoken about football, and in particular Peterborough United, on many occasions. May I say immediately that I would be very keen indeed to take up his invitation to visit him in his constituency and the club? He outlined in incredibly forensic detail the many measures that his club and others across the country have taken to prepare for the safe opening of stadiums as soon as they are able to do so. I appreciate his attention to detail in outlining the case.
The Posh, as they are affectionately known, have been a mainstay of English football for more than 85 years. They have a very proud history, as my hon. Friend has articulated, and of course have very strong grounds to be optimistic about their future. Peterborough were, of course, unlucky to miss out on the play-offs last year, but given that they currently occupy the top position in league one, this season looks pretty positive for them. I hope that their good form continues and I wish them the very best of luck for the rest of the campaign.
As well as the team’s success on the pitch, the Peterborough United Foundation, as my hon. Friend has said, has undertaken incredible work off the pitch for many years. I think it was first founded in 2009. My hon. Friend mentioned many of the foundation’s activities. I was particularly impressed with all the work on access, including for the disabled and the elderly and, of course—this is a passion of mine—for women and girls, through its girls elite and development centre, and its support for the Premier League Primary Stars programme to create a healthier and more positive future for the country’s children.
The club and the foundation have also stepped up to the plate during coronavirus, helping the city during these incredibly difficult times by sending care packages to vulnerable fans across Peterborough and the surrounding areas. This is yet another great example of football clubs demonstrating their importance to local communities. In this place over the past few weeks, we have talked a lot about the role of rugby in communities. Perhaps we should not overlook the important role that football and football clubs play as well.
The Government have provided unprecedented support to businesses throughout this difficult period, including a comprehensive and sizeable package of direct fiscal support. Many football clubs have benefited from these measures, such as the business rates relief and the furlough scheme. Sport England has also provided £210 million of national lottery and Government funding to support the sector through covid-19. That includes a £35 million community emergency fund, which is helping community clubs and exercise centres during the pandemic. The Football Foundation, a charity set up by the Government, the Football Association and the Premier League, has also introduced a number of funds to help clubs. The latest is a matchday support fund, helping clubs prepare for the resumption of football.
I completely understand the importance of getting fans back into sports stadiums. My hon. Friend talked passionately about this, as have many other Members over the last few weeks. However, rising infection rates across the country meant that, unfortunately, it was not the right time to proceed with a wider reopening on 1 October, as we had planned. The Government understand the financial consequences of this decision and are focusing our support on those in the sector who are most in need as a result. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with the Treasury to confirm a support package, and we will set out further details in due course.
In addition, the Government recently brokered a unique deal with the National Lottery, which has provided £10 million in funding for the 66 clubs in the national league so that they can continue to play behind closed doors, and, of course, the English Football League is currently in discussions with the Premier League about a support package. I am hopeful and optimistic that those discussions will come to a positive conclusion very shortly.
We are absolutely committed to getting spectators back into stadia as soon as it is safe to do so. We will continue to work closely with a whole range of sports to understand the latest thinking that might allow spectators to return. The Government have invited the Sports Technology and Innovation Group—STIG for short—to analyse new technologies that might support the return of spectators. I spoke to the chair of the group this week, as did the Secretary of State, and we heard about the vital work that it is undertaking which will help to get spectators back in stadia as soon as possible.
We have made significant progress since the start of the pandemic. We worked closely with the sector to bring elite athletes back into training before returning competitive sport behind closed doors. We welcomed international athletes, with health protocols that helped to isolate the competitors, and set out detailed and stringent guidance for the safe return of spectators. The return of spectators was also successfully tested through the staging of pilot events over the summer, but these plans regrettably had to be paused as the virus was spreading. Rest assured, I understand the importance of pressing play on our plans and how unfortunate that was, but we will return to these plans as soon as we can. We pressed the pause button; we intend to return as soon as possible.
Before I conclude—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is strangely not in his place this evening—I would like to take the opportunity to wish Northern Ireland and Scotland good luck in their Euro 2020 play-off matches tonight—Northern Ireland versus Slovakia and Scotland versus Serbia, kick off at 7.45 pm. I am sure that many will be watching. I am grateful for today’s wide-ranging discussion about a subject that is close to my heart, many hearts here and the hearts of many of our constituents. I conclude by confirming that the Government are absolutely committed to continuing to support the sport sector and getting spectators back into stadia as soon as it is safe to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Draft New Heavy Duty Vehicles (Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 3 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Road Vehicles and Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Type-Approval) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft New Heavy Duty Vehicles (Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Rachel Maclean
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Rees.
The type-approval instrument will be made under powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 and is needed for the end of the transition period. Currently, vehicles can be registered in the UK only if they have a valid EU type approval. Existing EU exit legislation provides for a provisional type-approval scheme to maintain control of the registration of vehicles after the transition period. That must now be amended to implement our obligations with regard to Northern Ireland. These draft regulations will ensure that the Government give effect to their commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol applies EU legislation on type approval to Northern Ireland. Therefore, these regulations disapply much of our existing EU exit statutory instrument, made in 2019, in Northern Ireland, essentially leaving the status quo in place there. The measure also ensures unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the Great Britain market.
This regulation will also remove a 4-metre height limit for vehicles that was introduced in the EU to protect older infrastructure, such as overhead tram wires. UK manufacturers have been able to produce tall vehicles, such as double decker buses, only in limited volumes. This instrument will permit the mass production in Great Britain of vehicles exceeding 4 metres in height in the future. These changes do not affect the environmental and safety standards to which vehicles will be approved.
The Road Vehicle Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 govern the establishment and enforcement of carbon dioxide emission targets in relation to manufacturers of new cars and vans. These regulations are also covered by the Northern Ireland protocol and so create requirements in Great Britain only.
EU regulation establishes mandatory fleet average CO2 emissions targets for all cars and vans registered in the EU each year. Based on these targets, manufacturers receive individual fleet targets based on a comparison between the average weight of their fleet and the average weight of all relevant vehicles registered in the EU. As only the manufacturer’s fleet average is regulated, it may sell any vehicle that it wishes, provided that the emissions of its fleet balance out to meet its target. Fines are levied for non-compliance.
The purpose of the cars and vans CO2 instrument is to ensure that the Government are able to set and enforce emissions targets that are at least as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions regulation, which the Government committed to in 2018. It also amends a prior EU exit SI, the Road Vehicle Emission Performance Standards (Cars and Vans) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, to reflect subsequent changes at EU level.
I come now to the New Heavy Duty Vehicles (Carbon Dioxide Emission Performance Standards) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. EU regulation establishes performance targets for CO2 emissions reductions from the new HDV fleets. Those targets are designed to encourage the uptake of zero-emission vehicles and promote efficiency improvements in new internal combustion engines. Fines apply for non-compliance. This measure will apply UK-wide, as it is not listed in the Northern Ireland protocol. This instrument has the same aim as the cars and vans regulation. It will ensure that the Government are able to effectively set and enforce emissions targets that are at least as ambitious as the current arrangements for vehicle emissions regulation. It also amends a prior EU exit SI, made in 2019, regarding the collection of data from such vehicles, to reflect amendments to the EU legislation since that SI was laid before the House.
In conclusion, these statutory instruments ensure that we can control vehicle registration, maintain the level of ambition around carbon dioxide emissions, minimise the cost to industry and implement the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I thank you, Ms Rees, and the Minister. Brexit and climate change are two serious issues that we must deal with properly. The statutory instruments cut across both issues and so require scrutiny, especially in the light of approaching deadlines, political pressure and the demands of dealing with the coronavirus pandemic. As the Government move to enshrine EU regulations in UK law, I take the opportunity to emphasise the need to maintain truly and equally ambitious CO2 reduction targets and high vehicle safety standards.
The first instrument deals with vehicle standards. There is undoubtedly a need to introduce new regulations to allow vehicles and engines to be produced in Northern Ireland to be sold in Britain. None the less, I emphasise that it is important for the Government to remain vigilant about several related safety issues. For example, the Health and Safety Executive provides official advice to deal with the extra precautions needed when working at height on vehicles. As the instrument eliminates the 4-metre height limit on vehicles, I ask the Minister to commit to monitoring the situation and to take all the necessary steps to keep those who work with large vehicles safe at all times. Will she write to me about the steps that the Department may take?
Matt Rodda
I note that the Minister is nodding. I am grateful and I look forward to hearing from her.
I have more serious concerns about the second and third instruments that relate to important aspects of the Government’s environmental policy and, I believe, clearly show that Ministers are seeking to water down their commitment to tackling the climate emergency. The Department for Transport’s explanatory memorandums on the two instruments on carbon dioxide emission performance standards say that the Government aim to introduce standards to UK law that are
“at least as ambitious as under the current EU regime.”
Independent analysis by the Transport & Environment think-tank questions that claim, however, and points out that, although the headline aims are the same, flaws in the current proposals reduce their effectiveness. I will address two specific examples; I hope that hon. Members will forgive me for their somewhat technical nature.
First, the regulations use the average mass of cars in the EU to set targets for future UK carbon dioxide emissions, rather than the average mass of cars in the UK. That amounts to watering down the regulations and setting lower targets for the UK, because UK cars are on average heavier. Secondly, the regulations allow manufacturers to use an additional 3.5 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre of super-credits as an additional allowance for producing CO2 for some battery and plug-in hybrid vehicles that, in many cases, also have internal combustion engines.
According to experts, replacing EU regulations with the current proposals will mean that a fifth fewer electric vehicles are sold in the UK. That could mean that, in 2030, only one third of cars sold are electric. The Committee will have noted the Government’s interest in enhancing the number of electric vehicles.
That is a significant change in policy that will hamper the UK’s ability to meet vital targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, the Government declared a climate emergency and promised to take climate change much more seriously. If the instruments are passed in this watered-down form, however, it will clearly signal that the Government’s actions do not match their words.
As a constructive Opposition, we call for the Government to withdraw the instruments and introduce secondary legislation that transposes current EU regulations into UK law instead. If the Government commit to that, we will do all we can to expedite that process and allow the necessary legislation to be passed before it is needed.
Reducing the carbon dioxide produced by road transport should be the central priority for any Government. We cannot reduce our efforts to tackle the climate emergency and we will therefore vote against these regulations.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I definitely commit to writing to him. I reiterate the Government’s position: we do intend to maintain standards that are at least as ambitious. He has indicated his willingness to vote against the Government; nevertheless, we are confident that the legislation will enable us to meet our legal greenhouse gas and net zero commitments and the emissions targets. I remind him of all the work that we are doing to introduce an end to the sale of diesel and petrol cars and vans. We are actively looking at that policy, as he knows.
Question put.
Ministerial Correction
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadhim Zahawi
The Government acknowledge that access to debt finance is important, but it can only form part of our approach to supporting businesses through this period. We have already provided the devolved Administrations with unprecedented up-front funding guarantees, so that they have the certainty they need to decide how and when to provide support. The funding guarantees to the Scottish Government are worth £7.2 billion, to the Welsh Government £4.4 billion, and to Northern Ireland £2.4 billion.
[Official Report, 5 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 559.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson).
The correct response should have been:
Nadhim Zahawi
The Government acknowledge that access to debt finance is important, but it can only form part of our approach to supporting businesses through this period. We have already provided the devolved Administrations with unprecedented up-front funding guarantees, so that they have the certainty they need to decide how and when to provide support. The funding guarantees to the Scottish Government are worth £8.2 billion, to the Welsh Government £5 billion, and to Northern Ireland £2.8 billion.
Petitions
Restoration of Hammersmith Bridge
Environment Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Thursday 12th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 November 2020 - (12 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members about social distancing. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I also remind Members, please, to switch electronic devices off or to silent. Teas and coffees are not allowed during sittings.
We will now continue with line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order that they are debated, but in the order that they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
Clause 50
Resource efficiency requirements
Amendments made: 39, in clause 50, page 30, line 20, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 40, in clause 50, page 30, line 21, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 7
Resource efficiency requirements
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 19 in schedule 7, page 165, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Sir George, and to serve under your chairmanship. The amendment is in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Cambridge and, my neighbour back home, for Newport East (Jessica Morden).
The schedule gives the relevant national authority the power to make the regulations that set the resource efficiency requirements that products are required to meet. As a Member representing a Welsh constituency, it is a real pleasure to be able to speak to a part of the Bill that applies to all parts of the UK—to all countries. Once again, it is appropriate to remind colleagues that the Bill is important for all our futures. That is why we need to ensure that it is fit for purpose and effective in its measure and scope.
Our amendment to schedule 7 once again looks to the power of language and the subsequent ambition and drive of the Minister and her colleagues. I have never doubted her willingness or commitment to action, but that is why we wanted the Bill to come back sooner, so that all Members could give it the attention and focus that it deserves. For all the commitment and focus, however, we need to see results and actions, not just empty rhetoric that lands up simply being nothing more than words. That is why the amendment proposes to leave out “may” and to insert “must”.
All those of us privileged to be elected to this House, from all parts of the country, come with the support of our constituents behind us. We also come with our party political views and commitments, too. Those views and commitments will, as we all know, change depending on the contemporary political issues of the day, which is why it is so important that we get the wording of the Bill correct now, to ensure that what we mean is enshrined in law for, and clearly understood by, future generations.
The schedule is applicable to all parts of the United Kingdom, so it is vital that we make it as strong as possible. We do not need any more “mays”; we need more “musts”. Language, as has been said in previous sittings, is something that we need to get right. We need to ensure that the language used in the final iteration of the Bill is as strong and ambitious as it can be. As this part of the Bill looks at the general powers exercised, we need to ensure that the relevant authorities are empowered to do what is necessary, and are obligated to do so. The amendment will help to do that, and I hope that the Minister will take it in the spirit in which it is intended.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. As with amendment 18 on the resource efficiency information power, it is not appropriate to have a duty to take action on all products or to specify particular products in advance. Our intention is to use the power to set resource efficiency eco-design requirements for products where the greatest benefit can be realised. As I did in respect of amendment 18, I reassure the hon. Member that we are committed to approaching the making of any regulations in that way.
It is really important that we have flexibility on setting standards on products that come to light as critical. It is not possible right now to identify products in advance, as it very much depends on industry practice, the environmental impact that the particular group of products being considered might have on the environment, and the feasibility of setting minimum eco-design requirements.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to continue with you in the Chair, Sir George. The Minister is making a fine speech, but on all the “may” and “must” issues I find myself casting my mind back to children on the streets on Fridays, as they left their schools, to demand climate justice, and huge numbers of people expressing concern about the urgency of it. Would she really feel comfortable standing in front of those groups of people and dithering in this way on issues that need to be dealt with urgently?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his slightly cheeky intervention. We are talking about the Environment Bill. I have outlined the difference between “may” and “must” in great detail. Importantly, we are not stopping it happening, but it has to happen in the right way and on the right products. A great deal of stakeholder engagement has already happened with industry and will continue, because industry has to be able to do such things, and we have to bring industry along with us.
I will give a good example of where we might soon need to use the measures. Evidence has suggested that absorbent hygiene products might be a good place to start. Similarly, we have identified some other waste streams. The powers might be useful on textiles, furniture, electronics and construction materials, so the provision will genuinely be used and it will genuinely be useful.
I believe that the prioritisation approach will also provide sufficient flexibility to implement or modify requirements at different times for different products, and within a reasonable time span. It will also facilitate the making of separate provisions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, should the devolved Administrations wish to exercise the powers, as the hon. Member for Newport West recognised. For those reasons, I believe it is appropriate to take regulation-making powers, rather than a duty on the Government to set standards, and I therefore ask her to kindly withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. I think she has made the case for me, because I would hope that the devolved Administrations would insist on taking up the powers. The schedule addresses future circumstances very well with the word “specified”. It is future-proofing the Bill, but the word “must” strengthens it at the beginning. That is why we are pushing for it.
We will not divide the Committee on this matter today; we are content that the wording has been recorded in Hansard. But it is really important that we strengthen the Bill and make sure that people can take the powers when they should do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 162, in schedule 7, page 165, line 35, leave out sub-sub-paragraph (a).
As with a number of other important amendments, I move the amendment in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Southampton, Test, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), for Cambridge and, my constituency neighbour back home, for Newport East (Jessica Morden) —that was a memory test.
As Government and Labour colleagues will know from their preparation for this sitting of the Committee, this is very much a technical amendment. Having done that reading, I know that all Members will agree that amendment 162 essentially speaks for itself. [Laughter.] As a consequence, I will not detain the Committee for longer than is necessary, but I will touch on a couple of important points.
First, our amendment proposes to remove sub-sub-paragraph (a). We tabled the amendment because Labour Members are conscious of the need to use the Bill both now and in the future. We do not want to reduce the scope and reach of the Bill before we know where the challenges facing our environment are, what action may be required and when. Once again, I reiterate the point about language: it is vital that every word, every full stop and every sub-sub-paragraph enhances our ability to protect the natural world and preserve our environment. This amendment will help to do that and I hope that the Minister will accept it in the spirit that is intended.
Rebecca Pow
Again, I thank the hon. Member for tabling the amendment, but I also reassure her that the Government recognise the importance of measures to improve the durability, repairability and recyclability of both energy-related products and products that are not energy-related. The amendment is therefore not necessary, because at the end of the transition period the Government will have powers to set resource-efficiency requirements for energy-related products under the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010. Also, DEFRA is working closely with the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in this regard.
In combination with the information power detailed in schedule 6, we could, for example, require that information be provided with electronic devices explaining their expected lifetime, and how to carry out repairs or upgrades. The retained eco-design legislation could be used in tandem to set requirements for the availability of spare parts and upgradeable design.
Lots of us who have our own washing machines, dishwashers and all of those sorts of equipment would probably be pretty much in favour of some of those ideas, so having two sets of powers covering resource efficiency for the same products risks being confusing for businesses and other stakeholders. Therefore, I ask that the hon. Member withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her words there, including her explanation, and also for setting out the scenarios that could be useful in the future. It is always useful to have practical examples to be able to think about how these measures will be applied in the future.
Obviously, while we are sad that the Minister is not going to take our amendment on board, we nevertheless now have it on the record. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 163, in schedule 7, page 166, line 13, at end insert
“taking into account social dimensions such as human rights, public health and fair working conditions”.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment 164, in schedule 7, page 166, line 26, leave out lines 28 to 32 and insert—
“(b) the techniques and working conditions used in its manufacture and sourcing of resources;
(c) the resources consumed during its production or use;
(d) the pollutants (including greenhouse gases within the meaning of section 92 of the Climate Change Act 2008) released or emitted at any stage of the product’s production, use or disposal; with consideration of the social impacts these may result in, for example, public health concerns.”
Amendment 165, in schedule 7, page 167, line 22, after “environment” insert “workers or communities”.
Amendment 166, in schedule 7, page 167, line 25, after “environment” insert “workers or communities”.
Amendment 167, in schedule 7, page 167, line 29, after “environment” insert “workers or communities”.
Ruth Jones
This amendment has also been tabled in the names of the hon. Members I mentioned in relation to the previous two amendments.
Amendment 163 looks at the wider impact of how things are done, so it is not just a case of looking solely at what is produced and manufactured and its impact on the environment. It looks at the full package, which is why it seeks to insert into schedule 7
“taking into account social dimensions such as human rights, public health and fair working conditions”.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling these amendments. I share her view that human rights, working conditions, public health and the impact of product manufacture, use and disposal on workers and wider communities—I think those are the things that she was she was getting at—are of the utmost importance. However, the primary focus of the Bill, and the resource efficiency powers that we are currently debating, is improving the natural environment. That will benefit workers and communities who depend on their natural environment for clean air, clean water and a stable climate, as well as improving the durability and reparability of products so that they last longer and provide better value. Going beyond matters of the environment to incorporate social factors—such as labour conditions, as the amendments suggest—and other benefits to communities would be going beyond the scope of this legislative instrument.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the suggested amendment looks like a cocktail of impractical virtue signalling?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly concise intervention. Indeed, the amendment is not necessary, which is the point I am trying to make and what I think he is getting at, because it would be really complicated, if not impossible, to lay down requirements on a product basis that cover these considerations for all exporting countries. Some difference in standards is obviously inevitable, and because of this complexity, such matters are much better dealt with—as I think my hon. Friend is getting at—by other legal mechanisms. That is the remit of the International Labour Organisation’s conventions.
Amendment 164 would remove reference to the material composition of products. This wording is essential to the objectives of the power, as the materials in a product will determine how easily the product can be to be taken apart, recycled and manufactured. Material composition may also determine the amount of pollution associated with these activities.
Finally, I must emphasise the importance of having a carefully defined power within the scope of the Bill. The detriment of seeking to cover too many considerations within these provisions is the risk of making it overly complicated to actually use the powers. On those grounds, I ask the hon. Lady if she will kindly withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I am glad that the Minister shares our concerns about human rights, public health and fair working conditions. As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, it is a cocktail, but to be honest it is a good cocktail, and it is useful, and it will actually assist us as we go forward with this Bill. It will enhance the Bill, because we think that the Bill should cover these important aspects.
Rebecca Pow
May I very quickly intervene on the hon. Lady, if that is all right, Mr Chairman?
The Chair
Provided that the hon. Member is prepared to accept the intervention, yes, it is all right.
Rebecca Pow
I want to highlight that we do not consider that goals such as labour rights are best delivered through setting requirements relating to product standards and information. To add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, action is already under way on those fronts through a number of other routes, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which requires corporate reporting on supply chains and multi-stakeholder working groups and encourages companies to sign up to the International Labour Organisation’s call for action, which I referred to before.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for augmenting her comments. I agree it is good that we have the Modern Slavery Act and that is important, but there is no harm in putting an additional belt and braces on this Bill to ensure that human rights are taken into consideration, as are public health and fair working conditions. We have pushed for the minimum wage and the living wage, and it is important that those things are taken into consideration. There is no harm in our having integrated objectives across a number of Bills, because it shows that the Government are joined up and thinking across the piece. That is why we will push this amendment to a Division, because it is such an important one and we think it should be enshrined in law.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I have a few things to say about the schedule, including some questions for the Minister about how it might best be implemented.
As I am sure all hon. Members know, how waste becomes a resource is set out substantially in the 2008 EU waste framework directive, which gives guidance to member states—to be placed into law—about how that process should be carried out. The Committee will also be aware that resource efficiency is a very real issue.
A big question is precisely when something in a stream should be defined as waste or as a resource. The waste framework directive contains a number of criteria about that end-of-waste transition, but the framework and the subsequent UK legislation have been fraught with difficulties and problems, because they have required waste to be categorised: as hazardous waste, as inert waste—waste that can be put in golf courses and so on—or as waste that must undergo various treatments, for example. The waste hierarchy, which the Committee has discussed, derives from a number of considerations not only about what waste is, but about what should be done with various waste streams.
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Would he agree that a good example of this is the supermarkets? In the past, food that had gone beyond its use-by date went to waste, but nowadays, thanks to important communication between supermarkets and homeless people, for example, the latter can utilise this food for their evening meals. One man’s waste is another man’s supper.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is right. We have made considerable progress on food waste, and we will come to discuss some wider aspects of food waste later in the proceedings. Nevertheless, she rightly states the principle: if a piece of waste which would otherwise be taken out and processed in certain ways is stewarded through that process, knowing that the outcome of that process is a good outcome, that process can be much more easily streamlined to ensure that what was waste becomes a resource.
For years, the Environment Agency has been trying to tackle the many instances where something that goes into a waste stream, such as bones residual to animal rendering, carcases and various other things, may well be treated as hazardous and have particular measures apply to them. However, if those bones can be transferred for the making of bone china, that industry can take the bones and steward them through the process of becoming a resource for undertaking what the industry wants to do. That allows what looked like a problem to become a solution. That is just one example—perhaps, not a terribly good example—but there are many examples of that in industry, where one industry’s waste, which may be classified in particular ways, is desperately needed as a resource for another industry, which cannot unlock that resource from it being waste. We have never properly gotten to grips with that in this country.
The concept of stewardship, whereby what is a piece of waste can be certified as being stewarded, ready for the purpose of becoming a resource, has never properly been defined in regulations or in law. Hence, often by the time we have gotten around to thinking that something is a particular resource, it has already been disposed of down a particular waste stream and is lost for that resource purpose.
Daniel Zeichner
As ever, my hon. Friend is making a thoughtful and interesting speech. As he spoke, I thought of some of the examples that came up in the covid-19 crisis in the food chains, where we were at risk because one part of the system relied on another in exactly the ways he is describing. What struck me is that the economies of scale are critical. Are we not much better being part of a wider, bigger system that allows us to use things that are potentially regarded as waste? With a small, narrow system, they cannot be reused, but they can be if we are part of a bigger system.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The concept of a larger system through which all of this works is key to this whole discussion. Indeed, what we have been talking about, and what the waste strategy document says about the circular economy, means that putting this into a wider frame of how we circulate products through the economy, so that we do not pull virgin materials in and that everything we are using as it goes through the economy is reusable, recyclable or replaceable in one way or another, is essential to a resource-efficient and low-carbon waste and resource economy.
In this part of the Bill, we are essentially replacing elements of the waste framework directive with UK law, but does not seem to me that what we have done allows the sort of processes that I have described to be properly incorporated in regulations so that the circular economy arrangement can be expedited. Does the Minister consider that the regulations that will be associated with schedule 7 are capable of allowing those sorts of changes to be made, to the benefit of the recycled and reclaimed resources industry in the UK; or does she consider that we have missed an opportunity here, and that further legislation and/or regulations may be necessary to ensure that that can be done?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his thoughts. I shall stick to the detail of what the schedule is actually about in my answers, but I want to touch on his general points. Of course, the whole purpose of the waste and resources section of the Bill is to reduce all waste with a range of measures, and to make everything we produce recyclable, repairable and more durable. That is why we are focusing particularly on eco-design.
The hon. Gentleman touched on some issues relating to bones and various things like that. This is a slightly more general comment, but there are many health-related issues that would have to be taken into account. It takes me back to the time of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, when any food waste was banned from being fed to pigs. There were masses of knock-on effects, but as a pig keeper, I was mortified about that. He will know that such things are complicated, so one cannot go down that burrow without discussing a lot of other issues.
I want to get back to the purposes of the schedule, but I will touch on the point made by the hon. Member for Newport West about food waste. I am sure she is pleased that food waste is dealt with in the Bill—that is one of the really positive and exciting things about it. Food waste will now have to be collected from local authorities in the waste collections. Some local authorities already do it, but every one will have to do it. Clause 47 and schedule 4 will require producers that are responsible for food surplus and food waste to take action, and that includes redistributing it. Great work is already done by many people, but that will be a requirement for surplus food.
On the schedule, by applying the principle of eco-design to non-energy-related products, we can drive up resource efficiency by gradually removing the least resource efficient products from the market. That is the very point that the hon. Lady was getting at. Those requirements might relate to durability, recyclability, repairability or the sustainability of products for dismantling and remanufacture. I think the hon. Member for Southampton, Test was getting at that point; products can be taken apart and then the component parts could be reused.
The requirements might also concern the material composition of products and the way in which products are manufactured, and the pollutants emitted or produced by products throughout the full lifecycle. For example—the hon. Member for Newport West said she likes examples—that might include moving and load-bearing parts such as wheels and hinges from items of furniture, because they might wear out first. Making them removable and replaceable could be part of the design. Where that is not the case, the regulations might require that parts can be removed without damage to the rest of the product, and other wheels can be screwed back on, for example. That is the kind of thing we are discussing.
As has been explained in relation to the resource efficiency information power, we have identified priority areas for action, including clothing, furniture and electronic equipment, where we believe requirements such as this are likely to have the greatest impact.
Rebecca Pow
I am about to conclude, but I see that the hon. Gentleman is trying to intervene.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for giving way. I am not particularly criticising or wishing to take away from any of the excellent things the Minister has been saying about the purpose of these provisions. What I am trying to get at is what actually happens now—the way in which things are classified while they are going through the waste stream and before they turn into a resource, and the extent to which the classification under existing legislation hinders the process by which they may be liberated as a resource in exactly the way the Minister has described in her comments. That is what I am concerned about—whether those classifications can be substituted by a system of stewardship, which would enable that passage to be much more straightforward, good intentions notwithstanding concerning how that passage can result in a successful outcome.
Rebecca Pow
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I think he is overcomplicating the issue. Through the measures in the Bill, every single person who makes something will have to think about what it contains, what it is made of, what is going to happen to it, where it is going to go, who is going to reuse it and how long it will last. I think the issues he is worried about will solve themselves, in a way. If he wants more detail on that, I am sure we can write to him.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to plough on. The schedule considers eco-design. Clauses 49 and 50 and schedules 6 and 7 describe resource efficiency powers, which complement various other powers in the Bill, including the extended producer responsibility—that very much touches on what I have just said. They aim, as a minimum, to ensure that we can be ahead of the curve internationally and, ideally, to enable us to lead the way. Acquiring resource efficiency powers is an essential step towards delivering against the goals of the 25-year environment plan and the resources and waste strategy, and achieving net zero by 2050. I believe that all the things in the schedule will help that work.
We are ahead of the curve even compared with the EU on this matter. Once we have acquired the powers, it will be possible to set requirements for all products, whether they are energy related or not. That is not yet possible for the EU. At present, its eco legislation extends only to energy-related products. On those grounds alone, we are ahead, which I hope my hon. Friends and hon. Members will be pleased about.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 7 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 51
Deposit schemes
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 20 in schedule 8, page 170, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The amendment appears in my name and those of my hon. Friends. The schedule seeks to enable the national authority, namely the Secretary of State in relation to England, Ministers in the Welsh Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland to make regulations establishing deposit schemes.
I thank those out there in the real world who are working on these important issues. For example, Greener UK is working tremendously hard to ensure that the Bill is fit for purpose. I hope that Ministers will take the same approach.
With the powers in place, it will be imperative that the Government promise to deliver the model that will best achieve their aims, as detailed in the resources and waste strategy. Those include changing behaviour to reduce littering on land, in rivers and at sea, and to improve recycling rates. Members of the Committee will remember —I only just remember—the pop bottle schemes, when people would go around with bottles and get 5p. For young people, it was a useful income—for those of us old enough to remember.
All-in deposit schemes—by that, I mean drinks containers of all sizes and materials—offer the best financial return. They achieve the best recycling return, and constitute the clearest system for the public to use. That was confirmed by a series of impact assessments undertaken by the Government in 2019, which found that an all-in deposit return scheme would offer substantial financial benefit and collect a greater proportion of containers when compared with a more limited system that only covered so-called “on the go” drinks containers. An all-in scheme is the most likely to offer opportunities for scaling up to a refill system in future.
Further to that, an all-in deposit return scheme would ensure compatibility right across the UK, by setting out a system for England that would work in harmony with Scotland’s plans. We all have our views on whether the Government are committed to the Union, but as a Welsh MP the lack of respect for devolution and the devolved Government in Wales in recent months has been a matter of huge concern to me and many of my constituents. If the Government are to show that they are serious, they need to show it in letter as well as in voice.
The amendment would allow the Government to do just that. A system that works for and with all nations of the UK would especially benefit those who live near the border between, say, England and Scotland and anyone travelling between the two nations. My Scottish colleagues have highlighted the matter in the House on previous occasions. We want to ensure that the systems are compatible, if not all encompassing, while ensuring that they do not undermine one another financially or environmentally. Likewise, that approach would facilitate a simple roll-out to Wales and Northern Ireland, and so would be a win-win for us all.
The Bill only states that the Secretary of State “may” establish a scheme. The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she might be, would actually deliver. Our amendment follows many others tabled to the Bill and moved in Committee. It is all about delivery, action and getting it right by writing it into the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her amendment. We obviously recognise the importance of reducing littering and increasing recycling rates as part of our commitment to leave the environment in a better state for the next generation. Our 2019 manifesto pledged to introduce a deposit return scheme to incentivise people to recycle plastic and glass.
This power we enable us to establish deposit return schemes for different items, particularly those which are littered—it is important to try to cut those down—where we want to increase recycling, as well as the quality and value of recycled material. That is all part of that drive that this section is about.
A deposit return scheme will allow us to take plastic from drinks bottles and ensure it gets recycled back into a new bottle, reducing our reliance on virgin plastic material. We touched on that yesterday. So many companies would like a regular, consistent supply of the right kind of plastic to turn into other bottles. We are working on developing an evidence base that will include further consultation before finalising the design and scope of a DRS for drinks containers that will be set down in regulations made using this power.
We know that UK consumers go through a shocking 14 billion plastic drinks bottles, 9 billion drinks cans and 5 billion glass bottles a year. Although plastic bottles are fully recyclable, recent packaging recycling rates of 65% demonstrates that there is room for improvement. We consider that a well-designed deposit return scheme for drinks and containers could achieve something like 90% and higher, as countries that have already introduced the scheme are achieving.
This power gives the relevant national authority the flexibility to make regulations to establish deposit return schemes in relation to specific products or materials. It also gives the flexibility to decide which items are to be included in the DRS, to secure an increase in recycling and reuse of materials and to reduce the incidence of littering and fly-tipping.
It is entirely appropriate to be flexible here. It would not be appropriate for this power to be exercised in some circumstances. The discretionary element allows it to be used in a targeted manner for things that are, for example, the most littered items, such as drinks containers, that are often consumed away from the home. This comes out as one of the top lists on the “Keep Britain Tidy” surveys that are constantly conducted.
We need to have a system that allows us to add and adjust as we learn more about how a deposit return scheme works in practice. I have talked to lots of people involved in these types of schemes. Getting the system right is crucial. I ask the hon. Lady, therefore, to withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. I am slightly anxious that she is talking about further consultation here, because the public just want us to get on with this. They are fed up with being consulted. They have given their views and they want it to happen now. As Greta Thunberg and all the young people, certainly in my constituency, are telling me, “Get on with it. We cannot afford to wait for you. This planet has to be there for us tomorrow.”
Daniel Zeichner
That is exactly the point. I was tempted to intervene on the Minister, but she seemed reluctant. The call from people out there is that this needs to be got on with. I do not understand why the Government persistently delay. There is a danger that the Government could be accused of virtue signalling.
Ruth Jones
That is an interesting point. As my hon. Friend said, if the Government are serious about this, they need to get on with it and they need to be seen to be getting on with it.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Member for Cambridge has fired me up now. The point is that this scheme must also fit with other schemes, so it also must fit with the consistent collection of items by the local authorities. A great deal of work must be done to ensure that they all fit together. Even the hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned that one system must not undermine another; they must fit together. If we could get consistent systems across all the devolved Administrations, that would be useful. We are watching Scotland closely, because it is a little bit ahead, to see how that works. It is important that we bring all those things together.
Ruth Jones
Yes, of course we agree with her that these things have to be communicated clearly. We need to make sure that no one scheme undermines another. We do not want people crossing borders with lorryloads of plastic waste or whatever. That is not the intention. We understand that. However, it is important that we have clear communication across all four nations to make sure that that does not happen. The Minister outlined the regulations that will come through—
Rebecca Pow
I am sure the hon. Lady will agree and applaud the fact that we consulted closely with the Welsh Assembly Government, and on behalf of Northern Ireland. We are working closely with them on the proposals on exactly the grounds that she proposes.
Ruth Jones
I agree that it is important that we continue to make that point and communicate clearly across all four nations, but the Minister mentioned further regulations down the line. How will those be enforced? We want to know the how, the what and the where. How will it all come together? I am still not clear on exactly what will happen, so perhaps in future debates the Minister will outline those regulations.
The Minister talked about flexibility. Again, I hark back to my physiotherapy days: we do not want to be so flexible that we fall over. We need some constraints and guidelines to help us to walk in the right path. We are all in favour of getting this done. It is just a question of how soon, how quickly and how best we can do it. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 68, in schedule 8, page 172, line 39, leave out from “scheme” to end of line 40 and insert
“in relation to which the Scottish deposit administrator is exercising functions”.
This amendment modifies the way in which the scheme administrator of a Scottish deposit and return scheme is described, by referring to the administrator “exercising functions” rather than being “designated”. This is consistent with the terminology used in the relevant Scottish legislation. A similar change is made by Amendment 69.
Rebecca Pow
Amendments 68 to 70 seek to correct a technical error concerning a reference to how a scheme administrator would be established in Scotland. The amendment will enable a scheme administrator to interact, engage and make payments to a scheme administrator established through a deposit and return scheme in Scotland. It was always our intention for schemes within the UK to be able to work together, as I have already highlighted, including being able to make payments between schemes. I think the hon. Member for Newport West asked about that. The measure will help ensure that schemes are easier for consumers to use, will help to reduce the risk of fraud between schemes, and provide coherence for producers and retailers. I hope the Committee will agree to the amendment.
Amendment 68 agreed to.
Amendments made: 69, in schedule 8, page 174, line 20, leave out from “person” to end of line 22 and insert
“exercising the functions of a scheme administrator in relation to a Scottish deposit and return scheme”.
See Amendment 68.
Amendment 70, in schedule 8, page 174, line 24, leave out “that Act” and insert
“the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 12)”—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 69 and inserts the full name of the Act being referred to.
Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I welcome the opportunity to have a brief debate on the schedule, which is all about deposit schemes. As the Minister has set out admirably, the deposit schemes can target things that cause particular problems, including litter, fly-tipping and various other activities. I want to ask the Minister what the deposit schemes might consist of and the extent to which the schedule would facilitate that extent being realised.
When talking about deposit schemes, we usually think about precisely the sort of things that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge talked about, with memories of kids hanging around lidos and swimming pools, nicking Coke and pop bottles from sunbathers to take them back to the shop and get thruppence on them—not that I did that, obviously.
Dr Whitehead
What occurred then, and what is occurring now—or what I hope will occur now—is that the motivation to recycle, return and sort out particular items comes from a value being given to the residual function of those items after their primary function has been carried out. In the previous example, the Coke bottle has been emptied, but it still has value because the child can get some money by returning it to the shop.
We have seen that process in operation in various parts of Europe. In France, a number of supermarkets have reverse vending machines, where bottles can be inserted into the machine in exchange for a credit. The value has been secured and the product has been safely restored for recycling. The consequence of a lack of such schemes is that people dump things in the street or, in more serious instances, engage in serious fly-tipping.
On deposit schemes for larger items, some really large items have effectively got themselves into that value chain by different means. Hon. Members who were local authority councillors for any long period may remember that there was a particular passage of time when many estates and other places were plagued with burnt-out cars. People had decided that their car had no value because it was an old banger or had broken down, and that the easiest thing to do was to go and dump it somewhere and/or burn it.
That was substantially resolved by the end-of-life vehicles directive and the beginnings of the idea that even an old banger had some value for recycling purposes. The person who might otherwise have put that car into a hedge or burnt it in a car park would be incentivised to drive it on its last lap—or push it if it did not work —down to the breaker’s yard, where they would get a couple of hundred pounds for it, because it had increased value that way.
In the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, we have a sort-of attempt to give that value to white goods and various large items. The producer responsibility elements of WEEE required that the producer have a responsibility to get those products back. The process is very indirect. At the end of the life of a particular product, the producer is not necessarily in the same state as when the product was first produced, so you may have orphan products that require producer responsibility but are without a producer responsible for them. That producer responsibility is also a mediated process because someone else has to collect the product and establish what the responsibility should be.
Ruth Jones
Again, my hon. Friend is making a powerful and practical point. When ordering a new washing machine or dishwasher, for example, people have to pay if they want the person coming to fit the new one to take the old one away. That is almost a disincentive to recycle and reuse things. It is similar with mattresses. Does he agree that mattresses are the bane of local councils’ lives? They are dumped on the side of the road. We should make sure that they are recycled properly.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend raises the issue of mattresses, which absolutely are the most difficult thing to properly dispose of. I was going to restrict my point to white goods, but it is absolutely true of mattresses. Even with better regulations in place than previously, we still find substantial fly-tipping, quite often of mattresses, old furniture and white goods—old fridges or whatever. It is not so much the fridges and white goods that could have been taken away when a new item is purchased. If that item has a second life and is reused after it has been taken away, at the end of its life it has no value, and we are lucky if it goes down to the council tip or whatever and back into the producer responsibility cycle.
We still have a considerable problem with fly-tipping of these particular products. One way to deal with that would be to give those items a residual value, like the pop bottles. There is no reason whatever why any hon. Member should remember this, but I put forward a ten-minute rule Bill, in about 2001, I think, to introduce a deposit scheme for white goods. That would have meant that, for a small additional outlay, the product would throughout its life have a value attached to it, even when not being used. It would be a tiny proportion of the original cost of the white good—let us say a refrigerator—and as that reduced in value over time, the proportion of the value represented by the deposit would increase. Therefore, by the end of that particular product’s life, even if it had gone through several owners, it would have a value attached to it, which might well impel someone to turn it in rather than put it in a hedge. That is the same principle as the value that was added to vehicles at the end of life.
I am not clear about whether the regulations in schedule 8 are actually generic, or whether they will actually enable that sort of thing to happen in addition to the things that we normally talk about, such as the easier recycling of small items. I think the Minister will agree that it is not just about littering, it is about these large items. We could do the same thing with mattresses. We could require a deposit on a mattress, and provided someone had a certification of the deposit, they could receive the value of the mattress at the end of its life. Mattresses actually have quite long lives in various iterations. Does the Minister think that these regulations could accommodate that sort of arrangement? Although she has said that these regulations should be targeted, does she consider that in the fullness of time, perhaps they could be expanded in ambition and scope to accommodate those sorts of arrangements for the future? Does she think that within the schedule as it stands, regulations can be made that allow that to happen, or does she consider that further work may be necessary to bring it about?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. I am pleased he raised those points, because it gives me a chance to expand a bit on a genuinely interesting subject by which most of the population are fascinated. As has been mentioned, people do want the schemes. In fact, I am old enough to remember those glass Tizer bottles that could be taken back.
To reiterate, we are talking about schedule 8, which deals with deposit return schemes and the issue of how many plastic drinks bottles we use—14 billion a year, as well as 9 billion cans and 5 billion glass bottles. A lot of them are recycled, but it is still only 65%, so we have a long way to go. That is why the schemes will be important.
We have had a consultation and we are in the process of developing proposals using further evidence and ongoing stakeholder engagement, which is important because we have to involve the industry and local authorities—all the people involved in that whole space. The final scope and model of the schemes for drinks containers, including whether it is all-in or on-the-go, will be presented in a second consultation. We are considering cans and plastic and glass bottles.
In the previous consultation, we also consulted on coffee cups, cartons and pouches, which are one of my bugbears. We seem to be forced to buy our cat food in pouches whereas most of it used to be in tins, which I can hardly find now. That is an interesting subject that we need to go into at some point.
The opportunity will be provided by the schedule, which sets out the framework for deposit return schemes, including what items would be subject to a deposit return scheme, how the deposit amount is set, the requirements that can be placed on scheme participants, and the enforcement requirements under a deposit return scheme. The crucial thing is that a scheme has to be well functioning to make it easy for consumers to use. That is incredibly important, otherwise they will not use it and it will not work.
Ruth Jones
The Minister raises an interesting point about cat food pouches that I will take away. Obviously it is importantly to address those things, so can she outline the timescale for that?
Rebecca Pow
I was going on to say, touching on the important point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, that the powers will allow us and future Governments to introduce deposit return schemes for other items in future. That is the purpose of them, so they can be expanded in scope, exactly as he hopes. He makes a good point on those grounds.
For example, those schemes could be for batteries, electrical and electronic equipment, and bulky items, including mattresses. The point about mattresses is absolutely right. My family are farmers and they find many mattresses dumped in their gateways on the outskirts of Bath. I know other Committee members’ families are involved in recycling and waste, and they could probably tell similar stories. The schedule will give us that opportunity.
The schemes will work hand in hand with the extended producer responsibility schemes, which will also help to reduce the amount of waste being dumped. Takeaway cups are classed as packaging, so they will come under the extended producer responsibility schemes for packaging. We are committed, as I think I said on a previous day, to consulting on EPR for textiles and bulky household items, so mattresses could come under that category of extended producer responsibility. Thus, exactly as I think the hon. Member was suggesting, it will all be factored into the costs of the mattress, but the manufacturer will have to abide by the EPR system for the mattresses. Other items that we have committed to consulting on for that EPR scheme are construction materials, tyres and fishing gear, so they should all work together.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 21 to schedule 9, page 174, line 28, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment is another case of “may” and “must”; at the risk of harping on about these things, it is important that we get our language correct. For the benefit of colleagues, I refer them to page 174, line 28 of the Bill, where we want to leave out “may” and insert the word “must”. The reason is that we want Ministers to take to keep their promises and be honest and bold in their promises. Once again, we are looking to strengthen the Bill and make it fit for purpose, and that is why I am asking the Minister to accept this objective and balanced amendment.
This schedule allows for the making of regulations about charges for single-use plastic items. These charges, which we have seen right across the country, with a charge on plastic bags in supermarkets and large stores such as John Lewis and the Link, aim to deliver a reduction in the consumption of single-use plastic items. Our amendment follows on from many others tabled to this Bill and moved in Committee. It is about delivery, it is about action and it is about getting this right.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for her amendment. However, it is appropriate to provide the relevant national authority with flexibility regarding when and how this provision relating to littered plastics is given effect. We have seen similar amendments across the Bill, balancing powers, what “may” be done, with duties or what “must” be done. This amendment is no different.
It will not be appropriate for this power to be exercised in all circumstances: for instance, our extended producer responsibility reforms to the packaging waste regulations should make significant strides towards addressing unnecessary plastic waste in packaging. Adding an additional charge would be unnecessary and unfair to those producers, as they would face an overlap of multiple charges and fees. To avoid that, we must take care when deciding which policy instrument to use in order to bring about the most effective change.
We need to take a measured approach and introduce the charge for items where there is a clear, considered and evidenced need for us to intervene. Imposing a duty for the Government to do so without thorough investigation into which products we should charge for could, for instance, lead to the unintended consequences of driving the market away from a single-use plastic product because a suitable alternative is available. That could risk causing even more serious effects, such as increasing greenhouse gas emissions through poor material switches.
The UK is consistently and rightly seen as a world leader in the area of tackling plastic pollution. I recently met a group called Oceana, a global organisation, thinking we were going to pick up lots of tips from them about how they are dealing with it, but they said, “Oh, no, we are watching you, Minister!” That was interesting—we are very much being watched on what measures we are putting in place.
We want to continue to lead by example to ensure that we reduce the plastic pollution entering the environment in the right way to prevent greater issues further down the line. This power will allow us and the devolved Governments of Wales and Northern Ireland to intervene as and when there is a clear need for change. I therefore ask the hon. Lady whether she might withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her explanation. It is always helpful to hear her expand on matters. It is also good to hear that, yes, the Government are being scrutinised by non-governmental organisations out there. It is good to see that they are being held accountable by such people, who are, let us be honest, the watchdogs. They, too, want to ensure that we have action.
The argument about flexibility—that the danger with too much flexibility is that we cannot actually achieve anything—has been made many times, so I will not repeat it, but I am happy to hear about the progress being made in moving matters forward. Again, I press the Minister on timescales. If we are to consult, then how long for and when will action come through? However, I am sure we will discuss that later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 182 in schedule 9, page 174, line 32, leave out paragraph 1(2)(b) and insert—
“(b) are made of plastic or any other single use material, and”.
The schedule seeks to reduce the consumption of single-use plastic by allowing charges to be imposed. However, the provision for charges to apply only to single-use plastics risks merely shifting the environmental burden, as alternative materials may be used with equal environmental recklessness. The risks of material substitution are plentiful and well documented by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), a Conservative Member. They have also been covered in comprehensive reports from Greenpeace and the Green Alliance, and I thank both organisations for their work on this important area.
The deeper problem lies with the single-use, throwaway culture, not with plastic per se. We need to look at changing hearts and minds, as well as legislation. I am well aware that during the pandemic our progress on getting rid of single-use plastics has been set back, but I hope the Minister will take this serious and urgent issue forward.
To take fly-tipping, for example, one north London borough—I am sure that this is similar elsewhere—spends millions on collecting fly-tipping, because it has an obligation to keep streets clean, and residents complain when it does not. I am sure all hon. Members in the Committee have similar stories about the amounts their local councils have to fork out to ensure that their streets are kept clear of litter and fly-tipping.
It is not the council dumping mattresses, furniture, unwanted goods and so on; it is residents, businesses and the like, and we had a discussion about that, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. To tackle the problem, therefore, we need to get it into people’s heads that enough is enough. It is simply not acceptable to attack, damage and contaminate our environment like that. Similarly, with this amendment, we want to tackle the throwaway culture once and for all, and we can use the Bill to do just that.
The amendment would address that increasing challenge. We need to ensure that charges are possible for all single-use materials, not just the plastic ones. In simpler terms, our amendment would ensure that the Government can successfully tackle our throwaway culture at the same time as tackling plastic pollution. Treating plastic in a policy vacuum is a short-sighted approach that risks changes that could, for example, increase carbon emissions or result in more waste generation.
The amendment follows on from many others tabled to the Bill and moved in Committee. It is all about delivery, action and getting the Bill right.
Rebecca Pow
I appreciate the focus on this issue. However, I fear that the amendment has not taken enough account of the bespoke issue of plastics or of how much of the Bill is aimed at tackling our single-use culture. Applying charges to single-use plastic items will be an effective way of reducing the impact on the natural world. The measures are designed to focus specifically on single-use, hard-to-recycle plastics.
In 2019, the Marine Conservation Society recorded that, on average, per 100 metres of beach, more than 150 pieces of plastic were found, which is a shocking revelation. That is more than triple the second most commonly listed item, which is cigarette stubs, which also contain plastic. I do not know whether hon. Members have been to the Keep Britain Tidy events, but that organisation has a big drive on cigarette butts at the moment. They contain a horrifying amount of plastic, not to mention the other toxic chemicals.
The MCS’s work showcases the prevalence of plastics in our environment and explains why this material needs a focused clause in the Bill. As we saw with our ban on plastic straws, plastics still have an important role to play in certain applications, but Government intervention is necessary to tackle unnecessary plastic. Many of our mailbags are full of messages about these items. Public opinion was demonstrated in HMT’s call for evidence on tackling the plastic problem in March 2018, which received an incredible 162,000 responses, with strong support for the use of taxes and charges to tackle single-use plastic waste.
A lot is already being done on single-use plastics. Great work is being done on microbeads and microplastics, which the hon. Member for Cambridge referred to. When I was a Back Bencher, I asked the Speaker whether he had had a shower that morning, with the intention to point out how many microbeads were in the shower gel that would have been used. We have brought in one of the toughest bans in the world. There is also the 5p single-use carrier bag charge, which has had a dramatic impact on the number of bags used. A lot of good work has already been done.
The Bill already provides a robust approach towards achieving a more circular economy. Our new powers to reform the packaging waste regulations will enable us to adapt the system to incentivise all packaging, not just plastic, to be more carefully designed and manufactured, with recyclability in mind. The eco-design measures and consumer information powers will enable regulations to be made that set basic standards with sustainability in mind and that require information provision to consumers, to drive the market towards products that are designed to last longer, perhaps through multiple uses, instead of being thrown away after first use. The House of Commons shop is selling some excellent cutlery packs, which are made of bamboo. My hon. Friends and hon. Members should all carry a pack in their pockets or bags, to cut down on single-use items.
Meanwhile, our powers to enable the implementation of a deposit return scheme and introduce consistency in household and business recycling collections will drive the capture of more material and all types of single-use items for recycling.
Dr Whitehead
I am slightly concerned that the Minister is not responding to exactly what we said in the amendment. We need to make a decision on what this is about. Is it about single-use items, or is it about plastic items? In this instance, the two have been elided for the purpose of a concentration on plastic single-use items.
Schedule 9 defines single-use items in paragraph 1(3). It does not define them as a plastic single-use item, but simply as a “single use item”. The schedule enables the Government to make specific regulations. Indeed, the regulations “may specify”—that is the correct use of a “may”—single-use items, but only those that
“are made wholly or partly of plastic”,
which narrows down the range of single-use items.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has made his points—[Interruption.] I cannot bring in any other Members until the Minister has resumed.
Rebecca Pow
I was literally on my last paragraph. The ability to place a charge on single-use plastic items will be a powerful tool in our efforts to tackle the issues arising from our use of single-use plastic, while still allowing for their continued use by people who need them. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
Again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has said, we are not talking about plastics; we are talking about single-use items.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
There is a specific issue in terms of plastic and why there is a need to focus on it: it is not biodegradable. It stays permanently in the oceans and is often very difficult to recycle. That is why there are so many tonnes of plastic floating around in the oceans, but not tonnes of other materials. We cannot start saying, “We’ve got to clamp down on everything that is single use.”
I suspect that the hon. Lady tends to buy The Guardian, which she uses only once. Would she put a special charge on buying all paper that is single use? Pieces of paper are single use, as are many other products. The trouble is that if we introduce charges on them, we actually discourage companies from moving from something like plastic, which is environmentally damaging, to something that is more sustainable. For example, I am a subscriber to The Times newspaper. It used to come wrapped in single-use plastic, which was terrible. It now comes wrapped in something that is completely bio- degradable, which can be put in the compost. If we introduce charges, we discourage companies from doing stuff that is more environmentally sustainable.
Ruth Jones
I am disturbed to hear that the hon. Member does not recycle The Guardian, because that is what we are doing.
Anthony Browne
I do. Well, I do not subscribe to The Guardian, but I recycle The Times.
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his intervention. He cannot continue to make interventions from a sedentary position.
Ruth Jones
Thank you, Sir George. I am sure we can continue this debate at length at a later date.
I would suggest that we recycle everything that can be recycled, but the important thing is that we do not take our eye off the ball by talking just about plastics. The danger is that by talking just about plastics, we limit ourselves to being able to control only single-use plastic with this legislation in the future. Two years down the line, the problem might be some other material that is single use. Again, we have a problem with the definition of single use. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test said, the issue is the single-use sickness of it, rather than the actual product itself. That is why we think the amendment is so important, and we will push it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Environment Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Thursday 12th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 12 November 2020 - (12 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
As hon. Members will recall, before we adjourned we discussed an amendment that sought to place a slightly different emphasis on elements of the schedule; we wanted to emphasise the question of single use in general, rather than just single-use plastic. The argument is that a lot of things other than plastic are single-use.
The idea is not what the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire suggested in his intervention—that we would tax everything that was single-use, which would clearly be absurd. Indeed, one would not want to tax some plastic single-use items, given that they may be appropriate in a number of circumstances. That is why, on this occasion, the use of the word “may” is correct.
Schedule 9, it appears, has been drawn narrowly in respect of plastic and therefore narrowly also in terms of single use. To emphasise that, the schedule is actually headed “Charges for single use plastic items”, not “Charges for single use items that may be plastic”. That is unfortunate because the issue is not just about manufacturers seeking to get round a ban or restriction on single-use plastic items by making single-use items from different materials; it is that the whole throwaway culture is based on single-use items in general, which may or may not be plastic.
As those who have had the pleasure of dining under covid restrictions in this building, a couple of floors down, will know, a number of throwaway items are put forward for our use, including knife, fork and spoon sets. Interestingly, those sets are sometimes made of bamboo and sometimes of plastic; that seems to depend on which night people turn up for what meal. The principle is exactly the same: people are supposed to put the knife, fork and spoon set in the bin afterwards. In the particular instance of covid-19 restrictions, I fully understand why. However, although it is the norm in a number of catering establishments to supply a knife, fork and spoon set that cannot be washed and used again, those knife, fork and spoon sets are not necessarily only plastic. They can be made of all sorts of other things; the principle is that something is being made available that is supposed to be thrown away and not used again, when it could very easily be used again, with fairly minor alterations to the spec and how things are done, thereby saving a great deal of resource and upholding the principles of the circular economy.
That is what we were trying to get at in amendment 182. There are clearly various things that fit in that category and that we as a society could do a great deal to sort out, so as not to bring virgin materials into the economy when we do not need to and to circularise things so that they go round the economy. Making the best use of those items when we can is something that should be agreed to. Indeed, we had a debate a little while ago in which the Minister extolled the virtues of recyclable nappies. Of course, a recyclable nappy is what used to be known as a nappy. That is what people did, because Pampers and all the rest of it were not available in those days. However, we now have a culture where the default is to buy a bag of Pampers and get through those, rather than even thinking about using recyclable nappies. Indeed, they are quite difficult to get hold of.
Recyclable or non-recyclable nappies need not necessarily be made of plastic; they could be made of various things. However, the principle is about moving from nappies that are used in one way to those used by default in another way, with the result—which we know, and which I am sure comes across the Minister’s desk every day—that nappies are now a substantial part of the waste stream and potentially part of fatbergs and various other things in our sewers, because of the change over time from multiple to single use.
We do not oppose the schedule, but can the Minister see circumstances in which discouraging but not necessarily removing single use could be incorporated into the schedule or introduced in further regulations, or does she think that that is it for the debate on single-use items? I cannot believe that it is; we need to take it further than just plastic items. I seek suggestions or an understanding for how we can best advance the debate, if not through this schedule, then maybe somewhere else.
In conclusion, I know personally that a number of items—some of which apply to me—including certain medical things, such as sealed eye drops, absolutely need to continue to be plastic single-use items, and it would be inappropriate were it otherwise. My view is not that we should remove all plastic single-use items—or use only single-use items—but we all ought to be seeking to give ourselves the possibility of ensuring between us that the most circularity is achieved. I hope the Minister can give us some guidance and assurances on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
The Government are committed to tackling plastic pollution and moving towards sustainable alternatives. The schedule outlines the various provisions that can be brought forward in secondary legislation to place new charges on single-use plastic items. That will provide the incentive needed for citizens to use reusable alternatives while ensuring that single-use options are still available to those who need them—examples such as those the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The success of the carrier bag charge, which has led to a 95% reduction in the use of plastic carrier bags in the main supermarkets since its introduction, demonstrates the difference that even a small incentive can make.
I want to wind up this debate by being clear that the power in schedule 9 is related to single-use plastic items, with the reason being that single-use plastic items, as I highlighted right at the beginning, are increasingly common in daily life. They are a significant and ongoing environmental problem, in use and disposal, and given that they are not valued, they are indeed disposed of via black bins or littering. They are not commonly recycled. The measure will address that.
Other single-use items will be addressed through the other myriad measures in the Bill, including deposit return and extended producer responsibility. The general ethos of this whole part of the Bill is to drive down waste from the very beginning, and I believe that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, has not fully taken all that into account. When he sits down tonight in bed with the Bill and goes over it and the explanatory notes, he will realise that the problem he is raising is dealt with. That has all been thought about. I am, however, grateful to him that he will not oppose the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 9 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Separation of waste
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
We do not seek to oppose the clause, but I want to ask about food waste, which we may come to when we debate later schedules.
Food waste is clearly an important issue. Indeed, it was highlighted in the resources and waste strategy for England, which came out a little while ago, in a chapter headed, “Enough is enough: cutting down on food waste”. At the time, the White Paper projected that total UK food waste was 10.2 million tonnes. Interestingly, that food waste was broken down by sector. It suggested that households produced 7.1 million tonnes of food waste, hospitality and food service 1 million tonnes, manufacturing 1.85 million tonnes and retail 0.25 million tonnes. The important thing about that particular distinction made in the White Paper is that, yes, there is a large amount of food waste, as we know, and we could have a long debate about the reasons for rising food waste, how we can suppress that rise in food waste and how we can do much better at ensuring that we use what we are producing.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important and detailed point. We do need to clarify this issue: what is written in law is written in law, and we must make sure that we fully understand it.
The Welsh Government currently have higher recycling rates than the English rates, because of the way that food waste is dealt with. Food waste is separated by the household; at kerbside, it is separated again by the collection authorities. There is food waste as well as recycling. There is an important point to be made about weekly collections. If food collections are less than weekly, all sorts of contaminations can occur, such as maggots, infestations and so on. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we clarify these points?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that clarity is important.
In clause 54(4), immediately after the conditions that are set out on recyclable and food waste, there is a separate amendment to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which talks about the
“separate collection of household waste from relevant nondomestic premises”.
The conditions in that proposed new section are different from those on household waste. We have an issue here about what it means to collect recyclable waste, which may be food waste, in the context of household collection; and what it means to collect food waste that is separate from recyclable waste, and appears to be collectable once a week.
Unless the join is properly made between the different provisions in legislation, it appears to me, the holes will not be completely filled. Can the Minister point me to other parts of the Bill where they are filled? Alternatively, will it be possible to fill those holes in different ways, by regulations? I would be delighted to hear from the Minister what she thinks about the idea in general and how far she thinks the clause has gone towards resolving the problems.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. In the 2018 resources and waste strategy, the Government set out their intention to achieve 65% recycling of municipal waste by 2035. Our current arrangements are insufficient to meet that, so clause 34 will make a big difference. It will make recycling simpler for everybody by requiring the same recyclable waste streams to be collected from all households, whatever their local authority. At the moment, as hon. Friends and Members know, we have myriad different systems across the country, which is clearly not the best way to get the most products collected, recycled and reused. That will include non-domestic premises such as schools, hospitals and businesses.
Through the Bill, no matter where people live in England, they will have their plastic, metal, glass, paper, card, food waste and garden waste all collected for recycling, with food waste being collected from households weekly. The unexpected consequences of leaving food waste longer than that were outlined by the hon. Member for Newport West.
Food waste should be collected separately unless absolutely not technically or economically practical, but there is a requirement for it to be collected every week. At the very least, householders will have a bin for what is called dry recycling, which are the first things I mentioned, and another bin for residual waste, as we do in Taunton Deane already; I do not know whether they have those in Southampton, Test.
Rebecca Pow
All the district councils in Somerset join together for that scheme. It works extremely well and it is very straightforward. All other local authorities will follow a similar model, so there will no longer be a postcode lottery with one place where they do collect it and another where they do not.
For the first time, there will also be a requirement, as was raised by the hon. Gentleman, for non-domestic premises and businesses to arrange to have the same recyclable waste streams as households, separately collected, with the exception of garden waste, and for them to present their waste in accordance with those arrangements. I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is getting a bit muddled in his interpretation of what he is reading, because what is envisaged is clear.
Daniel Zeichner
I do not mean to usurp my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test, who I am sure will follow immediately afterwards, but I think much of that is to be welcomed—certainly weekly collections. As I am sure the Minister is aware, the Local Government Association has caveated its support with a request for funding to be made available to carry those out. Can she point to where in the Bill that guarantee is given?
Rebecca Pow
We have made it very clear from the beginning that burdens to local authorities will be covered. If the hon. Gentleman wants us to write to him in more detail about that, we can, but that has been made quite clear.
Dr Whitehead
If I am being misled, I look to the Minister to provide clarification, which I hope she is beginning to do—indeed, that is what I want, to inform my understanding of how the clause will work. There are some things that I cannot quite get to the bottom of, however, so perhaps she can point me to exactly how they join together.
I very much welcome the advances on food waste and it is essential that we take action on that, but I remain unconvinced that the clause states exactly that every local collection authority has to provide a food waste collection. If they do provide a food waste collection, it has to be collected once a week, but does the clause mean that every local authority has to provide an unmingled food waste collection arrangement and that that arrangement is not to be mingled with more general recyclable collections?
I am sure that the Minister can appreciate the distinction between putting a whole pile of food waste in a general recycling bin and separating food waste out so that it can be used for specific purposes. If food waste is mingled in with recycling, it is difficult to take it out subsequently, and it cannot be used entirely for the purposes for which we want food waste to be used: anaerobic digestion and various other things.
The Chair
Order. Before I bring the Minister back in, I should say that I have allowed lengthy interventions on the basis that I think it is for the good conduct of the Committee that people have the opportunity to make these points, so no criticism is implied. However, I do hope people will try to be a bit briefer with their interventions as the Committee proceeds.
Rebecca Pow
I think the hon. Gentleman has made his own point, really. He has outlined why we do not want food waste mingled up with all the rest of the waste. That is why through this Bill, no matter where in England a person lives, they will see dry waste—plastic, metal, glass, paper and card—collected, and food, which is not dry waste, in a separate bin. That is all in the Bill. Food waste will be collected from households on a weekly basis—I do not know how much clearer I can be. That will make recycling more straightforward and, with all the other measures in the Bill, will help us to increase overall recycling rates to 65%.
These recyclable waste streams must be collected separately from other waste and separately from each other, except when it is technically or economically impractical to do so or there is no significant environmental benefit. That will lead to higher quality, driving up the value of all recycled materials and, in turn, encouraging more recycling through increased demand. The clause allows us to add additional recyclable waste streams in future, subject to certain conditions. It will provide consistency of recycling for the first time, and help us meet future recycling targets. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 55
Electronic waste tracking: Great Britain
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 128, in clause 55, page 41, line 33, leave out “including” and insert “excluding”.
Clause 55 adds new text to the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and seeks to set up a new system of electronic tracking for waste. Our amendment, which stands in my name and that of my hon. colleagues, seeks to secure that new system. I say to the Minister that the proposed new system is very welcome, but although we welcome the proposal, we and many campaigners and experts want to go further. The new system needs to be expanded to track all materials in line with the National Materials Datahub—the same data hub that the Government have previously supported. I hope the Minister will understand the background and motivation behind what we are trying to do here, and I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment. I would point out that in the resources and waste strategy, the Government committed to modernising, simplifying and harmonising current regulations relating to the transport, management and description of waste, which have been introduced in a very piecemeal fashion over the past 30 years or so. She will probably agree with me that the current system is in urgent need of an update, and I welcome the fact that she is supporting these general measures.
Waste tracking is still largely carried out using paper-based record keeping, which makes it very difficult to track waste effectively, as it provides organised criminals with the opportunity to hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste. In 2018, the independent review into serious and organised waste crime recommended that mandatory electronic tracking of waste should be introduced at the earliest opportunity to address the problems of illegality in the waste sector. In the current system, waste can be fraudulently re-classified and transferred on, or simply illegally dumped, and the paper trail then disappears. That makes it difficult to identify and deal with waste crime, including cases of fly-tipping, which concerns rural and urban areas.
To make essential improvements and create a digital waste-tracking system, amendments may be required to primary legislation or retained direct EU legislation. That does not mean that we are falling behind the EU on standards of waste management—far from it. Instead, we will amend the current legislation to develop a comprehensive system, to ensure that waste can be tracked and regulated more effectively.
The practical effect of the amendment, therefore, would be to undermine and restrict our ability to introduce mandatory electronic waste tracking in a way that works best for our environment, now and in the future, although I know that is not the hon. Member’s intention. I ask her, therefore, to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for her expansion on the situation. We are singing from the same hymn sheet, because electronic tracking is so important, as the Minister said; the paperwork trail is not as accurate as the electronic one. We all want the same thing. I am pleased she has mentioned the EU, because we do not want to fall behind the EU either. That is paramount as we move forward from 1 January. With that in mind, we will not push the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 43, in clause 55, page 41, line 44, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56
Electronic waste tracking: Northern Ireland
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 56, page 43, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment, again, is focused on language and the strength of the legislation. We want to replace “may” with “must”. I suspect the Minister is getting tired of hearing these amendments, but we are trying to be helpful and ensure that the Bill is as strong and effective as possible. I will not repeat the benefits of “must” over “may”.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. The introduction of a mandatory electronic waste tracking system will increase transparency in the waste industry, as I outlined earlier, and pose a barrier to organised criminals operating in the sector.
Clause 56 provides the regulation-making powers needed to legislate on how the system is set up and administered in Northern Ireland. It is entirely appropriate to provide the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland with the flexibility as to when and how the provision is given effect. Primary legislation consistently takes that approach to the balance between powers and duties. This enabling power should not be converted into a duty.
It should be for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to decide how and when to use the enabling power to bring forward legislation and, in turn, for the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether to approve this legislation. The Assembly must be given its proper place in terms of scrutiny when it comes to the commencement and implementation of the powers. The proposed amendment to place an absolute duty on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs goes against the spirit of that. If the amendment is made, the Department could be subject to a duty to make regulations on waste tracking that it would then be unable to comply with if the Assembly did not approve the legislation. It would also not be appropriate for Northern Ireland to be subject to a duty to make waste tracking regulations that the other nations of the UK are not subject to. I therefore consider the amendment inappropriate and ask the hon. Lady if she will kindly withdraw it.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. While I understand her reasoning, we want Northern Ireland to be in line with the rest of the UK in being as strong and far reaching as possible on waste and electronic tracking systems. It is important that we enable the Northern Ireland Assembly and the authorities there to do everything they want to. We had a long debate on powers and duties when considering the Agriculture Bill. If it is that important, it should be legislated for, and it should be in the Bill. However, having heard the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 and 58 agreed to.
Clause 59
Transfrontier shipments of waste
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 177, in clause 59, page 50, line 19, at end insert—
“(1C) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to prohibit the exportation of waste consisting wholly or mostly of plastic from no later than March 2025.”.
The clause seeks to amend the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and give the Secretary of State new powers to regulate the export of waste from the United Kingdom. In principle, it is welcome, because a country of our wealth and location should absolutely not export polluting waste to countries in poorer parts of the world with economies nowhere near the size of ours. This is a question of morality in many ways. I touched on it earlier this week when I referenced the situation that the Government are now in with Sri Lanka and the 21 containers that were shipped there in 2017 that are now being returned.
For all the welcome that the clause deserves, existing international commitments mean that it is already illegal for the UK to send polluting waste to non-OECD countries. The international Basel convention obliges signatories, including the UK, to prohibit the export of waste to developing countries if they have reason to believe that the waste will not be managed in an environmentally sound manner. The convention will be strengthened in 2021, when most plastic will become subject to even stricter hazardous waste controls.
The United Kingdom, in many ways, has had a lost decade under the Tories and Lib Dems when it comes to protecting the environment. I have to say that this country has struggled to fulfil its international obligations in this area, although the Environment Agency in England recently tried to increase its preventive work, and I acknowledge those small, tentative steps forward in spite of the cuts to resources it has suffered over the last 10 years.
For the power before us to be exercised effectively, the Government need to put in place an adequate regulatory and enforcement system to ensure that they meet current and future obligations on waste shipments. Ministers need to review the approach to consumption and resources use to reduce current and future reliance on landfill and incineration. This should address the underlying drivers of the waste problem. For ease of reference, those drivers include unsustainable growth and consumption of single-use packaging and other items, a lack of domestic recycling and reprocessing infrastructure, and limited end markets for secondary materials. We have had some useful debates on those things already during the passage of the Bill through this Committee. The amendment is specific and allows us to show the leadership that people and nations across the world expect from the United Kingdom.
Daniel Zeichner
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who has made a very good case for the amendment. I am puzzled about why the world is not more excited by the Bill at the moment. Given the wider world’s interest in environmental issues, one would expect it to be on everyone’s lips. Of course, Greta Thunberg laid out the challenge: she does not trust a single politician, and here was the opportunity for the Minister to respond and to become a politician Greta Thunberg might trust. Part of the problem is the lack of ambition in the Bill, and that is exactly what the amendment inserts into it—a sense of urgency.
I suspect that hon. Members have been into primary schools and talked to young children. I used to do that often, and I was struck by how many times environmental issues came up. I have had numerous letters from schools, and the issue of waste being transported elsewhere comes up time after time. So many of our fellow citizens do the right thing. In so many households, particularly in a city such as Cambridge, people go to huge efforts to recycle, but then they ask themselves where it goes. When they read—possibly even in The Guardian occasionally—that all is not well on this front, it really demoralises them. They think, “What’s the point?” They are doing their bit, but their Government are not doing the bit that only Government can do.
That is why there is an opportunity to strengthen the Bill. The Minister should welcome the opportunity the Opposition are giving her today to do that and to perhaps begin to be able to say to the wider world that these things really are worth supporting. With all the caveats, all the “mays” and all the reasons why these things cannot be done yet because they are too difficult and complicated, the feeling out there in the wider world among the people we represent is that there really is not the sense of urgency that the situation requires.
Dr Whitehead
I echo my hon. Friend’s claim that the amendment is very important for how the country is seen to deal with its waste, and particularly for how we are seen by our own population. Hopefully, we are seen in a positive light. All that we have discussed about recycling, single-use plastics and such things is based, to a considerable extent, on the public’s confidence that what is going to happen is actually what does happen. If the public think that none of what is being said to them is true, the chances of them co-operating—by sorting everything into different bins, ensuring that things are returned, and stopping dumping things in hedges—will be undermined.
The fact that we are seen to be dealing with our own waste properly and safely, and that we are not simply using the export of waste as a safety valve for our inadequacies in processing waste fully in our country, ought to be something that should concern us very much. Frankly, that is what has happened over a number of years with our waste exports. We do import some waste, but we export quite a lot more than we import. The waste we import is usually waste that can be used for energy from waste and various other things, such as refuse-derived fuel. The waste we export is not only of a much wider variety, but actually goes to parts of the world where, in many instances, we cannot be sure—and certainly, people there cannot be sure—that the destination for that waste is of the standard we would expect if that waste were disposed of in our own country.
The Minister has said this legislation would ensure that we do not export waste other than to OECD countries. That sounds very reassuring, until we look at membership of OECD countries. It is not, shall we say, EU members and a couple of other states in the world. It is actually a wide variety of states across the world: for example, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Turkey are members of the OECD. Therefore, that is not necessarily the quality standard route, as far as safety valves are concerned. The best thing to do is probably to ensure we have sufficient recycling collection, processing and reuse facilities here, so that we can really deal with all our waste in the UK. That is not just a practical thing; it is a moral obligation we have for the future, as far as waste management is concerned.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West mentioned, what we really do not want is repeated scenes—not just repeated scenes, but repeated extremely embarrassing scenes—of bales of waste, mainly consisting of plastic, going to countries we think will quite easily accept them and say nothing, but that are now beginning to say, “This is not good enough. The quality of this material is not right. It is not what we thought it was going to be, so you can have it back.” That is not just one instance—Sri Lanka; we have form on this. This has happened with several countries, including Malaysia, which sent back 27 bales of waste. Indeed, I put a written question to the Minister a little while ago about how that had happened, what was going to happen with that material when it came back to the UK and whether it would be properly dealt with and disposed of.
Part of the reason these things have started to happen is that some of our traditional destinations, in terms of what have historically been fairly lazy assumptions about export of waste, have drawn the drawbridge up themselves. China’s great green wall policy means that the Chinese no longer want to receive anything that looks vaguely usable that we might put in a container back to China, and that we cannot work on the assumption that they can somehow reprocess some of it and will be quite pleased to do so because that will help their economy. They do not want it. They have put a green wall up to stop these things happening.
That has meant that the waste exports have gone to other countries, which it was thought are less particular about what they want to receive and, indeed, probably happy to receive stuff that is not what it says on the tin or on the bale. One issue from this particular return of bales of waste to the UK was that they were claimed to be high-quality waste that could be reused and remanufactured by those countries for recycling purposes. However, they were not. There was all sorts of old stuff, to coin a phrase, in those bales, and it was way beyond the standard that they would reasonably accept. Two questions arise from that. First, what were we doing continuing to export in that lazy way to those countries? Secondly, why did what I thought were our internal checks and balances to ensure the quality of what we export fail to work?
We have potentially considerable work to do. If we are to continue to export waste at all, we have to get our act together and ensure that that waste is as good as it could be and is absolutely not going to the wrong places. The Opposition think that the best way to deal with plastic or mostly plastic waste is simply to say that by 2025 we will stop doing that. Yes, that gives us a challenge, because we currently do not have sufficient good-quality plastic recycling facilities in this country, particularly those that can properly separate the 25 or 26 different kinds of plastic and put them at the right level in the plastics hierarchy so that we do not end up only making traffic cones with the plastic we recycle.
With plastic recycling, the production level of the plastic going into the system needs to be commensurate with the recycling that takes place, so that the plastic can be recycled at that level. For example, food-grade plastic has to be recycled with other food-grade plastic. If it is contaminated with anything else, it stops being food-grade plastic, recycled or not. Indeed, if we are not careful, it all goes to the bottom of the plastic hierarchy, and we get massive amounts of park benches and traffic cones and nothing else.
We need better facilities in this country for recycling and reprocessing plastic that can be recycled properly, according to the hierarchy. That is partly why the amendment says:
“from no later than March 2025.”
That would give us the space to start getting our act together in this country and ensuring that facilities are available to recycle properly. We really cannot accept, and I do not think any of us would want to accept, that exporting waste should in the future be seen as a safety valve for our own inadequacies. It has to be different from that. The amendment underlines why it has to be different, how it can be different and how we can set an example to the world by ensuring that we deal with what arises from our own backyard in our own backyard and do not send it out across the world, for purposes that we do not know too much about and that the people concerned are obviously increasingly upset about when it gets to them.
This is an important amendment that we hope the Minister will accept entirely in the spirit in which it is intended. I know that she is absolutely committed to those high standards in our waste management, and I hope that she will accept it in that spirit.
Rebecca Pow
I thank all hon. Members who have inputted, although I take slight issue with the “lost decade” for the environment. I think Labour needs to look at its own record prior to that and ask how we have come to this pass. Thank goodness we have a Government who are doing something about it. However, that is not to say that I do not welcome the Opposition’s support; I absolutely do.
Also, the hon. Member for Cambridge asked why people were not more excited about the Bill. I believe they are genuinely excited about it, and it is such a huge Bill. Other hon. Members have probably had this too, but when one meets groups of people who might be a wee bit, what I call controversial, and explains what is in the Bill, they are absolutely amazed. It literally addresses all the things that people write to us about and that fill our inboxes, so I for one am going to be that champion—indeed, I hope I already am. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me and promote the Bill, because I think it will do all the things we need for a sustainable future.
Anyway, to the amendment, for which I thank the hon. Member for Newport West and which would prohibit the export of
“waste consisting wholly or mostly of plastic”
by March 2025. However, the clause already provides powers to make regulations on a wide range of matters to do with the import and export of waste, including prohibiting and restricting its export. We will use powers in this clause to implement our manifesto commitment to ban the export of plastic waste to non-OECD countries —exactly what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is asking for—as we recognise that some countries have difficulty processing imports of this type of waste. We are committed to dealing with more of our waste here in the UK through the measures I have been talking about today and previously. We will consult industry, NGOs and local authorities on the date by which the ban will be achieved.
Rebecca Pow
I will, but very briefly, because the hon. Gentleman had a very long go just now.
Dr Whitehead
I will indeed. I just wanted to correct what the Minister seemed to suggest I said about the OECD. I was not saying “Hooray for exports to the OECD!” Rather, I think we should see whether all OECD member countries keep to high standards of waste reception and export. My perusal of the membership suggests that not all do.
Rebecca Pow
I too looked at that great list of members yesterday and at non-OECD countries. The OECD countries represent 80% of the world’s investment and wealth. I just wanted to make a point about OECD countries and waste, though. We must not forget that waste is a commodity and that there is a legitimate global market for secondary materials. Exports of waste for recycling between OECD countries are already covered by an international agreement—the OECD decision—which provides the framework for the control of movements of waste.
Where the UK cannot currently recycle materials economically, exports can ensure in some cases that th3e materials are recycled, rather than sent to landfill or for incineration. Not all products sold in the UK are made in the UK. Waste exports can help to increase the amount of recycled materials going into new products we buy that are produced abroad. We must not forget the big picture where waste goes and what it is used for.
Making the amendment before the consultation on the date for stopping the exports of waste to non-OECD countries would pre-empt the result of the consultation. It is important that all stakeholders have a fair and equal opportunity to express their view on when the proposed prohibition should be implemented. The prohibition could have wide-ranging effects on local authorities and our wider waste infrastructure, and it is important to consider these effects fully before we set a timetable for implementing the ban.
I assure all hon. Members that the Government take very seriously the regulation of waste imports and exports, as well as the impact illegal waste shipments can have on the global environment—hence our manifesto commitments. Electronic waste tracking will help this agenda, as we will know what is going where and it will be harder to send the wrong products abroad. I reaffirm that we should be dealing with our own waste right here in the UK wherever possible. I ask the hon. Member for Newport West to withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her enthusiasm for this Bill. We are obviously all enthused, and it is important we get the word out about what is going on. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge and for Southampton, Test for their eloquent speeches about the need to deal with things at home and not just shove them off into the far blue yonder. People at home have woken up and want to do the right thing. We go on and on about people’s awareness being raised, but we must ensure that they have the ability to do the right thing.
Greta Thunberg has spoken eloquently and young people around the UK especially have taken on board what she says. I was honoured to make my maiden speech on 1 May last year, when she addressed a number of us in Portcullis House. It was the day we declared the climate change emergency so it was important. She is seen as one of the leading lights in engaging young people and encouraging them to lobby those within and outside this room, so that we will do the right thing for them and for future generations.
The nub of the matter is the end result, which is that we are dumping containers in another country. I have seen TV pictures of young people—children—scavenging through waste sites, and the waste has clearly been identified as coming from the UK. That is not acceptable and we know it. We need to make sure we deal with our waste here in the United Kingdom, for the very reason that the Minister has outlined, and with the very mechanisms that she outlined. We make the waste and we must dispose of it properly ourselves though measures including proper processing and proper waste stations. Let us not forget, if we ship waste abroad, it contributes to climate change through the extra emissions from shipping freight.
The Minister has made an eloquent plea for us to withdraw the amendment because the deadline of March 2020 might hinder meaningful consultation, but I argue that the deadline is a helpful way to encourage people to consult and to decide how we can achieve what we want within the timeline. I should say it is a spur—a driver—to help. If the Government are ambitious then, yes, set an ambitious target. That is why it is important that we should push the deadline. That is how we can start to demonstrate that this is about actions, not words. For that reason we shall divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 11 be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 70 stand part.
That schedule 12 be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I wanted to draw the Committee’s attention to schedule 11, which concerns the local authority management framework. As hon. Members will see, within that framework on air quality, an enormous amount is placed on the local authority’s plate. That is quite right because the people at local authorities are absolutely the right people to deal with air quality problems.
A little while ago there were exceedances of world standards on air quality. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs required a number of the local authorities that were in danger of infraction at that point to draw up local air quality plans and to produce proposals to improve air quality in certain areas. My city, Southampton, was one of those places. Generally, there was a good relationship between the Department and my local authority in drawing up those plans—this was before the more extensive plans set out in schedule 11 —how those were looked at by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what sums of money were put in to support the plans in some instances, and how they then went forward. So far, so good.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Improving the quality of the air we breathe is an absolute priority for the Government. We are taking action to reduce pollution from a range of sources, including a £3.8 billion plan to reduce pollution from road vehicles and our commitment, set out in clause 2 of the Bill, to set a legally binding national target to reduce fine particulate matter, which we discussed a great deal on the very first day of this Committee, a long time ago. The current local air quality management framework places responsibility on local councils to assess local levels of air pollution and to address pollution exceedances. The framework—I think this is what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting, and I agree with him—is not sufficient for delivering the progress we want to see.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, but, first of all, on cross-departmental working, I can assure him that I, as the environment Minister, am working increasingly across Departments. On air, we work with the Department for Transport in particular; we have the joint air quality unit with that Department and we are also increasingly working with the Department of Health and Social Care. That is really healthy and really important.
However, going back to that framework, local authorities have told us that they need greater co-operation from a range of bodies in order to deliver meaningful action to bring pollution levels to within statutory limits. The provisions in the schedule will drive greater co-operation between different levels of local government and allow the Secretary of State to designate other relevant public authorities that will also be required to take action. I think that is what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is really driving at, but it is all in here, and we will consult on which bodies should be designated—actually, we launched a call for evidence on this on 5 October, so work is already under way.
As we set out in our clean air strategy, we also want to provide a quicker and more proportionate enforcement mechanism for smoke control areas, enabling greater local action on domestic solid fuel burning, which is a major contributor to national fine particulate matter emissions. I think the hon. Gentleman touched on funding. We anticipate only a small extra cost to local authorities from the revised local air quality management frameworks —the estimate we have had is around £13,000 per year per local authority.
Returning to the enforcement measures, especially in relation to the smoke control areas and domestic solid fuel burning, we are going to help tackle that, and we will achieve that by replacing the criminal offence in existing legislation with a civil penalty regime, which will allow for the removal of the statutory defences that currently hinder enforcement. This change will ensure that local authorities can avoid lengthy and costly court cases—many of them have mentioned this to us—in enforcing regulations on the smoke emissions, enabling much smarter enforcement. It will be much quicker and simpler for them to deal with an issue as and when they come across it if we make it a civil penalty.
Ruth Jones
On that point about enforcement, while we agree that it is essential that local authorities are able to enforce, how does the Minister see that enforcement being undertaken? There are environmental health officers up to their eyes with covid, there are lots of people who are no longer in work because of the cuts the authorities have had to make and the funding is an issue. How will it happen?
Rebecca Pow
The main way it will happen is that we will put the measures in the Bill to enable it to happen, so that the local authorities can take the action they are asking for. This is something they have been asking for and it will be made much simpler for them to take the action that they want to take, so they need to take it. We will have all our targets on smoke and fine particulate matter, so there will be even more reason to tackle any issues within one’s particular local authority.
These measures will also require retailers in England to notify customers of the law regarding the purchase of certain solid fuels for use in smoke control areas. These measures will all work together to improve compliance. They will remove the limit on the fine for the current offence of delivering these fuels to a building in a smoke control area. Local authorities will also be able to apply smoke control legislation to boats moored in their area, subject to consultation. Finally, criminal prosecution of serious offenders who repeatedly emit smoke that is prejudicial to health will be made possible by removing an exemption in existing statutory nuisance legislation. That is another thing that will definitely help the local authorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Clause 71
Environmental recall of motor vehicles etc
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 71, page 61, line 25, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
The clause provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the recall of relevant products that do not meet the appropriate environmental standards. I am afraid that this is yet another case of mays and musts. The whole point of the Bill is to deliver real change and to ensure that we seize every opportunity to save our planet.
Do not forget, the Bill disappeared for more than 200 days, so we have lost a lot of time in the fight against climate change—but the fight is why we are here today. We cannot simply report back to the Floor of the House, and to the country, a Bill that is full of mays, ifs and buts. Let us be confident and turn those mays into musts and whens. We can get the Bill through and get on with what we need to do about climate change.
Rebecca Pow
We know the harmful effect that pollution from vehicles and machinery has on our air quality and the health of our communities. I am sure that all Members are aware of the difficulties facing many local authorities in bringing down concentrations of dangerous air pollution. Much of that is due to vehicles that emit more pollution on the road than they do in a certification test. The Government therefore set out in our clean air strategy that vehicles that do not meet the relevant environmental standards must be recalled and fixed. The provisions will enable the Transport Secretary to issue a mandatory recall notice if vehicles or parts of vehicles do not meet the environmental standards required of them.
I assure hon. Members that my colleagues in the Department for Transport intend to lay secondary legislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure that non-compliant vehicles can be removed from the road. However, it is critical that the vehicle recall regime is fit for purpose. We therefore intend to have a full public consultation on the draft regulations, and we expect the secondary legislation to be in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent. That will depend on the outcome of the consultation. It is appropriate that the Secretary of State is provided with the flexibility as to when and how this provision is given effect. I therefore ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful to the Minister for her words. Obviously, we welcome the clean air strategy. The fact that secondary legislation will be introduced is also welcome but, again, we do not want it to be seen as an excuse to kick things further down the road. Kicking the can down the road is not a good idea, especially when it comes to people’s health. As we know, the lack of clean air can impact directly on people’s lung capacity, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and things like that, which are all exacerbated by poor air quality.
My question to the Minister—it is rhetorical, of course—is, again, who will enforce? She has talked about secondary legislation, but who will actually enforce when a vehicle is seen emitting polluting smoke and particles? Who will do it? There is no money and no staff within the local authorities to do it.
Rebecca Pow
The measures will impose no additional cost on the motorists. All the recalls will continue to be fully funded by the affected vehicle manufacturers. When enacting a recall, the Government will now be able to impose supplementary conditions on vehicle manufacturers, which could include the requirement that the owner of the vehicle or equipment is compensated for any inconvenience. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that that means there is a sound system, including setting it all in secondary legislation.
Ruth Jones
That is interesting. I am sure that we will have further debates on this with later parts of the Bill. When I ask who will enforce, I am talking about boots on the ground—who will physically get to the car, lorry or whatever, to pull it in for the assessment it needs in order to impose that secondary legislation? But I am grateful to her for her explanation and, on that note, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 72 to 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 5 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
Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Services: Covid-19
(3 years, 5 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
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them and then dispose of those materials and respect the one-way system around the room.
Members should only speak from the horseshoe and Members can only speak if they are on the call lists. That applies even if debates are undersubscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for wind-ups. I remind hon. Members that there is less of an expectation that Members stay for the next two speeches once they have spoken. This is to help manage attendance in the room. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech, but they should be aware that doing so may prevent Members in the seats in the Public Gallery from moving forward to the seats on the horseshoe.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on breast cancer diagnosis and the future of breast cancer services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, I am delighted to raise these hugely important issues. It is great to see the Minister in her place; she brings great expertise and knowledge to this topic. This has all the hallmarks of an excellent debate.
To set the scene, as hon. Members will know, the pandemic has had a major impact on breast cancer services, with Breast Cancer Now estimating that almost 1 million women in the UK missed out on their screening appointment as a result of a pause in the programme. There was a worrying drop at the peak of the pandemic in referrals of suspected breast cancer and breast-related symptoms.
We also know that some breast cancer patients had their treatments changed or temporarily paused to protect their immune system, or had their surgery delayed. That caused, understandably, huge anxiety, particularly for patients with incurable cancers, such as secondary breast cancer, and that was passed on to their families. Recruitment to many clinical trials was paused. The sustained pressure on staff as a result of dealing with the covid-19 pandemic alongside the existing challenges for the breast cancer workforce, has the potential to overwhelm the system for the foreseeable future.
There is some good news. Despite a dip in August, referrals have been steadily recovering. Although there is some way to go before they reach pre-pandemic levels, breast screenings are restarting and the number of people beginning treatment is rising. I am sure hon. Members across the House will join me in thanking the NHS for its effort in treating people and finding ways to deal with cancer patients during the pandemic. I would particularly like to thank my local hospital, the George Eliot Hospital, and Kristy and her team in palliative care. They do such amazing work, in difficult circumstances.
The recovery plan set out how we will restore breast cancer services to pre-pandemic levels, but we also need to look to the future, to ensure that the progress we made in treating cancer is not allowed to stall or be forgotten. As I mentioned, the pandemic has raised several urgent issues in relation to cancer. It is fair to say that many of those needed tackling prior to the pandemic, and they still need addressing.
In 2018, a report by the APPG on breast cancer showed that while breast cancer outcomes were good and outperforming those of other cancers, inequalities in diagnosis, treatment and care across the country were being masked, impacting the experience and outcomes of patients. Our inquiry also found significant variations across England in the support that women with secondary breast cancer received, particularly in access to a clinical nurse specialist, patchy provision of information, psychosocial needs not being met, and a lack of prompt and timely access to specialist palliative care services.
I know that hon. Members will all have their own angles that they want to address in today’s debate, and I take the opportunity to thank the many organisations that have been in touch with their views on what we could discuss. However, I want to focus my remaining remarks on secondary breast cancer, which is an issue that the APPG has had a particular focus on. For hon. Members who are not aware, secondary breast cancer occurs when breast cancer has spread to other parts of the body. Critically, it cannot be cured, but it can still be treated. To put that in context, about 1,000 women still die every month from breast cancer in this country, and pretty much all those deaths are from secondary breast cancer, so it is a considerable issue that we need to address.
Five years ago, in October 2015, I hosted my first ever Westminster Hall debate, which was on the subject of secondary breast cancer. I spoke about the inequalities in the system, and the fact that secondary breast cancer patients were often overlooked. It was in that debate that the present Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill)—then a Back Bencher—spoke so powerfully about her experiences and battles with cancer. I know this is an issue that she is really passionate about getting right, but sadly, for various different reasons, since my 2015 speech nothing much has changed. I know that that frustrates the Minister as much as it does me.
The research continues to show that although many secondary breast cancer patients receive inadequate care, it is all too often even worse than that which they received when they had their primary diagnosis. That cannot be right in this day and age. The 2015 debate noted how much of the current discussion and debate on cancer focuses on promoting early diagnosis of primary breast cancer and improving survival outcomes, which is absolutely right; we should be dealing with that, but a crucial part of any strategy has to be that we do not forget about people who are living with incurable cancers. They should be given parity of care in our system.
There are many things that we could do, including focusing on earlier diagnosis of secondary breast cancer and increasing knowledge and understanding of the signs and symptoms of it. However, I want to focus on two areas; if we addressed them, it would make such a difference to patients who have secondary breast cancer. The first is around data, which is one of the key issues. One of our problems that is that we have a real lack of understanding of the data on secondary breast cancer. At the moment, we do not know how many people are diagnosed with it each year, how long they are living for, how the disease spreads or what kind of treatment and support they are receiving.
Where data on secondary breast cancer is collected, there is variation in what is recorded and how that is done. That is despite its being mandatory since 2013 for hospitals to collect data on their new diagnoses of metastatic cancer. Research by Breast Cancer Now in 2016, repeated in 2018, showed that that is still routinely not happening. In the 2018 study, a staggering 40% of hospital trusts and health boards across the UK were still unable to tell Breast Cancer Now how many secondary breast cancer patients were under their care.
I brought up that issue in the 2015 debate on secondary breast cancer. I highlighted some of the practical barriers to data collection, which often include IT constraints, constraints of time within hospitals, their structures, a lack of awareness about what data is required, and confusion in the trusts and hospitals about who was responsible for inputting the various data items.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an important and powerful point, and I hope the Minister is taking note. As he rightly says, many older people—particularly older women—with breast cancer were not prioritised to receive breast radiotherapy over the past six months. Data is available in the radiotherapy datasets that are held by Public Health England, but they have not been published so far. Does he agree that the Minister should seek to persuade NHS England to publish that data?
Craig Tracey
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, which I am sure the Minister will address. It makes perfect sense that we are seeing the lack of cohesion in data. We know that data is power in everything—without the data, how can we plan a strategy? Wherever we get it from, it should be imported into the system. In the 2015 debate, I asked the Minister to lead the way on ensuring that the data was collected uniformly in every hospital, and not just collected, but collected in a format that enables us to interpret it. We need that now more than ever.
I felt that we were making some headway at the start of the year. I had a productive meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, where we brought in some secondary breast cancer patients and had a really good discussion on a number of topics. Data was one of the key things that we addressed. The Secretary of State made very positive noises about the potential for a national secondary breast cancer audit. Unfortunately, shortly after that, we ended up in the grip of the pandemic and I appreciate that the Department’s focus has been pulled into different areas.
To return to the point that I have made, without accurate figures for the number of people living with secondary breast cancer, it is nigh-on impossible for the NHS to plan and commission services effectively to meet patients’ needs. Equally, without understanding the level of service and care that patients were accessing before the pandemic, it will be challenging to know how to improve outcomes when we get back to pre-pandemic levels. How can we hope to do that without knowing where we started?
Inadequate collection and sharing of data acts as a barrier to service improvement. We are missing out on an incredibly powerful tool that we should be using to spot variation and hold services to account, and to better understand the secondary breast cancer population and the service it requires. At a time when long-term local and national plans are being drawn up, we want to ensure that the NHS can fully deliver on its commitments, and that we have a clear understanding of the experiences of people with secondary breast cancer.
I ask the Minister to follow up on the delivery of a national secondary breast cancer audit, which would cover things such as diagnosis, treatment and access to support. That could transform our insight into this key area and provide the missing information that is desperately needed to ensure that the NHS can meet the needs of those living with secondary breast cancer.
The second point that I will touch on is the importance of increasing access to clinical nurse specialists. In the 2015 debate, I said that the cancer patient experience survey showed that when a clinical nurse specialist contributes to a patient’s care, it is the biggest driver in improving their experience. That measure could save money in the long term, by keeping patients out of hospital and highlighting problems before they become crises in A&E. That is particularly true for secondary breast cancer patients, because they are on a lifelong treatment pathway and often have complex emotional and supportive care needs. A recent survey found that less than a third of secondary breast cancer patients had seen a CNS regularly. With the number of men and women developing breast cancer increasing, and people with secondary breast cancer living longer with the disease, there was already a high demand for CNSs. With covid-19 resulting in changes to people’s treatment and care, however, while also having an impact on their emotional wellbeing, access to CNSs for secondary breast cancer patients has never been more urgent.
Yet Breast Cancer Now’s most recent report said that 41% of breast cancer patients felt they had had less contact with their CNS during the lockdown period. That was partly down to the fact that, in common with other parts of the workforce, many CNSs were moved elsewhere in the NHS during the peak of the pandemic. As an example, 400 Macmillan NHS professionals, including Macmillan-funded CNSs, were among those redeployed.
I am sure all hon. Members agree that it is encouraging that the NHS long-term plan commits that everyone, including those with secondary cancers, should have access to a CNS. There was also an additional commitment in the recent people plan 2020-21 to offer grants for 250 nurses to become cancer nurse specialists. That is another step in the right direction, which we really applaud, but the commitments made by the Government require investment in training and expanding of the CNS workforce to meet both the current and future challenges. I am sure we all want that to be addressed when the full NHS people plan is published, and I am sure we all want it to be matched in its intent by receiving the necessary funding in the upcoming spending review.
I realise many people want to speak. There is much more that I could talk about, but I will conclude and recap the asks, which are pretty straightforward. We need a secondary breast cancer audit and a fully funded long-term workforce plan to ensure that the Department of Health has the appropriate tools and structures to honour its commitments to deliver the best possible outcomes for all cancer patients, and to build back breast cancer services better following the pandemic.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
It might be helpful for colleagues to know that I intend to get to the Front-Bench speakers no later than 2.30 pm, so, to enable everybody to get in and speak, speeches will be limited to four minutes. Also, will the Front-Bench speakers be mindful of the time, because we want to hear Craig Tracey again?
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) for securing this important debate. He has spoken incredibly passionately and covered a wide range of issues relating to breast cancer. I want to focus my remarks on two issues. First, I want to speak about the need for a cancer recovery plan to deal with the backlog in breast cancer screening tests and get cancer treatments up and running again. Secondly, I want to speak about the need for urgent action to prevent the widening health inequality gap in this country.
Over the past few months, we have seen spiralling wait lists, the longest since records began. That has had a direct and devastating impact on people’s health. I have heard stories of frontline workers who have had their cancer screen test delayed, only to find out months later that their cancer has spread. It is a simple fact that the sooner someone has a cancer diagnosis, the more likely they are to survive. In March, breast cancer screening programmes were put on hold. One week into the second national lockdown, people are worried that that might happen again, and they fear for loved ones who might not get the care that they need.
In response to a parliamentary question that I asked, the Government revealed that nearly 10,000 women are waiting for a breast cancer screening in Barnsley alone, and more than 30,000 women in South Yorkshire. We have a postcode lottery in this country when it comes to breast cancer screening and mortality rates. Depending on where someone lives, they can be up to a third less likely to have attended a breast cancer screening in the last three years. Staffing pressures have directly impacted the capacity of the NHS to screen patients for suspected cancer, affecting the speed at which patients are diagnosed.
A Public Health England report found that the number of empty consultant breast radiologist posts in the country doubled between 2010 and 2016. The same report revealed that all breast radiologists in Yorkshire and the Humber are due to retire by 2025. Has the Minister’s Department assessed the impact of the pandemic on recruitment, and will she outline the Department’s plans to deal with the staffing crisis?
Health inequality in this country is not new. Life expectancy in Barnsley is five years lower than in Kensington and Chelsea. The pandemic threatens to widen existing health inequalities as areas such as mine face the double impact of more covid-19 cases and severe financial hardship because of the restrictions. As has already been mentioned in the debate, we need comprehensive, accurate data on patients and populations to map health inequalities across the country. This includes improving the cancer outcomes and services dataset so that patients and local providers can quickly and easily compare information on all cancers, including breast cancer. More needs to be done to support local providers to ensure they submit information to the dataset. It is the first step towards recognising the scale of health inequalities faced by this country and taking action to increase service improvement.
Covid-19 has not been a great leveller. Inequalities in care, treatment and diagnosis have come to light during the pandemic. At the same time, it is now widely recognised that societal inequalities have increased certain populations’ likelihood of suffering complications from the virus. It is clear that unless the Government act now to reduce the unequal impact of covid-19, those inequalities will become further entrenched, directly impacting the health and wellbeing of people across the UK.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I add to the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) for calling this important debate and speaking so powerfully at the outset about this issue.
This subject is especially pertinent because cancer, sadly, will touch each of our lives in some form. If we are not personally diagnosed, we will know someone close to us who is. It is one of the biggest long-term health challenges we face as a country, notwithstanding the current pandemic. Coronavirus has impacted on breast cancer services, as it has impacted on every part of our lives. Breast Cancer Now has described coronavirus as “the biggest crisis” that breast cancer has faced in decades.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) outlined, the earlier breast cancer is diagnosed, the more likely treatment is to be successful. Earlier this year, the screening programme was officially paused in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and it was effectively paused in England from March. Screening has now restarted, but it is patchy across the country, with some having quicker access than others. With each month that passes, more women with breast cancer could be missing the chance of an early diagnosis, which is key to preventing deaths from the disease.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire pointed out, Breast Cancer Now estimates that nearly a million women who require screening are currently waiting across the United Kingdom, and around 8,600 of them could be living with undetected breast cancer. This has been exemplified in my Carshalton and Wallington constituency. As part of the London borough of Sutton, we are lucky to be home to the world-leading Royal Marsden Hospital. I want to put on record my thanks to Dame Cally Palmer and the amazing staff at the Royal Marsden whom I had the pleasure of visiting recently.
Sutton is also home to the Institute of Cancer Research, which is expanding in conjunction with the Royal Marsden to become the first cancer hub in London and, indeed, the UK—right on our doorstep. That will provide thousands of highly skilled jobs for the area, and it is massively exciting for the future of cancer research. Sutton could well be the site of a major breakthrough in cancer research. The ICR and the Royal Marsden do a fantastic job. The latter stepped up and played its role in tackling the pandemic, adapting to deal with coronavirus patients, but that meant, sadly, that cancer patients had their diagnosis delayed, as did so many others.
In the second national lockdown, it is most important to ensure that those services are not paused again. I am pleased that that has not happened in my part of London, but we must have a plan to deal with the backlog as soon as possible. The NHS long-term plan is ambitious when it comes to cancer. I worked on that when I was in the national health service. However, there were challenges in dealing with the cancer strategy even before covid-19.
We have already heard about the existing problems in the workforce, and we need a plan for the implementation of Professor Sir Mike Richards’s review of the adult screening programme. I can see the Minister is nodding, so I hope she will add a few words on that. I hope she will tell us how we intend to deal with that backlog and return to the implementation of the ambitions in the long-term plan.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me in this important debate, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) for securing it. We are from the same part of the country, but from different tribes; I am red and white.
This is an important subject, and it is important that we address it. We are living through an unprecedented pandemic. I was saddened and alarmed to read yesterday that the UK had become one of only five countries to exceed 50,000 deaths from covid-19. In the fullness of time, no doubt, we will have a public inquiry into covid-19 that will examine the flaws in the Government’s covid-19 response. I certainly believe that the Government will acknowledge that they were not properly prepared for a pandemic and did not have a proper and effective plan to manage infectious disease and routine day-to-day healthcare.
The impact on breast and other cancers has already cost lives and will continue to do so, but I want to focus on the cancer recovery plan. The Government can take steps to avoid unnecessary cancer deaths arising from the backlog of delayed diagnosis and treatment. I have met the Minister on several occasions in my capacity as vice-chair of the all-party group for radiotherapy and the all-party group on cancer, and we have had constructive dialogue, so I am afraid she will not be able to argue that solutions were not put forward to address this issue and mitigate potential deaths arising from delayed treatment.
The Catch Up With Cancer campaign, which Radiotherapy4Life is supporting, has identified that the cancer backlog stands at more than 100,000 patients. I recently had a meeting via Zoom with Macmillan cancer support—I am one for badges; I am wearing Radiotherapy4Life’s and Macmillan’s—to discuss what needs to be done to address the cancer backlog. It estimates that there are 50,000 missing diagnoses for cancer across the UK—it calls them the forgotten C. An estimated 100 fewer women started treatment for breast cancer each working day in May and June, compared with last year. Breast cancer two-week wait referrals are down 25% in March to August this year, compared with 2019.
I was joined on the call by a representative from Macmillan’s Joining the Dots campaign—a lady called Chloe Shaw, who is doing excellent work. That brilliant local service, which may be available in other parts of the country, offers practical help and support to people affected by cancer—in my case, those living in County Durham and my constituency of Easington. Joining the Dots has supported people in my constituency living with cancer throughout the pandemic. At the moment, it is having to work primarily through telephone and video calls.
Macmillan estimates that there are currently almost 18,000 people in County Durham living with and beyond cancer—people who have already been diagnosed may be fearful that there will be a recurrence. It is estimated that that figure could rise to almost 29,000 by 2030.
As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on radiotherapy, I am particularly interested in this issue. In the Chamber today we have a number of former Ministers who have been banging this drum for some time. The issue now is the impact of the pandemic on the availability of radiotherapy treatment. We really must do something for the many older women with breast cancer who have not been prioritised to receive radiotherapy over the past six months. The data is available and should be acted upon. Will the Minister publish those datasets? We certainly need smart solutions and investment, but they must be reflected in a comprehensive spending review, so I hope the Minister will make the necessary representations to the Treasury.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on securing this timely and important debate. I pay tribute to the work that he and the all-party parliamentary group have done on this issue over a number of years. It has been really important.
We have come a long way in this country on breast cancer survival rates over the past few years, but about 11,500 women still die every year from the disease. We know that early diagnosis is absolutely vital when it comes to survival rates, so I am very concerned about the impact that the pandemic has had and continues to have.
In my constituency in the High Peak, a commissioning decision was recently taken by NHS Midlands to withdraw the breast cancer mobile screening units from three towns—Buxton, Chapel-en-le-Frith and New Mills—and to move that service outside the High Peak to Bakewell. This is no slight at all on Newholme Hospital in Bakewell and the fantastic staff there—I pay tribute to them and to all the NHS staff working in breast cancer screening services—but there is a question of accessibility. The Peak district does not have the best roads; we are heading into winter, when those roads become even more inaccessible. Public transport is patchy at best, and I am incredibly concerned about how many women will feel unable to make appointments if they have to go all the way to Bakewell. I am alarmed about this decision, and it is one that I disagree with. I really hope that we can reinstate the mobile screening units in the High Peak as soon as possible. My message to the Minister is clear: we desperately need to get those units reinstated, and I hope that I can meet her to talk about this in the near future.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on securing this important debate.
This year has been incredibly difficult and challenging for everyone working in our national health service, for the patients they serve and for the staff and volunteers at the many charities and community organisations that help to support patients and carry out critical research, including Breast Cancer Now, Breast Cancer UK, Macmillan Cancer Support and Cancer Research UK. I pay tribute to them, and to every one of the staff who work in King’s College Hospital in my constituency for their incredibly hard work since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Our nurses, doctors, care assistants, allied health professionals, porters, cleaners and admin staff have all worked with extraordinary commitment in exceptionally challenging times.
Breast cancer is a devastating condition, and every year across the UK more than 50,000 women, as well as approximately 400 men, receive their first diagnosis of it. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and to my friend Paula Sherriff, the former Member for Dewsbury, for speaking publicly about their recent experience of diagnosis and treatment during coronavirus—an experience that is made all the more difficult by the restrictions on contact with friends and family, who are often so vital in providing comfort during a difficult time.
Although our NHS staff have worked so incredibly hard this year, as always, the coronavirus pandemic has exposed the impact of 10 years of austerity on our healthcare system. In many parts of the country, including my constituency, our NHS was not able simultaneously to care for patients impacted by coronavirus and to maintain the array of other critical services, including cancer screening. Our local hospital worked extraordinarily hard to maintain cancer treatment, but across the NHS the need to cope with the huge influx of coronavirus patients and prevent further infection spread, particularly among clinically vulnerable people, caused significant disruption to surgery pathways.
Many people also became concerned that GP surgeries and accident and emergency departments were not safe environments, and therefore they put off reporting concerning symptoms that might have been the first sign of cancer, including breast cancer. The breast screening programme was officially paused in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and effectively paused in England, in March. At the peak of the pandemic, there was a drop of approximately 70% in the number of cases of cancer being reported across the UK, with Breast Cancer Now estimating a drop of more than 100,000 referrals for breast cancer.
As we know, early diagnosis is key to obtaining the best possible outcomes for patients who are eventually diagnosed with cancer. As MPs, unfortunately I am sure that we are all aware of constituents whose diagnosis came much later than it should have done, because the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. However, even for those constituents who managed to receive a diagnosis, there have often been unacceptable waiting times for treatment that was urgently needed. The stress of knowing that urgent surgery is needed to remove breast cancer, but not having a firm appointment or timescale for such surgery, has been unbearable for a number of my constituents.
Exercise Cygnus clearly showed that the UK was hugely underprepared for a pandemic such as covid-19, but instead of learning the lessons from 2016, this Government buried them. That has resulted in unbearable strain on many parts of our NHS. Just a few days before the second national lockdown, I visited King’s College Hospital to thank the staff for their tremendous hard work and to discuss the preparations for the second wave of coronavirus. It was reassuring to hear about the detailed planning that has been carried out for the second wave, and about the focus on keeping non-coronavirus treatments and care going at this time, but we know that there is a backlog.
I want to end by highlighting the inequalities that already exist in gaining access to breast cancer treatment and screening, with black, Asian and minority ethnic residents far less likely to access screening and far more likely to end up with a late diagnosis. We urgently need a proactive programme to ensure that there is equal access to screening services, that this pandemic does not result in a further deepening of unequal access and that all breast cancer patients get access as soon as possible to the treatment and care they need.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Another debate about breast cancer. There have been many—too many. For my first five years in this place, I was proud to lead the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, and it is in good hands now with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey). For more than two years, it was the privilege of my life to serve as the cancer Minister and to be part of what I call team cancer. Heaven knows, I spent my fair share of time sitting in the Minister’s seat in Westminster Hall, as she—the current Public Health Minister—now knows.
For each of the 10 years that I have been an MP, we have lost around 11,500 women a year in the UK to this menace, as has been said. That number has come down thanks to advances that we have made and investments that all Governments have put in, but we have to do so much better. That is 115,000 mums, sisters, grans, aunties and friends over the decade that I have served in this place. I have never spoken before about which one of them it was for me, and I do not think I will go there today, but I will say this: I have fought and lost to breast cancer more than I have won.
And let us not forget the guys. I was glad that the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), mentioned them. Yes, breast cancer is rare in men, but around 370 men a year are diagnosed in the UK. It still kills, so I welcome the Male Breast Cancer Study that was established to pinpoint some genetic and environmental lifetime causes in men.
Going back to the title of today’s debate, it is true that covid has not helped, but the breast cancer toll goes on regardless. That is as true today as it was pre-pandemic. Breast cancer remains a largely beatable and treatable cancer if it is detected early. Primary breast cancer can be fatal, but we know that almost all deaths are attributable to the development of metastatic, or secondary, breast cancer. As Breast Cancer Now puts it so well—this has been quoted before, but it is worth saying it again—coronavirus is the biggest crisis secondary breast cancer has faced in decades.
We know that some patients with breast cancer had their treatments changed or paused to protect their immune systems. We wait with nothing but fear for the impact of those periods on keeping the disease stable. Let us stop for a moment to consider the reality of those pauses. There is that sinking feeling in a person’s stomach every morning when they wake up and remember that they have breast cancer but they cannot take any action to beat back the disease, because of the pandemic. When they are busy doing something else—maybe enjoying a child or a grandchild being super-cute—it rushes back in, like a punch to the stomach, and they realise they cannot take any action to beat the disease, because of the pandemic. For the children of breast cancer patients who call up on Zoom because they cannot meet, things look and sound the same, but mum cannot take any action to beat back the disease.
Many of these covid delays have had a negative impact on the emotional wellbeing of patients and their families. Never before has the clinical nurse specialist role been more important. We have heard from research undertaken by Breast Cancer Now, an excellent charity, that patients feel they have had less contact with their CNS during the pandemic. When the Minister sums up, could she update us on that? I know she will.
The flip side to that emotional support is the third sector. Many charities, including Wessex Cancer Trust and the Winchester and Eastleigh Cancer Support Group in my area, have switched from physical to virtual, and I thank them for their work. However, there are other charities that have had to pull back just when we need them most, including Breast Cancer Haven, Wessex, which opened only a few years ago, and Breast Cancer Haven, West Midlands, in Solihull. They have closed permanently, and the charity is now operating only online services out of its London base.
Breast cancer incidence in my area, Wessex, is significantly higher than the England average. The rate is 184 per 10,000, compared with 168 across the country. Our mortality rate is spot on the average, but that still has us losing 118 people every year, almost all from secondary cancer.
I was alarmed that my trust had to cease the local breast screening programme in March, because of “did not attends” and cancelled appointments in the first lockdown. Three weeks later, the trust got formal guidance, and the service was suspended for 17 weeks. I fear that this is going to be one of the terrible legacies of lockdown.
The good news is that the restoration of the screening service is well under way, and I thank the team at Hampshire Hospitals for that. The tragedy for us is that, pre-covid, Winchester had a very high uptake of screening in the local population. We have to get back to that.
We have a battle royal on our hands with breast cancer; that was the case before the pandemic, and it is after. When I sat in the Minister’s seat, many hated me describing cancer and breast cancer as a fight, but they are just that. They always were. We needed to up our game pre-covid, and we certainly need to up our game post-covid, if we are not to be here in another 10 years having exactly the same conversations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome you to your new role in Westminster Hall, Ms McVey. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). He and I have sparred many times—never sparred; we have worked together, which is a better way of putting it—in many debates in Westminster Hall and the Chamber. I very much value those times, and I thank him. It is also nice to see the Minister and shadow Ministers in their places.
Every person in this place, including myself, is probably intimately acquainted with someone who has suffered from breast cancer. The statistics stick in your mind. I will focus on my own area; I know it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I will give a few stats from Northern Ireland and my own constituency.
Some 129.4 people per 10,000 develop breast cancer in Strangford, compared with 165.2 right across Northern Ireland—a significantly better incidence rate in Strangford. But when we compare the stats with England, we are worse off. The incidence rates for Northern Ireland and Strangford are 62 per year, and 38 people per 10,000 die from breast cancer in Strangford, compared with a rate of 36.1 across England. We in Northern Ireland, and in my constituency in particular, have some rates that are very scary. People are also dying from secondary breast cancer. Northern Ireland has the highest mortality rate from breast cancer in the UK, compared with 33.97 in England, 34.2 in Scotland and 33.9 in Wales.
A freedom of information request by Breast Cancer Now found that 40% of hospital trusts and health boards across the UK were unable to tell how many secondary breast cancer patients were under their care, including my local South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust.
As the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) did, I want to focus on secondary breast cancer. I congratulate him on bringing the issue forward for debate. He set the scene well. Clinical trials provide a vital opportunity for patients to access potential new treatments at an early stage of their development. That is particularly important for women with secondary breast cancer, who often have limited treatment options available to them and for whom clinical trials provide precious hope to have more time with loved ones. Recruitment to the many clinical trials was paused during the pandemic. While there was relatively little disruption for breast cancer patients already on clinical trials, the pause in recruitment to many trials will have made it difficult for other patients to access them.
In March, the National Institute of Health Research suggested that many NIHR-funded or supported studies might have to be paused as healthcare professionals were asked to prioritise frontline care and make research facilities available if asked to do so by their employer. Of 92 breast cancer trials that the NIHR clinical research network was supporting in March 2020, 50% were paused for recruitment, 45% continue and 5% were closed.
Research clinical trials are so important. Of the 118 respondents to the Breast Cancer Now survey who were receiving or expecting to receive treatment as part of a clinical trial during this time, just under a quarter said they had experienced disruption. The pause in recruitment will have made it more difficult to access trials, and 59% of all respondents were concerned about it.
I know that the Minister always answers with knowledge and understanding. I ask her what lessons can be learned from the speed with which trials for coronavirus have been set up. How can we apply that to setting up clinical trials for other health conditions such as secondary breast cancer? Perhaps coronavirus gives us an opportunity to look at trials—breast cancer trials in particular—in a different way. What good can we take from all of this?
Members of the Association for Medical Research Charities account for 66% of research on cancer. Shop closures and the suspension of many fundraising activities because of covid-19 have had an immediate and severe effect on those charities’ incomes, and their investment in research will drop by £310 million. Breast Cancer Now will see a 34% drop in its income as a result of the pandemic. I support the AMRC’s call for a life sciences charity partnership fund to mitigate the impact of the pandemic and ensure the continuity of charity-funded research.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the £750 million charity support package, but the medical research charities have not had any help. I thank the hon. Member for North Warwickshire for leading the debate and all those who contributed. I spoke at about 100 mph there.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
It is not just a pleasure but a delight to serve under your chairmanship for the very first time, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) for securing this important debate at a critical time. It is a great pleasure to follow my indefatigable friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I believe this is the first time, as he usually follows me.
The lockdown order and the ensuing restrictions that we presently endure have had a seismic impact on the services that the NHS can provide, including, crucially, cancer services. NHS figures show a 60% drop in urgent cancer referrals from the initial days of the March lockdown, compared with the same time last year.
Breast Cancer Now, which has been mentioned by a number of colleagues, has raised concerns that almost 1 million women in the UK have missed NHS breast cancer screenings as a direct consequence of the pandemic, because they were paused during the first lockdown before being gradually resumed. Mammograms have the potential to detect cancer in its early stages and, ultimately, to save lives.
Treatment for those with other cancers has been significantly disrupted. The national guidelines may well have stated that urgent and essential cancer treatment must continue, but that has not been the case in every hospital. Not everyone who has required urgent surgery has been able to access it, whether because of a lack of intensive care units or because it is too great a risk to patient or staff.
Similarly, those who have required major surgery have not always been fortunate enough to receive it. That, again, has been a consequence of a lack of recovery beds with ventilation or of there being no ICU beds, if the surgery encountered complications, or because the surgery was simply too risky. Aftercare—whether palliative care or chemotherapy—has also been disrupted by the lockdown.
The reality of those delays not only puts women under a great deal of stress and anxiety, but risks making the cancers diagnosed harder to treat if they are caught at later stages. I truly understand that pain: an inordinate number of my family members have suffered from cancer.
Those who suffer from breast cancer should not be collateral damage in the battle against covid. Worryingly, that has been the case for virtually all forms of cancer treatment. The Health Data Research hub for cancer has warned that, as a result of the pandemic, there could be an additional 18,000 deaths of people with cancer.
In Wakefield, the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust has been proactive in its attempts to ensure that cancer diagnoses occur and cancer patients are treated. Prior to the pandemic, cancer was sadly already the biggest single cause of early death in the district. Breast cancer was the second most prevalent form, with about 250 new cases diagnosed each year.
In May, Pontefract Hospital was temporarily developed into a dedicated cancer centre to care for the people of Wakefield and North Kirklees who need diagnosis for surgery and suspected cancer during the covid-19 outbreak. Here, I have similar concerns to my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Robert Largan), because the move from Pinderfields Hospital to neighbouring Pontefract was undertaken on the basis that exposure to covid-19 in Pontefract was significantly lower than in Pinderfields, which is the regional hub for covid-19 patients.
However, while I concur with the chief executive of the NHS trust, Martin Barkley, that we are
“fortunate that we have excellent modern facilities at Pontefract Hospital”,
which is relatively close to Wakefield, having to travel significantly further afield will likely be a behavioural impediment on attendance for constituents scheduled for diagnosis and treatment. That adds to the existing fear about patients entering hospitals, evidenced by Abdul Mustafa, GP lead for cancer care at NHS Wakefield CCG, who said:
“Clinicians working in cancer services know that patients are choosing not to have time-critical cancer treatment because of fear of exposure”.
In closing, I simply say that we must ensure that, however well meaning the policies, the antidote does not become worse than the disease we seek to cure.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under the chairmanship of a fellow Cheshire Member, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on securing the debate.
I think we all agree that the NHS is facing probably the most challenging period in its history. During the previous lockdown, the Government and the NHS leadership were dealing with enormous levels of uncertainty and, like all of us, had in their minds the images of what happened in Italy, with parts of its health service totally overwhelmed by covid cases. Enormous effort was put into preparing the NHS for that possibility: wards were reorganised, whole new systems for moving patients through hospitals were instigated and staff were redeployed. I pay tribute to the hard work, commitment and flexibility shown by so many NHS staff as part of all this. The changes made and the approach taken can only be described as a success, in terms of the NHS managing the wave of covid cases as it did. Our NHS was not overwhelmed, and no patient with covid who needed more intensive treatment was prevented from getting it.
However, we are here to talk about the wider picture of healthcare for our constituents during the pandemic. Colleagues of mine noticed almost immediately enormous drop-offs in patient attendance that simply could not be explained away by the lockdown. The first time I went to help in A&E, the department was quite simply the quietest I had ever seen it. It seems clear that there were people at home experiencing things such as heart attacks and strokes, which do not always present in a calamitous way that would cause one to definitely seek help.
[Steve McCabe in the Chair]
Of course, the debate is specifically on cancer diagnosis, and even in the best and most proactive health systems in the world, the journey often consists of experiencing a wide range of minor symptoms that only over time become apparent as something more serious. That is why it matters that, over the last few months, there has been an inevitable downturn in people seeing doctors and nurses, because people think they can put off seeing them about these symptoms.
In discussing breast cancer, we can at least take some comfort from our relative success in educating people about the symptoms to watch out for, which by comparison with other cancers are a little bit more specific. We have a proactive screening programme, because we know that we can spot cancers earlier and save more lives if people are screened, rather than waiting for symptoms. Most breast screening services were suspended due to the coronavirus, and Breast Cancer Now estimates that, while screening was paused, almost 1 million women missed out on their mammogram, and that around 8,600 women caught up in the screening appointment backlog could be living with undetected breast cancer. Thankfully, screening has now restarted across the UK, and I understand that more than 400,000 women were invited for breast cancer screening between June and August, with thousands more invitations being sent every month.
I will finish by focusing on two points. First, backlogs—I just described them for breast cancer; we have all described them today—affect a wide range of treatments. We must ensure that the NHS gets the additional resources that will be vital for it to catch up on the backlog of care and treatment built up during the lockdown, and which I am afraid is still building up in some areas. The record numbers of nurses and doctors now working for the NHS will be needed, and we will have to deliver on our manifesto commitments to keep building that workforce in primary and secondary care.
Secondly, we must make it clear to the public that the choice is not between tackling coronavirus or tackling the other healthcare needs of our constituents. Tackling coronavirus will allow us to carry on meeting the wider healthcare needs of our constituents. Any hospital faced with a choice between providing critical care for patients very sick with covid, who are at risk of dying there and then, and providing screening and non-urgent treatments will have to prioritise that immediate and critical healthcare need. That is why keeping the coronavirus suppressed is absolutely vital.
The NHS has moved on from where it was at the start of lockdown and every week is getting better and better at doing both things at the same time. We must all carry on giving it the room to manoeuvre that it needs to build on that further, enabling it to look after patients with and without covid, patients with urgent healthcare needs and planned healthcare needs, and patients requiring things such as screening.We will only stand a chance of being able to do that if we can continue to keep coronavirus suppressed, following the guidance that we have all been given—hands, face and space. Let us ensure that it is clear to constituents: this is not a choice between one or the other, but about supporting both groups of patients.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
It is a great honour for me to make my maiden speech from the Opposition side of the Chamber, although it seems a little strange.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) on securing the debate. I agreed with everything he said. Yes, I am reminded of my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), and of the redoubtable Paula Sherriff. We are all thinking of them at the moment, as they battle cancer. As far as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) was concerned, I empathise with his remarks, because I was once on the Health Committee for 10 years. We had inquiries into many of the issues raised today.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer of all. At any time, about 600,000 people in the UK are living with or recovering from breast cancer. My wife had breast cancer. She was stage 2 and her treatment was absolutely wonderful. She, dare I say, got away with radiotherapy, but a number of her friends were stage 3 and had to have chemotherapy. Through early detection, however, more and more women are surviving as a result.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will write to me about this: Southend breast cancer service has been way up there at the top, but I was slightly concerned to be told that, in my constituency, 42 per 10,000, or 152 people, develop breast cancer every year; and I am really concerned that the uptake of breast cancer screening is below the national average, at only 65.3% of women invited to attend. Only 76.7% of women are diagnosed at stage 1 or 2, compared with nearly 80% across England. I am concerned by that, and I feel a responsibility as a local Member of Parliament to do something about the issue.
As we have heard from other colleagues, covid-19 has caused many regular services to be cancelled or delayed. In order to clear the backlog and ensure attendance at screening centres, women are sent—again, I say this to my hon. Friend the Minister—open invitations, rather than timed appointments. That may lead to fewer women making appointments and so reduce the uptake of breast screening, which has been happening consistently in recent years. If open invitations are issued, measures such as appointment reminders and letters from GPs must be put in place, urging women to attend.
Colleagues have mentioned Professor Michael Richards and his recommendations last autumn. The review found that screening capacity in the NHS needs urgent investment to increase the workforce and provide adequate equipment and facilities. Following the plan to extend the upper age for testing from 65 to 70, additional pressure was placed on existing staff, many of whom are near retirement age. About half of all mammographers are aged 50 and are likely to retire in the next 10 to 15 years.
I also hope that, now the Chancellor has discovered a money tree—which I am certainly going to get hold of—additional funding will be found for investment in clinical nurse specialists, to support those with incurable secondary breast cancer. Yes, the Macmillan nurses do an absolutely fantastic job—but more needs to be done.
In conclusion, the coronavirus pandemic has changed the way in which the NHS offers its services beyond recognition—we all salute that—with new technology, such as virtual appointments, being offered to patients. However, we must not lose sight of the importance of physical screening and consultations, in particular for breast cancer diagnosis. With the sobering statistic that one in seven women in the UK—my wife and three of our colleagues, whom we know about—will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, it is more important than ever that this service is funded and resourced to allow the best chance of survival and recovery for those women.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
We have 30 minutes now for the Front Benchers to respond and to allow a little time for Mr Tracey at the end.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) for securing this very important debate, and I congratulate him on his compassion and lucidity in presenting his case. I start by paying tribute to all the NHS, research and charity staff who have been working on the frontline in their respective disciplines to ensure that we move through this challenging time and continue to meet the challenges of breast cancer.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer, with one in seven women affected, and the impact of covid-19 is most keenly felt by those women and has the greatest potential to affect the lives of so many because of its prevalence. Covid has had an impact on almost every aspect of our lives. We have heard that 1 million women have missed their breast cancer screenings, but the covid pandemic has affected all aspects of the cancer pathway, from screening and diagnosis to treatment and follow-up care.
The reasons are varied, and include concern and fear over attending, cancellations due to re-deployment and the impact on the wider NHS services, radiology, surgical, medical and clinical oncology. All of those aspects of the treatment pathway have felt the impact, including, as I mentioned earlier, the capacity for clinical trials and research. In that spirit, I led a cross-party letter to the Chancellor asking for the Government to consider the establishment of the life sciences charity partnership fund to support the charities that have been significantly affected by the covid pandemic.
The design and success of cancer treatment is absolutely reliant on early diagnosis, as it allows rapid progress to treatment, prompt surgical intervention in the case of breast cancer, and onward to radiotherapy or chemotherapy, or indeed both. As such, it maximises the efficacy of those interventions, whilst allowing tissue and immune systems to recover. However, there are challenges.
The Royal College of Radiologists has highlighted that there has been a reduction in referrals for symptomatic breast cancer within the two-week wait standard and a reduction of clinical capacity. There have been some innovative moves, where appropriate, for a hyperfractionation of radiotherapy treatment schedules. The royal college also noted that radiologists are having to deal with attendance anxiety. It has, however, also noted innovative changes to the configuration of services, which have enabled some of the softer aspects of cancer care to continue where possible.
The impact on the challenges that were already present prior to covid also needs to be considered. I remember—more years ago than I would like to mention—when I was involved in peer reviews with a London cancer network there was already a shortage of radiologists within the cancer pathway. That problem has, sadly, not gone away. It is not a problem unique to the English system at all. There is at least one consultant vacancy in clinical oncology. Another important issue to consider is that the attrition rate for consultant posts is greater than the ability to recruit. Thus, there is a pressing need to move these challenges forward.
The new ways of working—telemedicine, Hospital at Home, and other innovations—need investment. There is also a need to reassess the skill base of the workforce and acknowledge chronic excessive workload, which has been highlighted by The King’s Fund. According to Macmillan, there is a need more generally to recruit around 2,500 cancer nurses alone—of course, other disciplines, from GPs to radiographers, also need consideration for recruitment.
The post-covid recovery plan must include significant investment in diagnostics and treatment, radiology, recruitment and training in specialist allied disciplines. Effectively, the covid pandemic has landed a narrow aperture at the point of diagnosis for many cancers and, because of its prevalence, breast cancer is a significant cohort. To widen that aperture, there is a real and pressing need for funding to come forward in the comprehensive spending review; it must deliver an expansion of service to support innovation, fund the NHS plan and support social care.
It is important to acknowledge that staff in hospitals have been working incredibly hard throughout the pandemic, but there is only so much that we can squeeze out of them, and we cannot rely on a never-ending supply of goodwill and extraordinary resilience. My suggestion echoes a plea from my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is a breast cancer specialist herself: clinical audit and quality improvement standards need to be at the heart of the drive forward. That work has been commended by the Nuffield Trust in its “Learning from Scotland’s NHS” paper.
We need to support getting it right first time, while making great strides to enable clinical outcome data to be captured and the impact to be fully understood. In short, substantial investment is no longer optional, and I hope that in the spending review the Government make the necessary investments, as called for by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, to ensure that that is brought forward.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I start by thanking the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) for securing this important and timely debate and for his excellent introductory speech. He made a number of important points, some of which I hope to return to, and I hope he gets a positive response to his very helpful suggestion on the gathering of data. I also thank all the other hon. Members for their contributions today, and I will go through some of the highlights of those.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) spoke about the need for a cancer recovery plan, which I think we all agree on, and addressed the important point about widening health inequalities and the startling differences in the availability of screening depending on where people live. I agree with her that improvements to the cancer outcomes datasets are an important part of beginning to understand how those disparities work out.
We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris); I pay tribute to the work he does on the all-party parliamentary groups in this area. He mentioned the Catch Up With Cancer campaign and drew attention to the backlog, which, of course, many hon. Members have raised today. He also raised the availability of radiotherapy, which, in his own words, he bangs the drum on consistently in this place, and we pay tribute to his persistence.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Robert Largan) made an important point about the availability of mobile screening units and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) , who always speaks with such knowledge on this subject, made some important points about clinical trials and charities, which I hope to be able to return to if time allows.
It was a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) find his spiritual home at last; it is the equivalent of Gary Neville turning out to play for Liverpool, but he is welcome all the same. We have a vacancy in the shadow health team for a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the moment and, if he shows the promise that he demonstrated in his speech today, I think we may be able to find a role for him on this side of the House.
The hon. Gentleman made, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) did, an important point about some of the people who are not here today, including the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who we heard this morning in business questions speaking about her frustration at not being able to participate in this debate. I am sure it would have been enhanced by her presence, given her current battle, alongside the former Member—still our friend—for Dewsbury, Paula Sherriff. I am sure the whole House sends both of them our very best wishes.
I want to speak about the impact the pandemic has had on the early diagnosis of cancer in general, as many Members have referred to already. We know how important early diagnosis is to improving chances of survival and in successful treatment. As we heard, Cancer Research UK estimates around 3 million people are waiting for breast, bowel or cervical screening, and there were over 1.2 million patients waiting for a key diagnostic test by the end of August this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Easington mentioned, we know from Macmillan’s latest report that there are currently around 50,000 missing diagnoses; that compares to a similar timeframe for this time last year, and means 50,000 fewer people have potentially not been diagnosed with cancer.
We know significant amounts of capacity had to be created during this pandemic, and that meant the cancelling of planned operations, large numbers of patients being discharged back into the community, and staff and patients having to be protected from the transmission of covid-19. What those changes also meant is that, thankfully, intensive care did not have to be rationed so that only covid-19 patients were treated. However, it also caused the shutdown or reduction in many other non-covid services, which, combined with drastic changes in patient behaviour, has led to us facing this huge backlog today. We know that stricter infection control measures—which are absolutely necessary—mean that the backlog of care will probably take much longer to clear than we would like.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and other hon. Members referred to the Breast Cancer Now report, and how the number of people referred to see a specialist declined dramatically from April. There is an estimate that across the UK, there have been 107,000 fewer breast cancer referrals, and a backlog of almost 1 million women requiring screening has built up during this time. Some of those women may well have been living with undetected breast cancer, and some may still be. Every month that that situation continues, more women could be missing out on the best chance of getting an early diagnosis and the best chance of beating the disease. It is vital—and something that we have been pushing for for a long time—that we get a clear sense of how we are going to tackle that backlog, because it is so important.
The hon. Members for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) and for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) mentioned the importance of mammograms. As we know, they are a key tool in early detection. There is a plan to send open invitations for screening from September to March of next year. That has caused some concern among cancer charities, because some of the research shows that the number of women who make appointments is significantly lower than those who actually attend timed appointments. There is a fear, sadly, that this could actually worsen the persistent decline we have seen in recent years of the uptake of breast cancer screening. We are particularly concerned about the impact that will have on some groups where uptake is already low, such as those living in deprived communities and some BAME groups. We heard a little bit about the impact on BAME groups from my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, and both she and the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) very powerfully put into words the additional mental toll that this disease has during this time, on top of everything else that people ordinarily face when they have received such a diagnosis.
Several hon. Members mentioned the impact of covid-19 on secondary breast cancer patients. It is still, sadly, the case that around 11,500 people—women, mainly—die from breast cancer each year. Most of those are to do with secondary breast cancer, and as we have heard, it is not something that there is a cure for at the moment. It is estimated that around 35,000 people in the UK are living with secondary breast cancer. As the general population ages and people live longer, numbers will continue to increase, so it is really important that we get a better understanding and response to secondary breast cancer. We also need to look at this issue from the patient’s perspective.
I want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who wanted to speak in today’s debate but could not. She wanted to pay tribute to one of her constituents, Jo Taylor, and to METUP UK, which focuses on making positive changes for everyone with metastatic breast cancer. Its “busy living with mets” campaign calls for increased awareness of secondary breast cancer, because catching it earlier leads to better outcomes. It is also campaigning for better access to drugs, clinical trials, radiotherapies and surgical pathways.
As the hon. Member for North Warwickshire mentioned in his opening comments, the national cancer patient experience survey tells us that the experiences of patients with secondary cancer differ greatly. It has identified gaps through the taskforce in the support and services offered to people, including variation in access to clinical nurse specialists, patchy provision of information, patients’ psycho-social needs not being met, and a lack of prompt and timely access to palliative care services.
As we have heard from several hon. Members, clinical nurse specialists play a critical role in co-ordinating care, providing information and helping people to manage their diagnosis and treatment better. In fact, Breast Cancer Now reports that the support of a clinical nurse specialist is the single most important contributing factor to people’s positive experience of care. That is particularly important for secondary cancer patients, who are often on lifelong treatments and have complex needs as a result. Its importance was acknowledged in the long-term plan, with a commitment that by 2021—it is only six weeks away now—all patients, including those with secondary cancers, will have access to a clinical nurse specialist or support worker.
It is very important that we get to a point where everyone is able to take advantage of the expertise that a clinical nurse specialist provides. Prior to the pandemic, the workforce was already overstretched and under pressure due to increased demand and persistent shortages across the workforce. A report by the Public Accounts Committee was highly critical of the Government’s approach to the workforce, finding that the long-term plan was not supported by a detailed workforce plan. Of course, the removal of the NHS bursary in 2017
“signally failed to achieve its ambition to increase student nursing numbers.”
Before I conclude, I want to echo what the hon. Member for Strangford said about the importance of charities in this sector. We know there is a great deal of concern in the sector. I know that some support was announced by the Government back in April, but it falls well short of what was suggested by the associations involved, and only a few have been able to benefit from it. I hope the Government will listen to the sector and look again at what additional financial support can be provided, because we know that clinical trials provide a vital opportunity for patients to access new treatments, which are always in development. We know it is particularly important for patients with secondary breast cancer. We hope that is something the Minister can take on board today, and I look forward to hearing her response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I have an awful lot to cover and less than 10 minutes to respond, if I am going to give my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) time to sum up. I congratulate him on securing the debate and on the important work he does running the APPG on breast cancer with his co-chair. I know that he has been a fundraiser for breast cancer and that, like me, he came to this place with tackling this issue as one of his key ambitions. We will get there.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) said, everyone with breast cancer is a mum, a sister, a daughter or a friend. Some 3% of them are now fathers, sons and brothers. I am grateful for the contributions to the debate. A debate such as this allows us to park much of the politics but talk about what is really important here: the patients, and the outcomes for them.
Early diagnosis is key, and hon. Members have outlined the challenge that covid has brought. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), and indeed the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for outlining just how challenging covid-19 has been for the NHS and how it has responded to an unprecedented event in an unprecedented way. I reassure all hon. Members that in the second wave, we have made sure, as we have heard from many hon. Members, that cancer services are prioritised and remain.
I pay my own tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has written to me because she would have liked to be here today and who is currently in treatment, as well as to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is currently having treatment, the former Member for Dewsbury, who has been mentioned, and the former Member for Eddisbury, who is having her own challenge living with cancer. It is around us all. I well remember the emotional tsunami that diagnosis brings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said in her letter, because she is always the same with language, “Cancer sucks”. I could not agree more. I wish them all the best on their journey, as I do every patient through their treatment.
I am really aware of how covid-19 has upended our lives, but clinical decisions had to be made in March. We were dealing with the unknown and we had to protect people and highlight priorities. For those who have had their cancer treatment or surgery changed or delayed, I understand the uncertainty and anxiety they have had on top of that diagnosis of cancer. For patients and their families, this is a really tough time. We must have a laser focus on early diagnosis, as was laid out in the manifesto, and we must not veer from that. I do not want covid-19 to be the derailer; I want us to seize some opportunities that have come about.
Although it makes it no less bearable for those affected, the decision to pause some patients’ treatment in the first wave was taken on clinical advice that factored in the risk to the most vulnerable. As soon as it was possible, however, the NHS was charged with restoring cancer services as quickly as possible, and it has risen to that challenge. I meet with Cally Palmer, who was mentioned earlier, and Professor Peter Johnson often—at points weekly—to make sure that we are doing everything we can.
Across the country, there are 21 cancer alliances and their cancer hubs. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) outlined the amazing work done at the Royal Marsden to bring hospitals across the capital together to optimise safe theatre space to deliver treatments and so on. We have asked for that approach to happen across the country to ensure that we optimise treatment. I hear my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) and for High Peak (Robert Largan), but it cannot always be on the doorstep at this time; we have to have a bit of flex. I will happily meet my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak to talk about his particular concerns.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and other hon. Members in recognising the tremendous efforts of the cancer workforce. In forming those cancer hubs and the rapid diagnostic centres, people have moved mountains to care for the patients they look after every day. Ultimately, they are the ones on the frontline to ensure that breast cancer services are there when we need them, and our thanks go to them.
The latest official data for September, which was published only this morning, shows that urgent two-week GP referrals across the entire spectrum of cancers are 2% higher than last year and they continue to rise for all cancers. In breast cancer, we have seen a month-on-month rise of more than 15% from August to September, but we still have work to do; I am not going to stand here and say that we do not. There is still a way to go to meet current demand and improve on that rise for those who are waiting for treatment.
More than 86% of people saw a cancer specialist in September within two weeks of their referral from a GP, and nearly 95% of patients received treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat. I know precisely how long every day feels when people have had a diagnosis. I have had tumours in both breasts and other primary sites. The wait is anxious. It is terrifying. Your mind asks, “Who will pick the children up?”, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester said, a million other unanswerable questions every single day.
There have been some bright spots and some innovative treatments that have moved the profile of the disease further forward. I personally—this is an ambition of Breast Cancer Now—want to see the eradication of breast cancer by 2050. We must work to that, because it is possible. As we have a 98% ability to treat testicular cancer, we can do better. Breast cancer should not claim the lives of over 11,000 women a year. I want to see it put back in its box.
Breast cancer treatments are advancing. This year has been no exception, with advances in radiotherapy and chemotherapy. We have seen oral chemotherapies that are easier to deliver and better for the patient. We have seen the publication of the FAST trial, which looks at five-fraction radiotherapy to treat early breast cancer. I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who is no longer in his place, and the other members of the APPG on breast cancer who came to see me. That treatment enables individuals to be treated quicker with fewer hospital visits. When we are fighting covid-19 and we are trying to keep people out of hospitals, it is better to minimise visits. All radiotherapy providers in England are adopting this approach. Yes, we have challenges with the workforce, but radiotherapy did remarkably well at keeping itself going through the pandemic.
I will try to cover as many of the different issues as I can, but I barely have any time left. They will drag me out of here with my nails pulling on the carpet. Clinical nurse specialists are important, valued and flipping marvellous—we all need one. Some 350 extra clinical cancer nurse specialists were allocated in the long-term plan, but we need to work together. I am working with Andrew Strauss and my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire).
Cancer nurse specialists need to come from the existing workforce. They must be encouraged to do further training. We need to ensure that it is seen as a career path that really does have that purpose. Boy, oh boy, when one needs a cancer nurse specialist— they save the oncologist and one can phone them to ask about one’s niggles—they do amazing things. I want to see everyone come together, including the charities, to encourage nurses to come forward and help the community.
I met with the secondary breast cancer women before the pandemic. The situation is variable, and that is not good enough. The journey of a woman who has a cancer nurse specialist by her side is not an easier journey, but it is one where they feel supported. They have someone there. My cancer nurse specialist helped me to get some of the psychological counselling that colleagues have spoken of. I was angry and ticked off that I had that disease again. We need to encourage people to sign up to do that additional training. The money is there.
Data needs to be better. I could go on about data, screening and clinical trials, but I am aware that I have such little time. The majority of clinical trials are open for registration. I am urging local decisions to be made to get people reinstated and on to clinical trials. We have opened up screening with open invitations to try to get more women through. We know we have an issue with women not attending their appointments. We need to make people feel safe when they go to have their screening test in a hospital. Unless they feel safe, they will not go. We must work together to say, “It is open, but you have to go. Our NHS is a really precious resource. If you have an invitation, take it up and go to see the professionals who are there to help you.”
I wish I could say more, but I want to give my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire a second or two to sum up. I thank everyone working on the frontline. Advances are happening; there is more to do. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend on an audit. We need to get better data. It is collected, but not in a good enough format. I want to see us do better in all those areas.
Craig Tracey
I thank the Minister. It is far better that we heard from her than from me. She has tackled this issue in the forthright way we have come to expect. Coming into this debate, I knew that we were in the right hands and I am even more sure of that now. I also thank other colleagues who participated in the debate, not just for their contributions but for the way the debate has been conducted. That is the message—
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
Order.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Dementia: Covid-19
(3 years, 5 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
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
It has come to my attention that the Order Paper states that the debate will start at 3.30 pm. I am advised that that is a mistake. I will work on the assumption that most people know it is 3 and they are here. If anyone inadvertently turns up later, we will make allowances for them on that basis.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the covid-19 outbreak on people affected by dementia.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I am really happy to have been able to secure this debate with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on a topic that is important to so many of us.
I am proud to be the co-chair of the all-party group on dementia and to work closely with the Alzheimer’s Society, which supports people living with dementia and their carers. We campaign on the issues that matter most to them. This debate is about the effects of covid on people with dementia and their carers. I will focus my remarks on the Alzheimer’s Society’s September report, “Worst hit: dementia during coronavirus”. The society undertook that collated work to assess the impact of the first wave of covid. I shall also discuss briefly the impact of covid on dementia research, particularly in view of the fact that we are approaching the comprehensive spending review statement later this month.
What has been the impact of covid on people living with dementia? People with dementia have unfortunately been among the worst hit by covid: they have experienced disproportionate loss of life, and those who live in care settings have been separated from their loved ones for many months. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has said in relation to older people, including those with dementia, that
“There is evidence that human rights standards may have not been upheld in the response to the pandemic…We are further concerned that equality considerations were not effectively and transparently built into decision-making at the national, regional and local level, both in terms of the immediate risks from coronavirus and the wider impact of restrictions. This may have resulted in failures to comply with the public sector equality duty.’
That is damning indeed, but on top of that, since March there has been a worrying decline in diagnosis rates for dementia, which were already low. There is some evidence that covid affects the brain and nervous system, as well as other systems in the body, and this needs to be monitored, particularly in relation to covid’s longer-term impacts.
In addition, we must not forget the family and friends who are carers, in my constituency and across the country, who have provided millions of additional hours of care during and between lockdowns. With no shielding support whatsoever, they have been feeling the strain from that lack of support during the pandemic.
To understand the scale of the problem facing people affected by dementia, I thought it would be helpful to share with colleagues information about the scale of dementia itself—of course, many colleagues will already be familiar with this information. In my local authority in Oldham, there are approximately 2,250 people who are currently living with dementia; across the UK, there are approximately 850,000 people living with dementia; and globally there are more people living with dementia than the entire population of Spain. A third of people born in the UK will develop dementia during their lifetime.
I know that most—if not all—of us here today have been touched by dementia in some way, as I was when my mum was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease, the most common form of dementia, at the age of 64. I want to highlight the fact that, contrary to popular belief, the majority of people with dementia—more than 60% of the total number—live well and live in the community. However, people with dementia account for over 70% of residents in care homes. This pandemic has laid bare and exacerbated inequalities across our country, and that is particularly true for people living with dementia and their carers.
Colleagues will be as horrified as I was to hear about the disproportionate death rates among people with dementia. Between March and June, over a quarter of the people who died with covid-19 in England and Wales had dementia. Dementia was the most common pre-existing condition in deaths involving covid, although it was never identified as a condition that made people clinically vulnerable. That is the reality we are presented with today, and it prompts the question whether people with dementia and their carers will now be given the proper support to be shielded. The miserly £14.60 per person that has been provided to local authorities to support the clinically vulnerable for the entirety of this second lockdown is, quite frankly, derisory.
In addition to those deaths from covid, there has been a sharp rise in excess deaths of people affected by dementia. Between January and July, 5,049 such deaths were recorded, and during the early peak of the pandemic excess deaths were double the five-year average. These excess deaths happened not only in care homes but among people living at home, with a rate 79% above the five-year average between the middle of March and the middle of September. We must ensure prompt and safe access to health and care services for people with dementia throughout the pandemic.
Why have people with dementia been dying in such high numbers? Various factors appear to be involved, with some undoubtedly contributing more than others. The risk of severe covid outcomes rises steeply with age; 94% of covid deaths between March and June were of people over the age of 60, and we know that people are more likely to develop dementia as they grow old. Evidence is emerging that suggests having dementia may increase the risk of severe covid symptoms and death when age and other conditions are taken into account.
Importantly, coronavirus can present itself differently in care home residents. A sizeable proportion—nearly one in five—of nursing home residents who tested positive for covid were either asymptomatic or had only atypical symptoms. They had no fever or cough, but often had a change in mental health status or behaviour, anorexia or digestive problems. That might also have contributed to the challenge of detecting and preventing the spread of covid in that population.
Perhaps the biggest contributor to the high death rate is where a person lives, whether in a care home or in the community. All of us here today have heard from local care homes and constituents about the serious challenges that have been faced in care homes, from unsafe discharges through to the lack of personal protective equipment and sporadic testing. Although we have made leaps forward in care home safety, I hope the Minister will commit today to ensuring that social care is on an equal footing with the NHS in terms of PPE and testing, and will respond to the issues raised by the EHRC. Looking forward, will she also ensure that the social care sector, including social care providers and experts in the third sector, as well as service users and their families, are involved in long-term developments for the sector?
I also want to speak up for the hundreds of thousands of informal carers across the UK, who are too often forgotten. It is unclear whether the lack of access to friends and families is affecting the progress of dementia, but one thing is clear: the emotional distress of not being able to see or touch our loved ones is very real. One of my Saddleworth constituents wrote to me:
“As the country pays its respects to those who fought and died for our freedom, let’s not forget that some of our war veterans, like my father, are still alive today. He like many others is locked away in a care home, having endured 8 months of separation from his family with no end in sight.”
Another constituent told me:
“My mother has been in a care home with worsening dementia for over three years. She is 96. I cannot see her and can’t even speak to her on the phone as she is almost deaf. It is heartbreaking to know that there is a very real possibility that I may never see my mother again, as visitors are barred from the care home. My mother probably believes her family have abandoned her.”
That is a dreadful thing to feel. With the roll-out of lateral flow testing, will the Minister commit to ensuring that family carers are given key worker status, are included in the care home testing protocols and have access to PPE, so that they can visit their relatives and provide the loving family care that is so desperately needed?
As I mentioned, most people with dementia live in the community, and one third live alone. I have already mentioned the amazing job that more than 700,000 carers do. Without them we know that the social care system would collapse. The pandemic has taken a significant and additional toll on many. The Alzheimer’s Society found that families and friends of people with dementia have spent an extra 92 million hours caring for loved ones with dementia during the pandemic; that is on top of the 100 hours or more a week of care that more than 40% of family and friend carers reported providing for their loved ones. For some that was on top of a full-time job. That dedicated group of people deserve more support as they struggle to care for their loved ones among their myriad other responsibilities.
Will the Minister today guarantee that where home care for someone with dementia has been stopped owing to coronavirus, it will be reinstated without any formal assessment? Will she also ensure that carers’ assessments are carried out; that short breaks are provided for people with caring responsibilities; that local authority data is collected on the provision of those services; and that the Government fulfil their commitment to do whatever it takes by properly reimbursing local authorities for the additional work that they are doing and the additional funding that they have spent during the pandemic?
I have already mentioned that people with dementia were not included in the Government’s formally shielded group in the spring. However, given what we know now about dementia being a significant clinical risk for covid morbidity and mortality, I am pleased that the Government have recognised that and are introducing a risk stratification for covid similar to that used for assessing heart attack and stroke risk. Will the Minister provide an outline of how that tool will work, including when she expects it to be available for use, and in particular what support will be available for those considered at risk?
As I also mentioned, the impact of covid had an impact on the diagnosis rate. It is well below the already low target of 66.7; it now stands at 63%. That means more people are living without a diagnosis of dementia and are unable to access emotional, practical, legal or financial advice, as well as the therapies associated with diagnosis. Memory services are adapting to open virtually, which is a welcome interim measure, but there is urgent need for a catch-up on waiting lists to ensure that the freefall in dementia diagnosis rates does not continue, and a virtual appointment is not the place to deliver a life-changing diagnosis. I will be grateful if the Minister can do all that she can to ensure that memory assessment services reopen in person at the earliest opportunity.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of dementia research as we look through and beyond the pandemic. The Conservative general election manifesto last winter pledged an extra £800 million over 10 years for dementia research—the “Dementia Moonshot”. I support that. The UK’s exceptional research into dementia prevention, therapies and care is already well under way. We have the second biggest research network on dementia in the world. We must not let that go. There are always new challenges. As I said, recent research has found that the neurological complications of covid can include brain inflammation, delirium and nerve damage. We need to be monitoring those types of effects on a long-term basis.
Unfortunately, much of the research that had been under way has been delayed during covid, with medical research charities, which do vital work to support early-career researchers, facing a 40% shortfall this year. A third of dementia researchers are already considering leaving the field. Losing that research talent would have a severe long-term consequence for dementia research, and ultimately for people with dementia. We cannot lose that innovative work. Let me give an example: the UK Dementia Research Institute’s care, research and technology centre has been developing tools and technologies to enable people to live in their homes as long as they can, reducing isolation and minimising the impact on the NHS and beds. Will the Minister confirm that the spending review later this month will fulfil the commitment to dementia research and provide the financial support that such organisations need? Research provides hope of a cure in the future, as well as developments in social care, technological innovation and public health advances to address the care needs of today.
Dementia is often an overlooked condition, but it is a condition that affects so many. People with dementia have been among the worst affected by this pandemic, and I hope the Minister will do all she can to ensure that we do not see such loss of life, strain on carers, and loneliness again as the pandemic progresses. I also hope that we see a long-term and fair funding solution for social care soon, which has the needs of people with dementia at its heart.
Steve McCabe (in the Chair)
The call list is quite long. We can get everyone in if people stick to about four minutes. I do not want to impose a time limit, but that would be helpful.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
At the end of September, more than 812 patients over the age of 65 were recorded as having dementia across GP practices in Tatton. Many of those patients’ family and friends, and people who work with them, have asked me to speak, including Lorraine Albiston, Simon Brazendale and Suzanne Jeans from Knutsford, and Victoria Caruana and Sue Kisloff from Wilmslow.
Like others, I have heard truly harrowing stories about how those with dementia have not been able to see family members. They feel abandoned, at a loss and confused, not having contact, conversation or physical affection. The Alzheimer’s Society says that for people with dementia, lack of social contact is not only bad for their mental health, but has a significantly negative effect on the progression of their dementia.
That was the case for Sue Jeans’ mum, Jackie. Sue has only been able to see her mum three times since February, when the home stopped all visits, meaning she has seen her mum for 50 minutes since February. While she supported the decision to stop visits in February, she does not now. Nine months later, there must be better ways of doing things. Sadly, this lack of contact has led many people to die sooner than they would have been expected to. Between January and July this year, 5,000 more people than usual died of dementia—that is 52% higher than normal.
Sue is not alone. Lorraine Albiston lives in Knutsford, but her mother lives two hours away in a care home in Worcestershire. The home allows a 20-minute visit once a week, in a gazebo with no heating, meaning that visits are often cancelled due to bad weather and only one or two people can visit at a time. As Lorraine has four siblings, that means she cannot see her mother as regularly as she would like to.
I know that in Tatton and across the country care workers, family members and helpers have worked tirelessly, and I put on record my thanks and appreciation to all those people. Oliver Stirk, director of Carefound Home Care in Wilmslow, told me that their carers have adapted to the situation. Their patients are no longer now allowed to go to the pub to have a Sunday lunch, so his carers are cooking for them at home, so they can have some kind of enjoyment. They have also done much to support the families to get online.
Lisa Burrows, the general manager of Sunrise of Mobberley, told me how her team have implemented an enhanced infection control programme. Furthermore, they are doing their best to do numerous social distanced garden visits and are in the process of introducing dedicated visiting rooms. I also want to mention the members of Knutsford Methodist Church, who provide valuable support for carers through their Friendship Café, run by volunteers led by Paula Lambe and Eve James. However, that has not been able to happen, as it usually does every Friday.
There are grave concerns about the Government’s decision to ban almost all visits and about the lack of input from Public Health England to guide care homes’ approach to this pandemic. I have these questions for the Minister: first, what are the Government doing to address the needs of people affected by dementia and of their family and friends? Secondly, someone’s experience may differ greatly depending on the home they are in, so what are the Government doing to facilitate and encourage a common approach between care homes and to ensure that lessons learned at one care home are shared among others? Thirdly, what is being done by the Government to rebuild trust in the vital social care sector?
Finally, I commend the Daily Mail on its Christmas campaign. I will conclude with the words of an elderly constituent who said to me, “I want to live before I die, and at the moment, with all these confusing lockdown rules, I can’t.”
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing today’s debate. It is obviously an immensely important and sensitive topic, and it is right that it should be brought to the attention of the House.
We all know that the pandemic has caused great heartbreak across our country, nowhere more than in our care sector. Our care homes do vital work looking after the elderly and infirm and we owe them and their dedicated managers and staff a great debt of gratitude after all the challenges they have faced over the past year. I have had several very productive meetings with them in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland. They want to do their best for the people in their care and their families, and some have shown great ingenuity in seeking to ensure that visits from loved ones are still possible.
None the less, as we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), we know there is a real issue with family access for many sufferers with conditions such as Alzheimer’s and dementia, and that it is taking a devastating toll. That pain is not measured simply in mortality numbers; for many of the families of the sufferers with those conditions, it is the deterioration in their loved ones’ capabilities during the isolation they have endured this year that is particularly concerning.
We know that many residents in care homes have had hardly any visits, and some have had no visits, since the crisis began in the spring. How deeply sad that can be has been brought home to me by a number of moving messages from constituents such as Kelly Holmes from Coulby Newham. Her dad was diagnosed with dementia in February last year, and he does not understand why it is not possible for Kelly and her mum to visit. He regularly rings them, distressed and confused about why they have not visited and worrying that no one cares about him. The repetition of that conversation is obviously deeply distressing for the family.
Rebecca Skelton from Nunthorpe has spent 90 minutes in the past eight months with her mum, Ann, who suffers from dementia. She said:
“Before Covid my mother could not converse with me and my family but there was always a smile of recognition when going to visit her, as though she still knew who we were. The thought of not having this when I do get to see her is breaking my heart and causing me severe depression. The thought of her feeling that we have abandoned her by not visiting is causing more anxiety, I only hope that the smile is still there when I do get to see her.”
I have received so many other messages. I thank Mr Malcolm Guest, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), who raised the case of his mum Annie; and Lesley Turnbull, who contacted me on behalf of her husband Tim, who has Lewy body dementia. Her words have really stayed with me:
“I have begged him not to give up and I got a reaction, I always get a reaction when I say I will be with you soon.”
In the limited time available, I will make a simple plea: some of the new lateral flow tests—it is great news that they are being rolled out across large parts of the country, including to all authorities in the north-east—ought to be prioritised so that relatives can have access to their loved ones in care home settings. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar and I have already written to the director of public health for Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland with precisely that request, and I hope that the Minister might offer her thoughts on it. More broadly, I welcome the Minister’s commitment a few weeks ago to explore giving family carers key worker status. I hope that can be actioned, because it could make a real practical difference.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the real upsurge in hope brought about by this week’s news of the Pfizer vaccine, which is obviously fantastic. I strongly support the Government’s proposed prioritisation of those who will receive the vaccine as soon as the necessary checks have been finalised and roll-out can begin. We must resist the toxic anti-vaccination propaganda that is circulating alarmingly widely on social media and state the truth that effective vaccination will be the end of covid-19 and will pave the way to ending the suffering of so many of our constituents living with Alzheimer’s, dementia and so many other conditions, and the suffering of their families. It can and will restore the love, company and sense of belonging that we all wish to experience at the sunset of our lives. It cannot come too soon. I commend the efforts of the Minister and her colleagues in helping to make sure that we are ready, as a society, as soon as the vaccine is ready to be given to the public.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this important and time-sensitive debate. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke).
I am sure that hon. Members will recognise similar letters to this one from my mailbag:
“I have only been able to see my lovely Mum twice since 15th March…(241 days.) We have seen her through the window from the garden. The staff are very good and have usually moved Mum’s bed closer to the window so that we can see each other more easily. But we can’t hold her hand.”
That is just one of the heartbreaking messages that I have been sent ahead of the debate. Those words ring with the sound of sacrifice and emotional distress, and of the forbearance asked of those with Alzheimer’s and their families and friends in this crisis.
People live with Alzheimer’s in a number of settings. My constituency has a significant cluster of excellent care homes—69, in fact, which I know because my team and I have called them several times, first regarding food supplies, then PPE, and then testing. We have always known that they would be at the epicentre of this health crisis, and that their residents would be the most vulnerable. I take this opportunity to commend local carers and to pay heartfelt tribute to their work during this time. Our higher-than-national rate of covid diagnosis is testament to their dedication and means swifter care.
Out of the present crisis, I am pleased to say that new, stronger relationships and communications have been forged between our care homes and our local hospital and its community teams. That can only be good for more joined-up thinking and more joined-up work, with a new named lead now for each setting. In the summer, at a “spade in the ground” ceremony, I met the family directors of Hallmark Care Homes at their new project in Kings Drive. We spoke about their concerns, with their request to Government being: “Hear us, recognise the centre, bring us in to shape the future.”
It was interesting to hear how—even then, back in July—the covid crisis was already influencing the design of this new building, where we stood in the footings. Swift design changes will mean new safe, green routes through the home, creating all-weather visiting spaces. It also means a whole new level of tech to provide residents with a digital window on the world.
For people who are living with Alzheimer’s at home and are reliant on support from day care centres, such as the excellent Ivy House in Eastbourne, forced closure and severed connection has been especially hard for all parties. In more extreme cases, it has been dangerous for the sufferer, and almost unbearable for those who care for them. We cannot find ourselves in this situation again. Individual risk assessment is key, and an essential service designation vital, so that the work of day care centres for the dementia community in my home town is safeguarded.
In 2015, the then Prime Minister set an ambitious 2020 dementia challenge. Funding for vital research has been increased, and diagnosis rates have increased. With programmes such as Dementia Friends, awareness has increased too. There is change and there has been progress, but we must continue with new urgency to take up the deeper, wider reform of social care. Let us dare to reimagine it. There will be a wealth of learning from this pandemic about the solutions that we need to put in place to better protect people affected by dementia during the pandemic and beyond. That is the view of the Alzheimer’s Society.
I know that all hon. Members are concerned for their constituents, as am I. I am keen to hear further from the Minister, and I do not underestimate the challenge. Good work is being done, and I know she is committed to getting it right.
[Sir Graham Brady in the Chair]
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate, and I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell).
I want to start by talking about my constituent Tracy Gothard. Tracy released a video of what happened when she visited her mum Doreen, who has dementia, in a nursing home in Bradford. In the clip, we see what so many of our families are currently going through. Hon. Members might have seen the footage. In it, Tracy and her sisters stand outside and speak to their mum in the car park through a closed window. Doreen asks Tracy to come inside and motions with her hand, to which her daughter replies “I can’t come in. We are not allowed yet because of that nasty bug.” Doreen’s face crumples, and she breaks into tears. It is a heartbreaking video, and I do not think that anybody can watch it and not be moved to tears.
The window meeting between Tracy and her mum was the first one that they had since August, when Bradford was placed under local restrictions. I asked Tracy what she would like me to say to the Minister on her behalf in this debate. She said:
“I’m begging from the bottom of my heart to give key worker status to just one family member, to help us see loved ones in care homes. This has now been ongoing for too long, and in my 51 years of life, I have never not seen my mum, especially at Christmas. I appeal to your better nature, on behalf of myself and thousands more, to not let this continue.”
Tracy speaks on behalf of everyone who has a loved one with dementia in a care home. Anyone who has cared for someone living with dementia knows that regular contact with family members keeps that spark inside alight. Digital visits are simply not appropriate, as people with dementia view the world differently. Memory clinics must reopen, and they need to be in person. As virtual memory clinics, they cannot simply replicate the quality and appropriateness of a face-to-face appointment for anybody living with dementia.
The Government need to recognise that family carers play an essential part in caring for people with dementia who live in care homes. When family carers are unable to visit and provide that care, the health and wellbeing of people with dementia can seriously decline at a rapid pace. I fully support the call by the Alzheimer’s Society and others to designate at least one informal carer per care home resident as a key worker, with access to testing, training, PPE and, when they come, vaccinations. The Government must urgently speed up their action on this issue, as time is not on our side. Will the Minister clarify whether an adult caring for an adult with dementia can form a support bubble with another household? The regulations are not explicit on that, and our carers need that support.
Finally, I want to quote from the hard-hitting report by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It states:
“There is evidence that human rights standards may have not been upheld in the response to the pandemic, including in key decisions about hospital discharges, care home admissions, visits, access to critical care and prioritisation of testing, putting people with dementia and other care home residents at greater risk of harm.”
That should be a wake-up call to us all: inaction is not an option.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for securing this debate. Its importance is exemplified by the fact that my postbag has also been full of requests from constituents asking me to come along—I am therefore very grateful to her for securing it—and by the fact that, based on recent trends, it is estimated that well over 3,000 residents over the age of 65 in the London Borough of Sutton, where Carshalton and Wallington is situated, will be living with dementia by 2030. That is 38% higher than it is today.
Living with dementia can be incredibly scary and worrying, and it also has an effect on family and friends as they watch someone they love slowly deteriorate. My family had to go through that with my grandfather, Derek—it was one of the toughest times we went through. The family and friends of somebody living with dementia suddenly find that they are carers first, and family and friends second. As time passes and they start to recognise less of the person they love, that person sadly also recognises less of them.
The situation with dementia care was already incredibly challenging prior to the pandemic, which has only exacerbated the problem. As other hon. Members said, the Alzheimer’s Society has produced a hard-hitting report, entitled “Worst hit: dementia during coronavirus”. I want to highlight and repeat some of its stark findings, not least of which is the fact that 27.5% of all those who died from covid-19 between March and June had dementia. For the same period, dementia was the most common pre-existing condition for covid-related deaths. For people who survived the crisis, the effects of social isolation were severe. The survey shows that 46% of people with dementia reported that it had a negative impact on their mental health and 82% reported a deterioration of the symptoms of dementia. As has already been highlighted, 92 million extra hours have been spent by families and friends caring for a loved one with dementia, and 95% of carers have reported a negative impact on their physical or mental health.
The Alzheimer’s Society has two key asks for the Government—one for the short term as we continue to deal with the pandemic, and one for the longer term. The shorter-term ask is that we recognise the role that informal carers play in the lives of people living with dementia, as the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) outlined well. I am repeating what other hon. Members have said, but this is important. The asks are for at least one informal carer per care home resident to be allowed to be designated as a key worker, with access to training, testing and PPE. The Alzheimer’s Society asks that the Government ensure the delivery of carers’ assessments, provide short-term breaks for carers, and collect local authority and health authority data on carer assessments and respite care.
I do not think it will be surprising to hear that the second recommendation is about the long-term future of social care. I have a background in the national health service, so this is something that I am incredibly passionate about. I genuine believe that, alongside the long-term plan for the NHS, there has to be a long-term plan for social care, and the two must be integrated. We need to tackle not just the cost of care but problems with the care workforce, including career pathways, recruitment and retention.
Change is often unnerving, but to a person living with dementia an upheaval of the likes that the pandemic has brought is nothing short of terrifying. Indeed, if my grandfather was still alive today, I am genuinely not sure how either he or the family would have got through the last couple of months. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the Alzheimer’s Society’s report and its recommendations.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
How the mind sits within the brain is still one of the great mysteries, I guess. I do not know whether Members have seen the ballerina Marta González listening to the music from “Swan Lake” and just beginning to be able to remember the choreography from years before. That inspired in so many a deep sense of that complicated relationship, where there is clearly a mind that has memories, but it cannot quite make the brain do what it wants it to do.
I wanted to speak in this debate because my family has been through quite a lot of that this year. I will talk not about that specifically, but about some of the things that have been common to many people in the country this year. Because many families have been isolated from other parts of their families, they have often not been able to check up on the elderly as frequently as they might want. They may not have been allowed to visit, especially if they are in different parts of the country, and they will not have been able to see the oncoming early signs of dementia. Doctors have sometimes simply been unable to diagnose, because they could not be in the physical presence of the person about whom there are concerns—diagnoses are a third down on normal, as we heard earlier.
The virus itself has, of course, added considerably to levels of anxiety, depression and a sense of paranoia in many people, with a growth in conspiracy theories. That has all added to the complications for families dealing with people who have early-onset dementia or other forms. The virus has direct neurocognitive effects that we are only just beginning to understand.
People have also had dietary issues, because they have not had access to the same kind of food as they might normally. That may well have added to their delirium, which, on top of dementia, can make it more difficult for people to go into care homes. They may need psychiatric support rather than care home support. Yet again, families are finding it terribly difficult during this time.
Families have found it very difficult to get help. The immediate instinct, once the diagnosis has come in, is for people to think about whether they can bring their family member into their own home. If that is not possible, they think about the other support there will be. Care homes have been up against it. There have been terrible anxieties about whether people have other comorbidities that will make it more difficult for them. Many families feel as though they have been bashing their head against a wall.
On top of that, of course, although lots of people had sorted out lasting power of attorney long before, which I would encourage everybody to do if they can, when I rang the Court of Protection, the emergency officer told me that emergency cases might be seen in nine months’ time. Sorting that out for an individual family member may make the difference between whether it is possible to get them into a care home and get them the support they need or not. Nine months—we cannot have that kind of backlog. That is a kind legal misery of the state on top of everything else.
I have done a lot of work on brain injury and some of the things are very aligned. It was terribly depressing to see the family of Bobby Charlton announce the other day that he has dementia, probably from concussion from heading the ball. I am sick and tired of people saying, “Oh well, the ball’s not as heavy as it used to be.” Did nobody do physics at school? It is about the speed of the ball, not the weight of the ball.
There is a lack of neuro-rehabilitation. A quarter of all major trauma centres still do not have a neuro-rehabilitation consultant. Some 57% of patients who have acquired brain injuries still complain that they are unable to get their full support. There is a massive funding crisis for all the organisations that work in that field, such as Headway, the UK Acquired Brain Injury Forum and many others.
My heart goes out to everybody, and my heart sort of goes out to the Minister, because there is a lot to deal with, but I do not think we will be able to do that unless we look at all these issues in the round. The one thing that I beg her to do is to set up a cross-departmental ministerial team that looks at it from Defence, Work and Pensions, Treasury, Health and Social Care—all the different Departments—so that we can really turn this around.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her very impressive speech. As she said, it is a desperately important and overlooked subject, as has been eloquently expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members.
I come to this debate with two points of view. First, I want to give voice to my constituents in Clwyd South who have asked me to speak this afternoon. Secondly, I have a personal point of view, as my mother-in-law Alina had Alzheimer’s and my wife Maggie and I set up the Concertina charity about 25 years ago, which provides live music for the elderly in care homes and day centres across Wales and England. This not only brightens up their lives, but provides vital therapy for those suffering from dementia.
With regard to my constituents, I would like to comment on a letter I received from Gillian Molloy, who wrote to me about her experiences. She said:
“My husband has been in a care home suffering vascular dementia since November 2017. Before Covid-19 I visited him 4 times a week staying with him for 3-4 hours, mostly holding his hand, talking and playing the music he likes. Since March of this year I have only been able to see him for a period of half an hour 4 times, supervised by a carer. The lack of this stimulus, knowing my voice, smell and reassurance I am sure has been a contributing factor to his withdrawal and decline. He no longer makes eye contact or speaks to me. I find this very upsetting and stressful”.
I applaud the One Dementia Voice partnership in raising awareness of this vital matter with its five key points, which the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) outlined and which I support. I am encouraged that the Government have been taking this issue seriously. That has been touched on, and I am sure the Minister will comment further on it. There have been a number of initiatives and policies, such as the “Challenge on Dementia 2020” strategy, under which the Government’s commitment to spend over £300 million on dementia research between 2015 and 2020 was met a year early, with £341 million being spent by March 2019.
As others have mentioned, this debate is also about supporting the 5.4 million unpaid carers, for whom I know, from our own experience of caring for my mother-in-law Alina for three years at home, it is at times very challenging. When we set up our charity, Concertina music for the elderly, some 25 years ago there was much less understanding of Alzheimer’s and dementia. I am pleased that there is now much greater public awareness of dementia, which is vital in ensuring that people are supported to live well with the condition. I am very encouraged that there are over 3 million dementia friends.
I would like to return to the fifth point made by the One Dementia Voice partnership, which is how we will rehabilitate people after the crisis. I would like to add music to the mention of speech and language therapy. I have seen for myself at concerts we have organised how people who had not communicated for a long period of time suddenly came to life as they heard the songs and tunes of their youth, bringing back many happy memories from the past. Music in Hospitals & Care reported back to us a while ago after a concert:
“One of our patients has recently been bereaved and critically ill herself and at times lost the will to live. At the end of a concert she whispered to me, ‘I wouldn’t have missed this for the world.’”
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for the way she set out so many of the complexities in this debate. We know that the intersection between dementia and covid is complex and that there are multifaceted challenges. I am sure we will not touch on them all in today’s debate.
I thank the Alzheimer’s Society, which is supporting people with dementia day and night through this crisis. I echo its call, and that of the Association of Medical Research Charities, for a significant and separate fund to be set up—a life sciences-charity partnership fund—to continue medical research through this time. We know that those charities’ funding has been massively hit and that they need support. I trust that the Minister will feed that back to the Chancellor ahead of the autumn statement that we are expecting.
We know that 27% of the people who have died had dementia. There is a correlation with older people, because of the resilience they have, but the figure is also disproportionate within that age population. Research is therefore absolutely necessary in order to understand what is happening. From my own clinical background, I have considered the impacts that dementia has on people with respiratory conditions, and there are certainly issues that need to be looked at in greater detail. I believe that that has mitigated against opportunity for people with dementia and created inequality. For instance, people with respiratory conditions often find it hard to comply with some of the treatment processes: positioning, secretion clearance from the lungs, and the ability to follow complex instructions such as huffing, coughing and taking deep breaths. When not under instruction, they are certainly not able to do that.
We have also seen environmental challenges to healthcare. At the beginning, we saw no PPE and barrier nursing, which have been well debated. As was said in this Chamber yesterday, 39% of people with dementia live in care homes, and 70% of care home residents have dementia. That environment, in itself, has become unsafe, but it has also become a place of isolation, which has a real impact.
There is a big question around the efficacy of access to healthcare. We know that there was a reduction in referrals to healthcare, which meant drugs not being administered, as well as no therapy, physio or secretion clearance, as I indicated. That could well have raised the number of people who had covid and who died from covid. We therefore need to look at the human rights of individuals with dementia.
When we consider the psychological, emotional and cognitive impacts of separation and isolation, which have been articulated so well in this debate, we know that harm has been caused. I therefore ask the Minister to look at the report of the all-party parliamentary group on ageing and older people, which looks at a commission on the human rights of older people, and to look at the work that has been done in Wales on having a commission and a commissioner to look at those issues. That is a way of ensuring that older people are part of the debate. That will include many people with dementia, although I appreciate that some people with dementia are younger.
That would be a way of putting protections in place, and of ensuring that we care for the carers. This is the point that I want to end on. We know that the majority of carers are saying that they are exhausted, they are anxious, they are having sleeping problems, they are depressed. They are not part of the conversation at the moment, and we need to bring them into it. Many are lonely and struggling at this time. We need to care for those carers as they not only take on more and more responsibilities, but provide vital care day in, day out.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham.
The human consequences of this horrific pandemic have been the most painful to bear. As we have heard from all Members here today, we share a common bond forged in the fire of this pandemic. As Members of Parliament who serve our constituents, we are witness to stories of dread suffering caused by the circumstances created by our response to this virus. However, I have found that when constituents have written to me or met me to ask for help and support, and shared the circumstances that define their lives and the lives of their dementia-affected family members, it is then that one’s heart truly bleeds and one struggles to keep strong for them. When one finishes reading their letter or bids them farewell at the door, on considering their cases, one invariably finds one’s cheeks a little wet.
There is no gilding the lily. These have been, and continue to be, bruising, brutal days for all of us in the country. The impact that covid has brought upon dementia care patients and their immediate professional and familial carers is one of immeasurable emotional anguish. In my Wakefield constituency, 1,197 people have been diagnosed with dementia. The representations I have received from their carers and families through this pandemic have highlighted immense suffering above and beyond the explicit death count that the pandemic has brought.
I will raise two important points: the increased vulnerability of dementia patients during the pandemic and the irreplaceable nature of human contact. While we, as legislators, continue to interrogate and evaluate the data presented to us, we can say with certainty that age is a strong determinant in both the development of dementia and serious illness and fatality as a result of covid-19. Those with dementia are often susceptible to further underlying health conditions that affect their status of vulnerability. A joint study published by University College London and the London School of Economics in August found that people with dementia accounted for 25% of covid-related deaths in England and Wales, and for 31% in Scotland. As such, it is both rational and morally right to put dementia patients at the very front of the queue to receive the vaccine, to mitigate as far as possible the immense double distress caused by having dementia and a pervasive fear of catching coronavirus.
My second point is perhaps more poignant. We often speak of the pandemic’s disruptive capacity in bringing forward years of technological change in a matter of months. Dementia lays bare the irreplaceable nature of meaningful human-to-human contact in care provision. The very condition of dementia degrades people and, over time, deprives them of memories of their loved ones. In many cases, when only frail muscle memory remains, the only thing that provides a sense of recognisable comfort is the faint recognition of a family member or regular carer in an increasingly confusing and scary environment.
With the myriad rules and regulations that have been imposed upon us, that necessity becomes ever more critical. I am sure that many of us in this House have seen the distressing videos of a retired nurse being taken from her residential home by her daughter, a trained nurse. That was not only deeply distressing, but painful, and a sorrowful metaphor for the anguish that many care providers face when making decisions relating to their nearest and dearest.
As I said about breast cancer in the earlier debate in this Chamber, we must ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease. When imposing measures on the freedom of the individual, the state and its representatives must retain human kindness, compassion and decency at their very core.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I am very pleased to have sponsored this debate alongside the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). Everyone here has a purpose and something to say about this issue.
We know from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency that of the 475 deaths in March and April—just two months—in Northern Ireland, a third were attributed to dementia on the death certificate. The impact on those who have dementia is clearly greater than elsewhere. In addition to thousands of tragic deaths in care homes, the effects of social isolation are a big issue: 70% of care home residents have some form of dementia, and the prevention of visits to care homes is having a hugely detrimental impact on their lives.
Contact with family and friends is vital to the wellbeing of people with dementia. Some 82% of participants in an Alzheimer’s Society survey reported a deterioration in the symptoms of people with dementia. People with dementia deserve better. The contribution of loved ones to their care and wellbeing should be acknowledged by the Government and reflected in the guidance to care homes on safe visiting.
I will mention one family, whose story is very real. They wrote to me:
“Our mum sadly passed away in September. We were not with her when she died. We had not been inside her home for over six months. In all that time, we saw her through a window. She didn’t understand why we were stood outside and kept telling us to come in. We were unable to hold her hand and unable to kiss goodbye.”
I understand that advice given to the Government by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies in September stated that the transmission risk from visitors was low. That SAGE advice, which says that people could visit homes and there was less chance of infection from visitors, must be implemented and released by the Government. Why not give the family and the person in the home a wee bit of compassion in their time of need? The Government do not allow for loved ones to provide the personal care that the residents so desperately need.
I urge the Minister to implement the Alzheimer’s Society’s recommendations for ensuring that care homes are safe and adequate for the needs of people with dementia. The Alzheimer’s Society study on this put forward recommendations. We should follow its knowledge and the science. There have been some innovations, for example the initiative led by HammondCare. During its pilot service, funded by Innovate UK, HammondCare recorded highly positive outcomes for people living with dementia and care teams, such as reducing certain behaviours and carer stress, building capacity in the sector and reducing the use of statutory services. Plans are being explored to offer a subscription service across the UK to support care teams. The Minister may wish to explore that. The innovation in that pilot scheme has shown a way of doing this.
I ask the Minister to outline the scope of the key worker pilot in England. How will it be rolled out, and when and how will it be evaluated? Given the updated implementation of the care partner model that we have in Northern Ireland—it is always good to learn from each other—will the Minister ensure that the emotional and physical care needs of people with dementia living in care homes will be met, and confirm that it will not be another eight months before people with dementia and their loved ones are reunited?
Dementia is a subject close to my heart. I hope the Minister will listen to the experts and the families, and do all she can better to connect people affected by dementia.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
Before we move on to the wind-ups, I remind hon. Members that the debate will end at 4.33 pm and we hope to give the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I echo the congratulations and thanks to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her comprehensive and wide-ranging exposition of the effect of covid-19 on the those affected by dementia.
Yesterday, I participated in a debate—alongside several others here this afternoon—on family visit access in health and social care settings during the covid-19 outbreak. The two debates, though different, have significant overlap. I will try not to repeat myself. These matters are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but as we face common challenges, it is appropriate for Members representing Scottish constituencies to take an interest and contribute to this important debate.
There are real concerns about how covid-19 has affected our constituents living with dementia. As we have heard, that effect has been deeply distressing and the consequences have been far-reaching and profound. I want to say more than I did yesterday about my own personal experience and insight into this. My mother-in-law, Iris, is in a care home in Saltcoats in my constituency. She has dementia and lockdown has caused a dramatic decline in her condition. I am no medical expert, but I do not believe her decline can be halted now. It is so bad that I do not think it will be reversed. I appreciate that might not apply in every case.
Even without the health pandemic, dementia is extremely distressing. Those who live with it lose a lifetime of memories and their sense of who they are vanishes. Just a few short years ago, my mother-in-law, Iris, was a long-serving Glasgow city councillor. She was a marathon runner and had run marathons all over the world. She thought nothing of travelling to the other side of the world simply for the joy of sight-seeing on her own. She was independent. She raised a family. She was always on the go, driven by a desire to improve her community. She was respected by all who knew her. Now Iris lives in a care home. She is unable to look after herself. She is confused. She is unable to recognise those dearest and nearest to her. She is a shell of her former self.
However, the speed of Iris’s decline since lockdown has been stark. Before lockdown, despite the dementia, she could have a chat and follow a simple conversation. Now she is barely able to speak. The isolation of covid-19 and the lack of stimulation has taken away her desire to live and she barely eats at all. I mention that because what has happened to Iris in the course of the covid-19 restrictions is not unique.
The lack of social contact with family, loved ones and even other care home residents, and the lack of stimulation that the restrictions have brought, have caused real distress for older people. They are locked in a world that is silent, solitary, confusing and bleak. It is a world that they do not understand, as the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) has reminded us elsewhere—a world from which they and their loved ones fear they will never return.
We all want a return to normality. For people with elderly relatives, the fear is that their time left on Earth is so short that a wait for normality is distressing and frustrating. Some older people might not survive until normality returns, so they might never enjoy close contact again with their family. However, there are no easy or risk-free solutions to this problem—I said that in the debate yesterday. There is a very difficult balance between keeping our older people safe from covid and losing to them despair, and it is not easy to strike. I do not envy the Minister or anybody who is in charge of making those decisions.
It is important to remember that the average age of a person who dies with covid is 83. Many of the people who work in care homes will say that the older people dreadfully miss social interaction with other residents and their family, and it also takes a toll on those who work in care settings. Although we know that many people are keen to have contact with their elderly relatives who are suffering from dementia, people will also say—on the other side of the coin—that they are desperately keen to ensure that their elderly relatives are kept as safe as possible until we have a vaccine or the virus subsides with time. Whatever restrictions around care homes are lifted—I know that a number of hon. Members have called for that—they cannot be lifted without some risk to the elderly people who live in those care homes.
Let us not forget that older people living with dementia who are not in care homes need to be part of the conversation. Some older people with dementia are being cared for by close family relatives in their own home setting. As we have heard, carers will have faced their own difficulties since covid-19 restrictions were introduced. They, too, will be cut off and left on their own to manage as best they can with their caring responsibilities. Respite will be difficult to find, and shielding and covid-19 precautions shrink their world as they cope with a state of limbo in a world that has become much smaller for them.
The Scottish Government have been in regular touch with care representatives to ensure that their concerns are fully understood, and supporting unpaid carers has always been a priority for the Scottish Government—much more so now, in these difficult circumstances. The Scottish Government have established rights for all carers to have support and advice under the Carers (Scotland) Act 2016. The local implementation of those rights is backed by additional investment, which now stands at £39.5 million per year. That is so important, given the additional pressure that carers face due to covid-19. The carer’s allowance supplement increases carer’s allowance in Scotland by 13%, and it was one of the Scottish Government’s first priorities with its reserved social security powers, with an additional covid payment of £230.10 in June. That means eligible carers in Scotland will receive up to £690.30 more than those in the rest of the UK this year, with an additional £500,000 for carer organisations.
With all the uncertainty for our older people and their loved ones during covid-19, there is great distress. If someone is in their advanced years, they fear that they will never get to the other side of the pandemic and resume normality, which is what everyone wants. We have some prospect of a vaccine before too much longer. We are all keeping our fingers crossed for that, but we need to continue to look for creative ways to help combat the despair that we know so many older people with dementia feel and are confused about.
I said yesterday, and it is worth repeating, that for the large part we are talking about a generation whose youth was blighted by war and its aftermath, and now, in their twilight years, they are being blighted by this cruel virus in their old age. We need to protect and look after them. For many, the cost of doing that is the despair we have heard about today. The balance is very difficult to strike and there are no easy answers. I know the Minister feels the impossible weight of the task of trying to get the balance right. I hope she will be able to set out today what specific additional support may be available to those living with dementia, and those who care for those living with dementia, as this virus continues to blight their lives.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) has secured this important debate. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken so powerfully on behalf of their constituents.
The pandemic has taken an unimaginable toll on people living with dementia, the staff who care for them and the families who love and do so much to support them. There have been a staggering 23,000 excess deaths in care homes in England during the pandemic so far, more than 15,000 due to covid-19. When we consider that, as others have said, 70% of all care home residents have dementia, the sheer scale of the impact of this awful virus is brutally clear.
We must remember that people with dementia do not just live in care homes and nursing homes. Some 60% are cared for in the community and their own homes, and they have too often been overlooked.
We need to learn the lessons from what has happened so far. We desperately need long-term reforms that transform all care services, whether that is care homes or care in people’s own homes, so that we have a system truly fit for the future. The virus has brutally exposed the fundamental flaws in our care system that many of us have been talking about for a long while. The most obvious is that, for too long, frontline care workers, who are so essential in caring for people with dementia, have not been properly valued or supported and they have not been properly paid.
We can see that in the way that at the start of the pandemic, many frontline care workers just did not get the personal protective equipment they needed. I heard many stories of care homes saying that their masks and other equipment had been requisitioned by the NHS. I want NHS staff to have proper PPE, but that shows that, on the ground, social care is still not seen as equally important. We also saw that in testing. It took a very long while to get the regular testing that care home workers need. Domiciliary care workers are still not getting weekly tests. That is a real issue, as we see how much this virus is spreading in the community.
The third issue is—let us be honest—around the pay, terms and conditions of frontline care staff. They do some of the most important work in this society, which is looking after the people that we love most, but many of them barely even make the minimum wage, because they are not paid for travel times. The key thing that stands out for me is that the Office for National Statistics has clearly found that care homes that pay full pay when people are off sick, that are not so reliant on agency staff and that do not have such high turnover rates because of low pay, have lower infection rates. We really need to learn the lesson from that for the future.
I hope that the Minister will set out what she plans to do about these issues. Where are we now at with tests for domiciliary care staff? We have heard that NHS and care workers will be a priority for vaccines. Can she tell us whether that will include domiciliary care workers as well?
All hon. Members have spoken about the importance of families in caring for people with dementia. We cannot deliver good quality care for people with dementia without not just the involvement of families, but their active participation and support. That is not just because we all want our families to be there for us when we get sick and frail; it is because when someone has Alzheimer’s or dementia, their family is their memory. They are the ones who really know that person—the music they like, the songs they used to sing, the books they read, the films they love. No matter how hard paid care staff work, which they do, they just cannot know the person to the same degree, but the families get precious little help and support and they are too often ignored in the debate.
We know that, even before the virus struck, there were 9 million unpaid family carers in the UK. Since the virus began, 4.5 million more people have taken on caring responsibilities, which is three times the size of the NHS workforce. Many carers were already being pushed absolutely to breaking point before covid-19. One of the worst statistics that I have ever seen from Carers UK is that about half of unpaid family carers had not had a break from caring for five years, and yet those very people are on average taking on an extra 10 hours of caring a week, which is having a really bad impact on their physical and mental health.
So, I hope the Minister will set out what action the Government will take to help family carers. Will there be more funding for them to have breaks? How can we get day-care services back? And how will we actually identify all these new unpaid family carers, because, quite frankly, most people who are carers do not think that they are carers; they are just a son, daughter, husband or wife who looks after the person they love. But they desperately need information, advice and support.
Also, as practically every single hon. Member has said, we need to do more to help families who have loved ones in care homes. We had a big debate about this in Westminster Hall yesterday. I will repeat myself a little bit, because it is such a massively important issue. Indeed, in my 10 years as an MP, I have never been contacted by people who are not in politics about any issue as much as I have been about this one. It really is so important, because for eight months people have not been able to see their mums, dads, husbands or wives. What they do know is that those loved ones are fading fast, which causes enormous anguish, because if someone feels that they are letting down their mum, dad, husband or their wife, it will scar them for life. I know that that is what I would feel if I could not see my mum or dad.
I understand why Ministers are really worried about the risk that covid-19 will come back into care homes after the catastrophic loss of life we saw during the first wave of the virus, but we need to understand the situation. The Government’s own independent scientific advisers—the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, or SAGE—said in a report published on 21 September that the risk of family members transmitting the virus in care homes is low. And 60 organisations, including the Social Care Institute for Excellence, the British Geriatrics Society, the National Care Forum, Alzheimer’s Society and Age UK, all agree, saying that there is no evidenceAll those groups support calls, as does Labour—and indeed many hon. Members who have spoken today—for at least a single family member to be designated as a key worker, so that they can get the testing they need and we can safely start visits again. We first called for this in mid-June and again in September. I hope that the Government really take action. Their latest guidelines—about floor-to-ceiling screens, or having visits outside— are not good enough. Also, they will not work; a screen does not work for someone with dementia. In case anybody had not realised, it is also now dark, cold and wet outside, so outside visits will not work.
Yesterday, the Minister for Care said that a pilot will start on Monday in four local authority areas, with 30 care homes, to test family members. I had a lot of calls about that overnight. Where are these local authority areas? How long will the pilot last? The bottom line is that I do not think a pilot is good enough. The average length of stay of someone in a care home before they die is two years. We have had eight months of lockdown. This is the last Christmas for some people. We must get everybody—all families—getting those regular tests, so that visits can start again.
In conclusion, I have argued for almost two decades now for the desperate need for long-term reforms to social care. In July 2019, in his first speech on the steps of Downing Street, the Prime Minister said:
“I am announcing now that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all, with a clear plan we have prepared”—
I emphasise those words, “we have prepared”—
“to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.”
Yet more than 15 months later, that “plan” is nowhere to be seen; in fact, we seem to be going backwards.
The Health Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Bethell, said on 28 October:
“I have to be realistic. We are in the midst of a Covid winter, when there are enormous challenges in keeping the show on the road…It just would not be right to launch an important and industry-changing reform process when the focus of everyone in social care is the protection of the vulnerable and our loved ones.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 October 2020; Vol. 807, c. 226.]
The opposite is true; this is precisely the time when we need those reforms to give people, families and care workers hope that there will be a better system, and that when we have come through this awful pandemic we will not go back to the same stretched, miserable, awful system that too many people have had to cope with. Families, care workers and the system as a whole are at breaking point. In the 21st century, in one of the richest countries in the world, that is not good enough. It is the challenge of our generation to sort this problem, and I hope that when the Minister responds, she will set out how we will do so.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I thank the hon. Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this important debate. I commend the many personal and powerful contributions from hon. Members, but I pay particular tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, who is the co-chair of the all-party group on dementia, and to the charities that she and I both work with, such as the Alzheimer’s Society.
It has not been easy to listen to hon. Members’ stories today. They are painful to hear, let alone for those who have lived them. Hon. Members have brought great knowledge to the debate, from the clinical challenges of diagnosing covid in those with dementia to the understanding of what makes a difference for those living with dementia, from physical contact to music. Hon. Members have brought to the debate a real understanding of the burden borne by informal carers across our constituencies. If anyone needed reminding about how lives are being blighted by the cruel combination of covid and dementia, they have been reminded. Even before the pandemic, people with dementia were some of the most vulnerable in our society; they were usually older and living with other health conditions alongside this terrible progressive disease, for which we still have no cure. Dementia was already the No. 1 cause of death in this country and, tragically, more than 12,000 people with dementia have lost their lives to covid—people who still had life left to live.
Many of my conversations over the past few months have been about how much worse the pandemic has made life for people with dementia, their families and their carers. For instance, restrictions that are hard for us can make life almost impossible for them. People with dementia can find it really hard to follow instructions or the rules and guidance on social distancing and hand washing. Being made to stay at home means that they may lose the independence that they used to have, and which they might never get back. For those living in care homes, there is confusion about why their families no longer come to see them. Although the care staff are often wonderful, how can they know someone’s needs as well as their partner, son or daughter, who perhaps used to visit several times a week or even every day?
Equally heartbreaking has been the experience of families who have been unable to see the person they love for many weeks, knowing that that person might be confused and lonely, and then, tragically, finding out that their health has declined. For carers, it has been extra tough without the usual support and respite care. I thank families and carers for their incredible resilience and for what they have done, day in and day out, for the people who so need their love and care. There are more than 5.4 million informal carers in England, from children to older people who themselves might be in need of support. That is why, as we bear down on coronavirus, the Government are doing all they can to support those who are living with the consequences of this cruel disease. I will briefly set out some of those things now. As I do so, I will pick up on the questions that hon. Members have asked during the debate.
First, I will outline the overall support that we are providing, as set out in the adult social care winter plan, which specifically drew on the expertise of those who are involved in dementia care. It sets out the Government’s commitments and our expectations of local authorities, the NHS and care providers. It includes our commitments to PPE for social care, to testing and to an investment of more than £546 million, bringing our funding for infection control in social care to £1.1 billion.
The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth asked me about parity of PPE and testing between social care and the NHS. We are now providing PPE for social care to meet all its covid PPE needs. Like the NHS, social care is getting the PPE that it needs for covid. In addition, we are providing regular testing—weekly for care home staff and every 28 days for residents—and social care has been at the front of the queue. We have also learned from and adjusted some of the restrictions from the first lockdown to take account of the difficulties for those with dementia and their carers. The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) asked, on behalf of her constituent Tracy, if an adult caring for another adult can form a support bubble with another household. As she probably knows, an adult can form a support bubble with another household as long as that household is a single person. The restrictions allow somebody entry into the house of a person who requires care to give care, and to give the carer respite. I will take away the question of a larger bubble—I have been asked about it by other colleagues, and she and I have spoken about it—and whether I can do anything further to help on that.
The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) spoke about day services. I know how important they are, particularly for people with dementia and those who care for them. That is why I worked with the Social Care Institute for Excellence to provide guidance to services on how they can operate in a covid-secure way. I have said that the infection control fund can be used to help with extra costs for day services, and I have urged them to reopen in a covid-secure way. I have also been working with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services to find out about the provision of day services—how much provision is there, where are the gaps and what more can be done to increase it?
Many hon. Members spoke about visiting in care homes. I want people to be able safely to visit their loved ones in care homes, but this is hard. Covid has taken the lives of 15,400 people living in care homes, and we know that when covid gets into a care home, particularly one that is looking after people with dementia, it is hard to control. Anyone can bring it in, particularly since many people have covid without any symptoms, so they do not know they have it. That is why we have advised care homes to restrict visiting, particularly during this national lockdown when covid rates are high in much of the country; in some areas, as many as one in four people have covid.
I did not want care homes to be closed up again during this lockdown, as they were in the first time around. We are advising care homes to do things that many have already put in place, such as allowing visits through screens and windows, but I know that that is not the answer, particularly for those with advanced dementia. That is why we are launching our trial of visitor testing on 16 November in 30 care homes. We are trialling both PCR and lateral flow tests to find the best way of doing this, with the intention of rolling out testing for visitors across the country as fast we can in December. I want people to be able to touch, hold hands and hug again. I cannot say when that will be possible, but, believe me, I want to make it possible again.
I turn briefly to access to diagnosis. At the start of the pandemic, many memory assessment services were closed and dementia diagnosis rates fell below our national ambition for the first time in four years. While we have supported remote or virtual memory assessment services, I recognise their shortcomings. I want to see in-person services fully functional as soon as possible, because a diagnosis can make such a difference so that people can access the treatment and support they need. I know the hon. Member for Leicester West, who raised this point, will understand.
I want briefly to mention the important role of charities such as the Alzheimer’s Society and the Race Equality Foundation, which are doing particular work to support black, Asian and minority ethnic people with dementia. We have supported those charities with extra funding, but I know they have gone above and beyond in their work during this pandemic.
I conclude by saying that as we navigate these challenging times, we must never lose sight of what is important. Our efforts must not just be to save lives, but also to make life worth living for everyone—thinking hardest and trying hardest for those who live with the greatest of challenges. That means doing our utmost for those with dementia and their families.
Debbie Abrahams
I start with heartfelt thanks to everybody who has contributed to the debate. It is so nice to be in such a high-quality debate where we all work together, and where we see and agree on the issues. Now, it is about moving forward on the solutions. There was much consensus, particularly on how we make sure that families can visit their loved ones in care homes. I have huge regard for the Minister. She has real empathy, and I am grateful to her for turning it into action, but I ask her to make a commitment. If the trial is starting next week, will she come to the House and make a statement at the end of this month, so that we know the results of that trial and when in December it will be rolled out? My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) makes an excellent point that this may be some people’s last Christmas. For everybody concerned, please can we do our utmost to make sure that this happens?
Written Statements
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Tax Policy
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
In line with the tax policy-making framework, the Government consulted on a number of tax policies announced at spring Budget 2020. Today, the Government are publishing responses to some of the consultations that were extended due to covid-19, alongside draft legislation which will need to be introduced.
The Government are also publishing responses to calls for evidence in the market for tax advice, as well as a consultation on making tax digital for corporation tax.
Finally, the Government are making some tax policy announcements for tobacco and vehicle excise duties, measures to tackle promoters of tax avoidance, a small change to off-payroll legislation, and delays to other measures and reviews.
Previously announced publications
The Government are publishing a summary of responses and draft legislation for each of the following measures, as announced at the spring Budget:
Plastic packaging tax
Tackling construction industry scheme abuse
R&D SME tax credit PAYE cap
Tax implications of the withdrawal of the London inter-bank offered rate (LIBOR)
Hybrid and other mismatches
The Government had extended the policy consultation response deadlines for these measures in April, in response to the covid-19 outbreak.
Draft legislation is accompanied by a tax information and impact note (TIIN), an explanatory note (EN) and, where applicable, a summary of responses to consultation document. All publications can be found on the gov.uk website. The Government’s tax consultation tracker has also been updated.
Raising standards for tax advice
The Government are publishing a summary of responses and next steps from the call for evidence on raising standards in the market for tax advice. As a first step towards raising standards, the Government will consult on requiring tax advisers to hold professional indemnity insurance and how to define tax advice. The majority of respondents supported Government action to raise standards.
Tackling promoters of tax avoidance
In line with the Government’s strategy to tackle promoters of tax avoidance schemes, published in March, the Government are today announcing that they will consult in the new year on further measures to tackle promoters. These proposals will build on the proposals announced earlier this year and will:
disrupt the business model of offshore promoters by making it harder for such promoters to access the UK by making their onshore partners equally responsible for the anti-avoidance regime penalties that the offshore promoter generates.
directly tackle the secrecy on which promoters rely; the proposals here would ensure that taxpayers are fully informed of the reality of what is being sold to them.
disrupt the economics of tax avoidance by ensuring that, without delay, promoters face financial consequences for continuing to promote tax avoidance so that promoters cannot continue to profit from avoidance while HMRC investigates them.
give HMRC additional powers to act against companies that continue to promote schemes and who sidestep the rules designed to restrict their activities. The proposals would see such promoters shut down and restricted from setting up similar businesses.
The Government continue to recognise that the many tax advisers who adhere to high professional standards are an important source of support for taxpayers. The proposals are aimed at targeting those promoters who exploit every opportunity to personally profit by sidestepping the rules and whose unscrupulous actions often leave taxpayers with significant tax bills.
The Government continue to recognise that strengthening HMRC powers in the way described must be done in a carefully constrained way. HMRC will again work with stakeholders, and in particular those tax advisers who adhere to high professional standards, to ensure that these proposals are both effective and proportionate.
Making tax digital for corporation tax
The Government are publishing a consultation on the design of making tax digital for corporation tax, as announced on 21 July. This will allow stakeholders to inform the early stage design of making tax digital for corporation tax and to provide businesses with time to prepare.
Further policy announcements:
The Government have made a number of further policy decisions which are being announced today, relating to:
Extending the annual investment allowance provisional £1 million cap
The Government are today announcing a year-long extension to the temporary increase of the annual investment allowance (AIA). The AIA provides firms 100% same year tax relief on qualifying capital expenditure, up to a fixed limit. Instead of allowing the AIA to revert to £200,000 from 1 January 2021, the Government are extending the temporary £1 million cap set at Budget 2018 until 31 December 2021. This announcement:
Responds to the needs of business, giving enhanced tax relief on plant and machinery expenditure;
Provides businesses with upfront support during continuing covid-related uncertainty;
Simplifies taxes for the 99% of businesses investing up to £1 million on plant and machinery assets each year.
Tobacco duty uprating
The Government are announcing the uprating of tobacco duties to protect the public finances, continue the drive to reduce smoking prevalence, and support the Government’s target for a smoke-free England by 2030. In line with the existing escalator, duty rates on all tobacco products will increase by RPI + 2%. In order to narrow the gap between hand-rolling tobacco (HRT) and cigarette duty rates and ensure the Minimum Excise Tax (MET) continues to be effective in the current market, HRT will increase by RPI + 6% and the MET by RPI + 4%. The Treasury is laying an order before the House to enact these changes, which will take effect on 16 November.
Van vehicle excise duty
The Government will not now introduce a new graduated system of vehicle excise duty for light goods vehicles or motorhomes from April 2021, to avoid distracting the automotive sector and businesses more widely from the challenges they currently face in light of the covid-19 pandemic. Motorhomes will continue to be placed in the private/light goods class.
Off-payroll working—technical change to ensure legislation operates as intended
A technical change to the off-payroll working rules will be made in the next Finance Bill. This will ensure the legislation operates as intended from 6 April 2021 for engagements where an intermediary is a company. The change will correct an unintended widening of the definition of an intermediary, which went beyond the intended scope of the policy.
Notification of uncertain tax treatment by large businesses
The Government are announcing the implementation of the new requirement for large businesses to notify HMRC of uncertain tax treatments will be delayed until April 2022. This will allow more time to get the policy and legislation right following the recent consultation, including through further engagement with stakeholders, and will give affected businesses more time to prepare for the change.
Timely tax payments and review of tax administration framework
On 21 July, the Government committed to publishing calls for evidence on timely tax payments and a review of the tax administration framework. Given the continued pressures of the covid-19 outbreak, and with other consultations in progress, the Government will now publish these documents in spring 2021.
Soft drinks industry levy (SDIL) milk review
In 2017, the Government made a commitment to review the exemption for sugary milk and milk-substitute drinks from the soft drinks industry levy (SDIL) by 2020. The Government have been clear that if industry does not make enough progress on voluntarily reformulating these drinks, the Government may extend the SDIL to include them. In light of Public Health England’s latest reformulation report (published earlier this month) that shows good progress has been made in sugar reduction of milk-based drinks, the Government will next consider the exemption for sugary milk and milk-substitute drinks in 2022 after the full reformulation programme completes.
[HCWS572]
Service Justice System
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I am today informing the House that, after further and full consideration of an earlier decision announced in February 2020 in response to the service justice system (SJS) review, I have taken a decision to maintain jurisdictional concurrency when dealing with cases of murder, manslaughter and rape when committed by service personnel in the UK.
Currently, decisions on which jurisdiction should deal with criminal offences in the UK by service personnel are made by the SJS and civilian justice system (CJS) policing and prosecutorial authorities on a case-by-case basis. My intent is to seek views on what improvements can be made to the protocols which guide those decisions and which have developed since Parliament last expressed its view on this subject.
In considering the recommendations made by the service justice system review, I have come to the conclusion that, having agreed to take forward 79 other recommendations, including assurance around the quality of investigations, the SJS is capable of dealing with these offences when they occur in the UK, as well as overseas. The service justice system review strongly supported the continued existence of the SJS and sets out a sound roadmap for its future.
I am not, therefore, content to accept the first recommendation in the review which would undermine the principle of concurrency between the SJS and CJS which is set out in the current legislation. While there will not be a presumption that either system takes primacy over the other, I plan to retain the current role of the Director of Public Prosecutions (in relation to cases in England and Wales) of having the final say of where a case is tried in the unlikely event of disagreement about where the case should be handled.
In light of this decision, my Department will lead an exercise with SJS and CJS policing and prosecutorial authorities to revise all current guidance around jurisdiction for criminal offending by service personnel in the UK. That exercise will include public engagement on factors to be considered relevant in guiding the case-by-case allocation decisions. Parliament will have an opportunity to consider these matters when parliamentary time allows, and I intend to bring forward proposals to place the arrangements for allocating cases between the SJS and CJS on a statutory basis.
My Department will be engaging with the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland to consider the corresponding arrangements that should exist there.
[HCWS577]
Avian Influenza: Kept Birds
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
High pathogenicity H5N8 avian influenza has been circulating in Europe in recent weeks. There have now been two diagnosed cases in poultry in the UK, in Cheshire and Herefordshire, as well as several findings in wild birds in south-west England. The risk of further H5N8 incursion in wild birds across the UK remains high and has recently been raised to medium for poultry. We will continue to undertake comprehensive disease surveillance over the coming weeks and months.
Public Health England advises that the risk to public health is very low and the Food Standards Agency has said there is no food safety risk for UK consumers.
In response to the risk to poultry and other captive birds, the Department has put in place a statutory avian influenza prevention zone. The zone requires keepers across the country to take additional steps to introduce enhanced biosecurity measures and to protect poultry and other captive birds from contact with wild birds. Some of these measures apply to all keepers, including those with small flocks or pet birds. They include:
cleansing and disinfection of equipment, vehicles and footwear when moving between bird premises;
effective vermin control;
reducing movements of people to the essentials for the birds’ welfare, collecting eggs and feeding;
keeping records of poultry, captive birds and egg movements;
ensuring that buildings are maintained and that repairs are carried out without delay where
water or other contamination may penetrate.
The zone will remain in place indefinitely but will be kept under review and amended as necessary in the light of any changes in circumstances. We have also made changes to licensing arrangements to prohibit events such as bird shows.
Given that the disease is spreading across Europe, the introduction of this zone has been co-ordinated with the devolved Administrations and Scottish and Welsh Governments are introducing similar measures. Northern Ireland officials, who have been in the discussions, are reviewing their risk assessment which will inform their next steps.
We have tried and tested procedures for dealing with such animal disease outbreaks and a strong track record of controlling and eliminating previous outbreaks of avian flu in the UK. Our actions are in line with established practice and with the processes followed in previous years. Avian influenza prevention zones, for example, were introduced in England, Scotland and Wales in 2018. We are working closely with operational partners, devolved Administration colleagues and the industry.
The detections of H5N8 in poultry or captive birds have been dealt with effectively by the Animal and Plant Health Agency. We have taken robust action, imposing zones of up to 10 km (six miles) around infected premises to limit the risk of disease spreading, and culling birds humanely and to high biosecurity standards.
Looking forward, the Department will keep the avian influenza prevention zone under review and will consider amendments to reflect any changes to the level of risk of incursion to wild birds and poultry as well as any further scientific, veterinary and ornithological advice.
We have not yet required mandatory housing of all poultry and captive birds as part of our response to the disease risk. However, such a measure remains under active review as a potentially important step.
We continue to urge bird keepers to be vigilant for any signs of disease, ensure they are maintaining good biosecurity on their premises, seek prompt advice from their vet and report suspect disease to APHA (as they must do by law).
We strongly advise keepers to register on the poultry register so as to receive notifications and disease alerts. This is mandatory for all those with flocks of over 50 birds. Registration is easy and can be found at: www.gov.uk/ guidance/bird-gatherings-licences.
[HCWS576]
HMICFRS’s Report: National Crime Agency and Regional Organised Crime Units
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The National Crime Agency (NCA) leads the fight against serious and organised crime (SOC). It has the power to task other law enforcement partners and a capability, with local to international reach, to disrupt the impact of SOC on the UK.
This is the seventh HMICFRS inspection of the NCA and examines the relationship between the agency and the regional organised crime units (ROCU). The focus is specifically on the collaboration arrangements, the role of the NCA’s regional organised crime co-ordinators (RCCs), co-ordination and support of operational activity, threat prioritisation and integration and co-location.
I have asked HMICFRS to publish the report. It will be published today and will be available online at www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The inspection found that NCA and ROCUs are working well in a number of areas of law enforcement. The NCA’s provision of specialist capabilities to the network, such as protected persons and kidnap and extortion is seen as a positive example. Meeting structures for tasking and co-ordinating operational activity work well, with ROCUs and the NCA represented at regional and national level. National tasking of regional cyber and undercover online (UCOL) assets is judged as mature and efficient. The report also emphasises a number of areas for improvement including the need for greater interoperability and a more systematic approach to joint working; a clearer understanding within ROCUs of the roles and responsibilities of the NCA; and more effective duty management within the NCA’s control room to ensure monitoring of the location and availability of its operational resources.
It is for the NCA’s director-general to respond to these recommendations.
The inspection also identified a need to review current funding arrangements for ROCUs; consider changes to legislation that would allow NCA to task ROCUs directly; and as part of the review of the strategic policing requirement, consider how greater emphasis is placed on national threats such as SOC by police and crime commissioners and chief constables. These recommendations are being taken forward by my officials.
[HCWS574]
Justifying Authority for New Nuclear Power: Departmental Responsibility
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Responsibility for the justifying authority for new nuclear power transferred from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 6 October 2020.
[HCWS573]
Planning Act 2008 Applications: A303
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I have been asked by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make this written ministerial statement. This statement concerns two applications made under the Planning Act 2008 relating to the A303.
The first application concerns the proposed construction by Highways England of a new two-lane dual carriageway for the A303 between Amesbury and Berwick Down in Wiltshire (also known as the “A303 Stonehenge” application), which the Secretary of State has today approved.
The second application concerns the proposed construction by Highways England of a continuous dual carriageway on the A303 linking the Podimore roundabout and the Sparkford bypass.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make his decision within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) to extend the deadline and make a statement to the House of Parliament announcing the new deadline. The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Development Consent Order application on 12 September 2019 and the deadline for a decision was previously extended from 12 December 2019 to 17 July 2020, and then further extended until 20 November 2020 to allow for further work to be carried out.
The deadline for the decision is to be further extended to 29 January 2021 (an extension of just over two months) to enable further information to be provided by the applicant and the defence infrastructure organisation regarding outstanding concerns pertaining to the issue of bird strike.
The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to give development consent.
[HCWS575]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same.
If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, which there may well be imminently, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill
Thursday 12th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 View all High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-II Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (9 Nov 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
Amendment 6
Lord Berkeley
“Independent peer review
(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent peer review of the High Speed Rail (West Midlands to Crewe) project.(2) The review must include consideration of the project’s—(a) environmental impact,(b) costs, forecast revenue and economic impact,(c) engineering, and(d) governance.(3) In this section, “independent” means it is carried out by persons who are independent of—(a) Government,(b) HS2 Ltd, and(c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out any of the scheduled works.(4) In this section, a “peer review” is a review conducted by experts of equivalent professional qualifications, expertise and standing to the persons responsible for each aspect of the project set out in subsection (2).(5) A report of the review under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament and have been debated in both Houses before commencement of the scheduled works.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to require the Government to commission and publish a wide ranging audit of all elements of the scheduled works, costs, forecasts and economic impact and done by professionals who have not links with the Government or the promoters.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. On our previous day in Committee, we discussed regular reporting and had a good debate. This amendment is slightly different, because the emphasis is on independent peer review. I remind noble Lords that this project has been around, discussed in another Parliament, for probably 10 years and things have moved on. We have learned a lot. There have been changes, which we all know about. It is probably time for Parliament to commission an independent review so that it knows what has been asked for, what will be built, how much it is going to cost and so on. In particular, we have had a lot of debate both on the Floor of the House and in the Select Committees on the environmental impact, costs, forecast revenue before and after Covid—well, not after yet—the economic impact, the engineering and the governance.
I do not wish to express any opinion on whether what we have now is good or bad. What is needed is an independent opinion—independent of government, of HS2 and of the various contractors. The experience in the Oakervee review last year was that when we tried to seek independent opinions on whatever we were looking at under the terms of reference, we found it quite difficult to identify people or organisations that were not or had not been in some way linked to HS2 or the Department for Transport. I am not being critical, but it is pretty important if one wants an independent review that those conducting it are independent and not worried about where the next contract will come from, for example.
I shall not say much more except to remind noble Lords that probably one of the most important things that I am focused on is costs. There have been three or four times when Department for Transport officials or HS2 staff have basically said that they do not know what the costs are. One HS2 executive, when asked why they had not been transparent on costs, memorably replied:
“If we’d told Parliament the real costs, they’d probably have cancelled the project.”
That is a very bad reason for going ahead with a project. I know that my noble friend Lord Adonis will say that I am trying to get it stopped, which I am not; I just think that it is time now to get a one-off, independent review so that Parliament and other people can then monitor progress and hold the Government and HS2 to account if they feel it necessary. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I do not have much to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, so ably said, and the amendment is largely self-explanatory. It will become apparent as further amendments are moved that there is a strong case for an amendment such as this, which is why I added my name to it.
For all the many pages written on matters of safeguards, it seems that few outside the cerebral world of the department, HS2 and its contractors are entirely convinced that HS2 Ltd will honour the spirit as opposed to the letter as it sees it. Too much of this Bill appears to rest on HS2 Ltd’s self-assessment, in which the Government as ultimate funder and promoter are a party. Costs have soared, as we have heard. Budgets for things such as land acquisitions seem to have been woefully inadequate. Timelines have become stretched; procedures have been subject to novel interpretations, and a good deal of unnecessary uncertainty and doubt about aspects of the scheme have crept in as far as those outside but affected by the scheme are concerned.
This is a scheme by the nation for the nation, and it should embed best practice and be seen to be doing so. I am pleased to support the amendment because it goes to the heart of public confidence in the manner in which this truly mighty project is being managed.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I oppose the amendment. I do not see any point in it whatever. It seems to me that in this country we can never make up our minds about whether we are going to do anything that is big and expensive. We have constant reviews, and we are constantly cancelling projects that have already made some advance. We have just had the independent Oakervee review of HS2, and we have just had a government decision to go ahead with the line to Manchester—although I share the worries of my noble friend Lord Adonis about what the Government are thinking about the eastern leg. However, I see no purpose in launching another review now.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley says that it is very difficult to get independent advice regarding all these concerns about costs, et cetera. Of course it is difficult to get independent advice, as the people who really know the facts are the ones who are doing the job. Unless the taxpayer is to fund an independent organisation to be critical of a scheme that Parliament has voted for and that the Government have reaffirmed and have cross-party support for, then this is a ludicrous proposal. I suppose that the answer to my noble friend’s legitimate concerns is to have an effective HS2 board. If there is an answer to this problem, it lies in having an effective board to supervise the management of the project. That is the point that the Government ought to be satisfying themselves on. I honestly do not think that this is a matter for legislation at all.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with every word that my noble friend Lord Liddle has said, and I hope that the Minister will not give an inch to this amendment and will comprehensively refute it when she speaks. HS2 has been reviewed to death.
I find it utterly astonishing that my noble friend Lord Berkeley should be moving this amendment because he has brought his great, independent wisdom and distinction to the biggest review yet of HS2, which concluded only this February after the best part of six months’ work. When he says that there are no independent people to conduct that review, it is a lot of complete nonsense. The members of the Oakervee review were very eminent and very independent: Doug Oakervee himself, a man of immense distinction in the delivery of infrastructure projects here and internationally, including some of the most successful developed in modern economies, in Hong Kong; my noble friend, who was the deputy chairman; Sir John Cridland, who is the former director-general of the CBI; Michèle Dix, who is responsible for directing Crossrail 2; Stephen Glaister, one of the most eminent transport economists in the world; Sir Peter Hendy, the chairman of Network Rail and former commissioner of Transport for London; Andrew Sentance, of the Bank of England; Professor Tony Travers, who is one of the most independent-minded and distinguished professors of government in the world and holds a chair at the London School of Economics; Andy Street, who is the elected Mayor of the West Midlands; and Patrick Harley, who is the leader of Dudley council. So I ask my noble friend Lord Berkeley to tell us in his reply: what sort of independence does he have in mind? Who are these great independent judges of infrastructure projects who can bring their wisdom to bear and have not already been consulted? At the end of the Oakervee report, which is 130 pages long, there is a list of the people who submitted evidence and were consulted. That list extends to more than 400 people and organisations.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
I think that the previous two speakers are actually getting a little bit personal, putting words in the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and misrepresenting him. They should both perhaps row back a little from personal comments, which they seem keen to make at the moment.
It is true that HS2 had the Oakervee review but, quite honestly, it was little more than an election gimmick by the Conservative Party. Sure enough, after the election, the Government were absolutely committed again, and they reiterated full support for HS2. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, explained this incredibly clearly in his opening statement, and perhaps it was so clear that people misunderstood it—I am not sure. He proposed a truly independent peer review on the full range of issues. I do not see why this is controversial. You cannot learn lessons if you have no lessons to draw on, and that is the big problem with HS2.
The proposed publication of a cost-benefit assessment of HS2 with annual revisions seems to me like good business practice. I have absolutely no idea why anybody would object to the amendment. It should be standard for any government project to have this sort of truly independent review and a cost-benefit analysis. Rigorous and independent peer-reviewed analysis would give a much more informed public debate; at the moment, we have HS2 blasting out its credentials all the time, when we know that it is doing the most incredible environmental damage and is costing a fortune. How can the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, dare to talk about taxpayers’ money when we are spending billions on this project? In view of the pandemic and people therefore working remotely these days, it is quite likely that there will be less demand for this demand for a project for a year, at least, and for much longer after it has finished.
Everybody says that HS2 is a project for the future, but it is a creature of the past, quite honestly. It was designed for a past that used to be the norm, and we will not be seeing that norm again very soon. For me, the cost far outweighs the benefit. Regrettably, it is perhaps too late to stop it, but really, we should—we should not spend a penny more. These amendments would help to settle that argument. If I saw the results of an independent review that ruled that it was worth the money, I would accept that.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, we always seem to have a conflict in our country between those who believe that we are far too slow in improving infrastructure, and those who appear to think that we are doing it too quickly, if not recklessly. This can apply to so many things, some of which I have been involved in in the past, as a Member of the House of Commons.
Broadly speaking, it is fortunate that the divide is not simply on a party basis. It is not always that I find myself on the same side as the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Adonis, but I find myself firmly bracketed with them on this issue. I am well disposed to the project of HS2, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is plainly not, whatever his protestations. He has a fairly good track record, even within the confines of this Bill, of trying to find ways of delaying it and pushing it even further into the future.
“We do things in a hurry when there is a war on”— a remark I heard many years ago, which gives away my age. Another comment somebody made to me, which I have no reason to dispute, was that synthetic rubber would probably not have been invented had it not been for the Second World War.
I find it very hard to see anything other than another form of dilatory motion in the amendment we are discussing, which is different from the one that we debated at the request of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on Monday. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made the point about finding people who apparently would satisfy the opponents of HS2, and it is going to be a difficult exercise. Where would one get a group of people who are sufficiently saintly to be free from ever having tossed out a casual remark at a local drinks party that does not stain them with bias on this subject?
As I say, I am in favour of the project. I want to get on with it—but I am not without concern for people and communities who are disadvantaged. What I saw as a member of the Select Committee was the effort being made to soften the blow and provide compensation, even if it does not go quite as far yet in every case as might be justified.
The important thing about HS2 is the levelling-up potential. Speed is important: the length of time to get from home to work is a crucial factor. I picked up on the fact, as the Member of Parliament who saw a third London airport built in his constituency, at Stansted, that HS2 would mean that Birmingham Airport would be a shorter distance in time from London than would Stansted. That to me was an astonishing fact. Birmingham is our second city, yet its airport could hardly be said to be the second airport of the United Kingdom. I mean no disrespect to Manchester when I make that comment. Surely, it would make it easier for cities such as Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Nottingham if people could arrive in this country and find that there were fast journeys between cities and towns and the other areas they wish to get to.
Then, we have the pressure on the south-east. As has been spelled out so many times, there is the difficulty of fitting in all the housing we need into an area where, yes, jobs are being created—and that is wonderful—but we want to see jobs being created across the country. The conundrum of a country divided between north and south has remained unsolved for 60 or 70 years, despite the efforts of Governments of all colours to get on top of it.
Therefore, HS2 has a very important part to play in that, and it is already helping to create jobs. If, as can be said, there is a war on—a war against the pandemic—and there are already signs of jobs being created by HS2, then that is the way in which we are going to bring about some real, true levelling-up in our country. We need a decision above all things at this time on HS2—not more inquiries or reviews—because we want to win the war.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, this is, for me, a maiden speech as far as this Committee is concerned. I will try to confine it to the essentials of the amendment, which quite possibly will make me unique in this debate. My noble friend Lord Berkeley said that he had no opinion good or bad on the question of HS2: well, pull the other one is my response to that. It is a complete coincidence, I take it, that everything he proposes so far as HS2 is concerned has the effect of delaying or cancelling the project, but he has no opinion, good or bad, other than that. I agree entirely with the sentiments expressed by my noble friends Lord Adonis and Lord Liddle, as well as the views of the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley wants a review. He and I know full well that the number of reviews that have been held about the railway industry, for example, since 2000 has concerned us both. Indeed, both of us have been scathing in the Chamber over the years about the number of reviews that have been held: something like 34 reviews into the railway industry are gathering dust on ministerial shelves somewhere, few of them ever being implemented, and yet he wants another one. My noble friend Lord Adonis read out the names of the distinguished members of the Oakervee Committee, which included my noble friend, who was the vice-chairman. Could he suggest, when he comes to wind up, who, other than the sort of people listed by my noble friend Lord Adonis, could possibly carry out such a review with the impartiality that he desires? Presumably, some knowledge of these construction projects is essential unless we are going to cast around for a dozen people whom we meet in the streets to conduct the review. I would be interested to hear from him when he winds up exactly who he has in mind.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has made no secret of the fact that she is against HS2. I am always fascinated by the Green Party: if this project that we are debating today was a motorway, for example, running along the path of the proposed HS2, I would expect to see the noble Baroness and her Green Party colleagues carrying banners saying, “Put it on the railway”. The last thing we need is another motorway, yet she is against this particular scheme because, she says,—and I wrote down what she said on Tuesday when I had to contain myself from replying—this project is about cutting a few minutes off the journey time for travel between London and Birmingham. It is, of course, no such thing. I remind the noble Baroness—and I hope that she does not think that I am being personal when I do this—that this scheme is part of an overall concept of a high-speed network in the United Kingdom, which will obviously benefit other regions as well as the south-east. It will also, of course, create space on the west coast main line, which is another plus, as far as I am concerned, in relation to HS2. It is estimated that such space and availability that it will create on the west coast main line will relieve our road network of some 40,000 or 50,000 heavy goods vehicles. Again, that is something else one would have thought the Green Party would have been in favour of but, obviously, if she has this erroneous impression that HS2 is just about speed between London and Birmingham, that is not the case.
Coincidentally, as we are talking about reviews, only today the Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce —I do not know whether that organisation would meet with the approval of my noble friend Lord Berkeley —issued a press release and statement about HS2. The press release is only two hours old, so it is hot off the press—I have not put it up to this, I hasten to tell my noble friend—and it says:
“The West Midlands has already benefited significantly from the prospect of HS2’s arrival— Deutsche Bank, HSBC and engineering giant Jacobs are examples of major businesses that have already relocated operations to Birmingham—with HS2 creating more jobs in the West Midlands than any other region outside of London.”
Again, I address my remarks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Does the Green Party not appreciate the fact that already, years before the scheme is actually completed and the line opened, thousands of jobs are being created? The chambers of commerce goes on to say that HS2 will create hundreds of thousands of jobs, thousands of apprenticeships and supply chain opportunities and,
“as Greater Birmingham Chambers of Commerce chief executive Paul Falkner states today, it will provide ‘a much-needed shot in the arm to business confidence’ as the country emerges from the health crisis.”
My noble friend Lord Berkeley has fought a valiant battle, whether he admits it or not, to delay this particular project. He needs to come up with something better than a specious argument about yet another review. We really ought to get on with this, and my noble friend will have some difficulty, I fear, when he comes to wind up, in convincing us that this amendment is designed to do anything other than delay this project.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 6 and 8. Amendment 6 deals with the question of peer review, which is absolutely essential. In my remarks to the Committee last Tuesday, I explained that one of the great shortcomings of the HS2 project from the very beginning has been the complete unwillingness of the responsible Ministers to listen to the best and soundest advice coming from outside their department. Amendment 6 would allow these qualified railway experts to examine all aspects of the project in an unbiased way and give the Government the benefit of their advice. It must, of course, be totally independent of Government, HS2 and any company or individual linked to HS2.
We are all aware of the stories of massive financial and time overruns with aircraft carriers, and nuclear power station building disasters. With HS2, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.” I remind the Committee that we are talking about £106 billion to date—probably £150 billion —and the sum is confidently forecast by reliable sources to reach £200 billion. Surely it makes sense for us to take steps to put in place the strongest possible oversight; peer review will do just that.
Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, recommends the publishing of a cost-benefit analysis of this project. I totally agree with that, although I fear that we are locking the stable door after the horse has bolted. This fundamental exercise should be undertaken, of course—in private business it invariably is—before any decision to go ahead is made. Perhaps it was; perhaps the Minister will tell us, and perhaps we can see it. It is quite simple to do: you make a list of all the costs and a list of all the benefits. You put one on one side of the scales and the other on the other, and I have done just that.
I chose benefits first and it is quite a short list: high speed, capacity and jobs. I turn first to high speed. For all sorts of reasons, the promoters of the scheme no longer cite this as an important aspect of it, so this cannot go on the benefit side, even though high speed is what it says on the tin and that is how the idea was originally sold to the Government. For a whole variety of reasons, it is no longer top priority. I do not know all the reasons: I understand that certain aspects of the line—embankments, tunnels, et cetera—would not cope with the proposed speed; and energy costs were also an issue. Therefore, it is no longer a high-speed train in the accepted sense, and we cannot put that on the benefit side of the scales.
Lastly, we come to jobs. Jobs are the proponents’ fallback position, guaranteed to sway faltering Ministers. Obviously, any extra jobs are not just welcome but, in these difficult times, invaluable, although it must be remembered that this was sold as part of the deal long before Covid arrived. It is my view that however much we need jobs, they should not be used as a reason to proceed with a project that is manifestly nonsensical.
If you spent this amount of money on regional railways, improving links from Liverpool to Hull or relieving commuter services in the north and in and out of London, you would produce just as many jobs, spread throughout the country—and, at the end, unlike HS2, you would have something really worth while to show for it. So the jobs argument does not work and that leaves precious little to go on the benefit side of the scales.
Let us look at the costs to the taxpayer: a minimum £106 billion and almost certainly considerably more—all those vital projects which are having to take second place to HS2, we could probably rebuild every hospital in the country for this kind of money; massive, irreparable damage to our environment through a huge swathe of the country; damage to the thousands of people whose lives, homes and businesses have been affected; and massive distrust in the Government’s ability to build anything. I mark it: benefits, precious little; costs, enormous. How did we get into this mess? I truly believe that this will prove to be the most monumental infrastructural and environmental blunder of all time.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, on the issues he has raised in relation to HS2. He dismisses the speed issue, whereas every piece of research reveals that journey times are key to people deciding whether or not to use rail; so journey times need improving.
On capacity, it is the case that existing lines are full. Capacity is about not just how many people are on a train but how many trains per hour there are on the railway, and we badly need extra capacity in order to move the short-distance travellers off the long-distance lines and to allow freight to use the existing long-distance lines to provide enough capacity for all the freight that needs to go on the railways nowadays in order to save our planet. At the moment very low percentages of people in the Midlands and the north choose to travel by train. That is because of the capacity issue—because of problems with the service. We owe it to them to improve the options for them and to make it possible for them to travel in an environmentally friendly manner.
HS2 has often been its own worst enemy. On our Benches there is firm support for the project, as I have made clear today and in many previous debates. But that does not mean that we are not critical of the way the project has been managed so far. The Oakervee report was designed to review the project and point the way forward but that way needs to be a lot less scrappy than the process so far.
I have a general observation to make about this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 6 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is long past time for our approach to major infrastructure developments to be fundamentally rethought. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle: for decades we have proved incapable of making clear strategic decisions, costing them realistically and managing them effectively. The National Infrastructure Commission was supposed to give us the longer view required, which short-term government horizons inevitably fail to provide. However, we still do not have a system that works in a modern democratic economy.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
Before I call the next speaker, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, to be aware that she needs to keep her mute on; otherwise, we will inadvertently see more of her than she wishes us to see.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My noble friend Lord Berkeley has spoken about the purpose of his amendment, calling for an independent peer review of the section of the HS2 project covered by the Bill; namely, the connection to phase 1 at Fradley in the West Midlands and to the west coast main line just outside Crewe in Cheshire.
The most recent review—and it is recent—was the Oakervee review, which started off with my noble friend Lord Berkeley playing a prominent role, which then appeared to be downgraded as time went on, until at the end he seemed to be treated as a somewhat peripheral figure. Presumably this was not unrelated to my noble friend’s views about the review and its conclusions.
My Amendment 8 requires the Secretary of State to publish a cost-benefit analysis of HS2 within three months of the Bill becoming an Act, and then to
“publish a revised assessment in each subsequent twelve month period.”
I imagine that the Minister will oppose that but, if so, I hope she will be able to tell me that that is because this will be covered in the new six-monthly reports to Parliament. Obviously, I await her response.
However, I want to raise some points about costs. Are the committed costs for phase 1 now some £10 billion, with that figure being about a quarter of the Government’s estimated total cost of phase 1? If that is an accurate or reasonably accurate figure, would the Government expect committed costs to have already reached some 25% of the total cost of the phase before the permanent works have really got under way? What is the Government’s estimated cost of phase 2a and how much has already been spent and committed? What is now the expected completion date of phase 2a? Are the Government confident that their latest cost-benefit ratio figure for HS2 could never worsen as the project continues—and, one fears, costs rise—to the point where there would be a serious question about the case for HS2? An assurance on that point would be helpful. Is it the Government’s unequivocal position that once the Bill becomes an Act, phase 2a will proceed—no ifs, no buts?
Our position is, and has always been, one of support for HS2. It was no wonder that my noble friend Lord Adonis sought unambiguous assurances on Monday, which he did not appear to get, of the Government’s continuing commitment to complete the eastern leg of HS2 in full, to plan, from Birmingham through the east Midlands to Leeds. It was a Labour Government who got this project off the ground, thanks in particular to the drive and determination shown by my noble friend. However, there needs to be a proper grip on costs once specific figures for expected costs have been announced, which also means that considerable hard evidence-backed thought needs to be given to what, realistically, those expected costs are likely to be, and the same should apply as far as the benefits are concerned.
I suspect that the Government recognise that. In a letter to me of 16 October the Minister said:
“The Government have strengthened the arrangements for governance and accountability for the HS2 project. There is now a dedicated Minister, a cross-government ministerial group and a six-monthly report to Parliament.”
Is the appointment of a dedicated Minister an admission that there has been insufficient ministerial involvement and oversight of the HS2 project and its costs by the Department for Transport for a significant part of the past 10 years? That is what it sounds like. If so, why did Ministers allow that to happen and to drag on for so long? Does the creation of a cross-governmental ministerial group mean an acceptance that there will have been no proper co-ordinated cross-government policy-making at ministerial level and oversight on HS2, including its costs, for a significant part of the past 10 years? Once again, that is what it sounds like. Again, I ask: if so, why did Ministers allow that to happen and to drag on for so long?
I would like to know why the Government think that these new arrangements will strengthen governance and accountability. In what way is governance being strengthened? What particular deficiency in the previous governance arrangements will be plugged by these new arrangements? What positive impact on the HS2 project do the Government expect to result from these new arrangements? In what way do the Government believe that accountability will be strengthened by these new arrangements? Who and what will become more accountable and to whom? What benefits do the Government expect to arise from this strengthening of accountability for the HS2 project? What will be the impact of the strengthened arrangements for governance and accountability on the costs of HS2? If it is expected to be positive—and I assume it is—why will these new arrangements involving Ministers enable costs to be better controlled than they have been under the existing arrangements?
The first of the six-monthly reports to Parliament has reported a further £800 million increase in costs over six months. Are the Government satisfied that the reasons given in the report for the increase in costs could not have been identified much earlier with more extensive preparatory work? If the Government’s answer is that they are satisfied that that is the case, that seems close to an admission that they really do not know what the final cost of HS2 will be since, presumably, further major unexpected developments or problems could continue to arise all the time. If that is the case, we can only hope that such developments and other potential issues affecting costs do not end up exceeding the contingency provision that has been made because, as we have seen and know, opponents of this project are reinvigorated every time there is an announcement of a further non-budgeted increase in costs. That is why controlling costs is important.
I hope that the Government will be able to give some clear answers to the questions I have asked and will explain why and what they believe the new arrangements referred to in the letter of 16 October will deliver in respect of strengthened governance and accountability and much better control over costs of a project we continue to support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, when I saw the first group for this second day in Committee I thought, “This is going to be Second Reading territory” and, lo and behold, it was the case. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, which went slightly wide of the amendments in the group, which are essentially about reporting, not about whether or not HS2 should go ahead, although we had a little run around that track as well. I note that the last group on the Marshalled List today is about party walls, and I find that a very exciting prospect and very much hope that we will get there.
As I outlined in my previous responses about the Government’s recent changes to transparency and accountability, we are putting these at the heart of everything we are doing on HS2 because we believe that enhanced reporting measures and ministerial oversight will help. That is not to say that there was a significant deficiency previously, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but that with all these things good governance is very hard to achieve and incremental improvements to governance structures should be made when they are deemed appropriate.
On Amendment 6, about another report, I think I share the feeling of some noble Lords who have spoken: “Not another one.” There have been several reports on HS2. I believe it is now time to get on and get it built without having another report. Most recently we had the report from Doug Oakervee and his panel and the recommendations therein. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, mentioned some of the people involved in that report, and I think we all agree that they are people of very high calibre. Indeed, they include the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He was on that panel and, as was and is his right, he published his own dissenting report, which of course the Government read and took note of. Is it time now to have yet another report on HS2? I believe that is not the right thing for us to do. We should be looking at the conclusions of the last report, which was written only recently, and putting them into practice. That is why we have Andrew Stephenson as the Minister for HS2 and why we have put in enhanced reporting requirements to Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned the HS2 board. It is already a strong board, but it has recently been enhanced by representatives from the Treasury and the Department for Transport. That is to make sure that HS2 remains absolutely focused on our priorities and the interests of the British taxpayer. We also have the integrated rail plan, of which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is such a fan. That plan is in development and will make recommendations on how best to deliver high-speed rail in the north.
Therefore, the Government do not agree that we need a further report or review—call it what you will— into HS2 at this time. There will be a significant amount of scrutiny to come in any event, given the existing arrangements.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as I have explained, a new reporting regime has just been put in place that commits the Government to report every six months. The first one was published last month and updated the House on costs and schedule.
I will sidetrack slightly, if I may, on the issue of costs and schedule because I am doing a lot of work around this as there are quite a lot of major projects in my portfolio. In this country, we have a slight issue that we expect to know exactly what the cost and schedule will be on day one. That is not even day one of the build. We seem to want to know what they are going to be on day one when someone has only just thought of the project. That is absolutely impossible with these sorts of large engineering projects.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call—
Lord Adonis (Lab)
Sorry: I was not quite sure who I was supposed to email under this complicated regime. I emailed someone, but clearly the wrong person.
Perhaps I could ask the Minister a question. She gave she gave a compelling response as to why we should not have a review. She was less convincing in response to my noble friend Lord Rosser about cost/benefits, because costs and benefits change over time, which was part of the point my noble friend was making. The noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, was so concerned that we should pay attention to cost/benefits; can the Minister confirm that when it comes to the next review of cost/benefits, it is very important that the costs of upgrading the three principal lines running north from London—the west coast main line, the Midlands main line and the east coast main line—will be set against the costs if HS2 does not proceed? All the estimates made of those costs are that they are huge and should not be discounted in any future cost/benefit analysis.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, but what he notes are the counterfactual opportunity costs of not having to do those upgrades. I am not sure how they would factor into a standard cost/benefit analysis, but it is certainly the case, as he pointed out, that they would be fairly costly and that HS2 brings not only speed but capacity.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments, and I will try to be as quick as I can, because I know we have a lot to get through today. The comments by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about the need to have an effective HS2 board are absolutely right; that may well be one solution. As the Minister said, things are improving—we must see how it goes, but it is a good start.
It was interesting that my noble friends Lord Snape and Lord Adonis talked about having too many reports on railways. They are quite right but, as they both said, the Minister is undertaking one at the moment on the east side of phase 2B. That follows the Oakervee recommendation; paragraph 3.7 says that the Government should
“establish a further study to be completed by summer 2020”—
well, it is a bit late—
“to develop an integrated railway plan embracing 2B alongside an integrated railway investment programme for the Midlands and the North”.
That is a really good idea, but now to expect to have one enormous hybrid Bill covering the whole lot, as my noble friend Lord Adonis is suggesting, is not really sensible. It would be double the size of the phase 1 Bill, and that took long enough anyway.
I also respond to my noble friend Lord Snape—or perhaps it was my noble friend Lord Adonis—about the people on the Oakervee review. It is worth reminding ourselves that we had only two months to do this, and the terms of reference were slightly unusual for such a study and did not include anything about the environment —we added something, probably at my suggestion. That was one reason for suggesting that another review, done independently, might be a good idea to cover those matters. I will not go into the likely or actual opinions of the members of the review panel, because, as a result of their diaries, they were unable to spend a great deal of time on it, although they contributed a lot. Anyway, we are where we are, and the Oakervee review got published. There is always an issue with independence. A couple of people who I suggested should join or provide evidence to the review said, “If we do that, we might get blacklisted by the Department for Transport for future studies”. I will not name names, but that was a fear that people had.
It is all over now, and we have had a good discussion. Of course, I will not press the amendment and I look forward to continuing discussion on reports and information, cost/benefits and the environment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that means the clerk in Grand Committee, not the clerk downstairs in the Chamber, who he emailed by mistake.
Amendment 7
Lord Berkeley
“Non-disclosure agreements
(1) The nominated undertaker, or any subcontractors thereof, must not enter into any non-disclosure agreement with any party in connection with the scheduled works unless the assessor of non-disclosure agreements related to the scheduled works (“the assessor”) has certified that it is in the public interest.(2) The Comptroller and Auditor General must appoint a person to be the assessor.(3) The assessor must be—(a) independent, and (b) a current or former high court judge, higher judge or Queen’s Counsel.(4) In this section, “independent” means independent of—(a) Government,(b) HS2 Ltd, and(c) persons contracted or subcontracted to carry out the scheduled works.(5) The assessor must undertake his or her work with a presumption in favour of transparency and public accountability in matters connected to the scheduled works.(6) The assessor must review any non-disclosure agreement between the nominated undertaker, or any subcontractors thereof, and any party in connection with the scheduled works and in place before this section comes into force to certify whether it is or is not in the public interest. (7) The assessor may not determine that a non-disclosure agreement is in the public interest for the purposes of subsection (1) or (6) except for the reason that it is justified because of exceptional commercial confidentiality.(8) If the assessor certifies under subsection (6) that a non- disclosure agreement is not in the public interest that non-disclosure agreement immediately ceases to have effect.(9) In this section, a “non-disclosure agreement” means any duty of confidentiality or other restriction on disclosure (however imposed).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require HS2 to subject all proposed NDAs to independent scrutiny.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment on non-disclosure agreements is relevant to the Bill but covers a much wider scope of government policy than just HS2 or even transport. This amendment was tabled in the House of Commons and got some very interesting discussion going. There is a lot of interest in NDAs and their scope around Parliament around at the moment. There is a lot of concern in the health service, as some noble Lords may know. An all-party group on NDAs has been formed under the able chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who will speak to this grouping.
I emphasise again that I am not trying to see NDAs banned completely, but I think some limit to who is subject to them and what they are used for might help transparency in discussions taking place, particularly in Select Committees on the Bill. The worry from people trying to petition has been that businesses and local authorities have been asked to sign NDAs that have prevented them from getting the information they feel they need from HS2 to be able to petition effectively.
This includes denying information to the elected members of councils. I gather that 31 local councils had NDAs on HS2 in place. It is important with issues that concern local areas, such as road movements, which we will come on to as well, and the effect on industrial estates, to ask how the public interest can be served if information is limited and councils cannot tell even their elected members what they are discussing. I do not know whether the withholding of all this information was intentional, but it is important that access to it is not denied to councils, landowners and businesses to prevent them discussing options and issues.
The idea of banning NDAs completely is obviously not very sensible and I am not proposing that, but what I am proposing is—I am sorry to use the word “independent” again—a process not only for HS2 or its successor but for other railways and projects, as well as the NHS, to make some kind of assessment of whether or not something is in the public interest. I suggest that the assessor should be a current or former High Court judge or someone similar.
I am sure that we will have a lot of debate on this. It is not a showstopper, but a lot of people would gain comfort from knowing that they are able to get the information they need in order to hold a debate on what they want to talk about. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has withdrawn from speaking to this amendment, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for my ineptitude with the mute button. I am afraid that I have been infantilised by the previous system, but I promise to do better.
I strongly support this amendment because this is another thing that ought to be standard in public life. Government works are for the public good and private contractors are there to perform that role for the Government on behalf of the public good. It is about trying to achieve that outcome and transparency should be a central pillar of all public works. Lack of transparency breeds distrust, fuels conspiracy theories and undermines whatever public good the Government are trying to and might achieve in doing the work. In particular, non-disclosure agreements should never be used for political purposes; for example, to avoid embarrassment or controversy. Perhaps the Minister could give us an explanation of the full range of NDAs being used in relation to HS2 and precisely why they are being used. That would help us move forward on this issue.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, while I recognise that there is a fixed order of speakers, I really want to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, because I know that in the past she took up the case of a particular whistleblower. I think that it relates to the time when she was the Minister responsible for HS2. In thinking how I can use creatively the processes of the Grand Committee, now that I know which clerk to email in order to speak after the Minister, if I have anything to say after the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has spoken, I shall do so by those means.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has just said about non-disclosure agreements not being used for political purposes is of course completely correct and all noble Lords would agree with that. I am very keen to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, because I think that she is going set out her concerns about a particular case or cases, and obviously I am also keen to hear the Minister’s response to those.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, has withdrawn from speaking to this amendment and so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Liddle.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am worried that in these discussions I am going to fall out with my noble friend Lord Berkeley, for whom I have great respect, but I hope that that is not the case. However, I think that this is a very odd amendment to attach to a Bill on HS2. There is much wider public concern about the use of non-disclosure agreements, but to add this to an HS2 measure just confirms conspiracy theories about the way that HS2 has been operating. I do not think that there is any great evidence for this and therefore my noble friend should withdraw his amendment.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to support Amendment 7 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, relating to non-disclosure agreements. What on earth does an organisation such as HS2 want non-disclosure agreements for? MI5 and MI6 need secrecy for our national security and Ministers are bound to sign the Official Secrets Act for obvious and long-accepted reasons. It is understandable that employees working at the sharp end of research in companies that are competing with each other might be asked to keep their findings confidential. However, to insist on non-disclosure agreements for those working on a civil engineering project is ridiculous and must be seen as rather sinister.
Is this designed to ensure that no one is allowed to discuss the shortcomings of the project? That must have been hugely harmful to the whole construction process. Greater transparency and honesty might have prevented the problems that have arisen. Transparency leads to discussion and consultation, which eventually lead to efficiency and confidence. Secrecy breeds distrust, lack of communication, incompetence and, inevitably, mistakes, which, in a project the size of HS2, can be disastrous. It is no coincidence that this project encapsulates the worst aspects of both secrecy and incompetence. No one outside HS2 has any up-to-date facts and figures to work with and no one knows how bad things are. The truth will come out in the end, but the acceptance of this amendment might allow some fresh air in sooner rather than later.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Adonis has said, we need some more information and it might have benefited all in the Grand Committee to have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, if she feels that there is a particular problem with whistleblowing on this project. I am rather inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Liddle that this is not the right legislation in which to include such detail, but let us wait and see.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to the Oakervee review, of which he was such a distinguished member, and said that the process was too short and the terms of reference too narrow. He felt that some members did not want to hear witnesses he wanted to call in case they fell out with the Department for Transport as a result. Like my noble friend Lord Liddle, I have a great deal of time and respect for my noble friend Lord Berkeley, so I do not want to fall out with him either, but this is all a bit President Trumpish, in a way. You sit on a commission and there are various aspects of people’s involvement in that commission that are not quite what they should be. If my noble friend feels that something untoward is going on, he ought to tell us about it when he winds up the debate rather than make the implications that he has.
It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham. If I might compliment him by saying so, at least it was a different tune he was playing. The end was pretty much the same, but it was a different tune. We had heard his previous speech, I think, twice on the Floor of the House, once in the Moses Room and at least twice during this Committee. We all knew what he was going to say. The Minister knew what he was going to say. I suspect that the mice in the Members’ Tea Room had an idea about what he was going to say. He is against the project. When I look at the history of his title, I rather think that a lot of his opposition comes from the fact that Framlingham station was closed as long ago as 1952 and the noble Lord has come to the conclusion that if he cannot have any trains, no one else can either. But I will reserve the rest of what I have to say and, like my noble friend, listen with interest to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I think I will have to disappoint at least three Members of the Committee. First, the work on NDAs, which is an area that does exercise me a great deal, is being carried on under the umbrella of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Whistleblowing—a very effective group, chaired by Mary Robinson MP. It is very cross-party—it includes the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, among its distinguished members—and is doing an incredible amount of good work. That is the right place for this to be pursued because it puts it in the very important and powerful context that most of those who personally suffer from NDAs—or, rather, the individual version, normally called a settlement agreement—are whistleblowers.
I am also not going to bring up the individual cases. I would ask the Minister to meet me—although I suppose we will always have to do this virtually—because there are cases of individual whistleblowers that need to be much more central to the attention of the Government. But this is not really the venue to go in detail through their individual cases. They need proper and long discussion. I am also not the right person to put words into those individuals’ mouths—they need their opportunity to make their position understood.
I support this excellent amendment because I think it is rather skilful. It identifies that non-disclosure agreements have long since lost their original purpose. They were meant to be arrangements which would provide confidentiality for proper commercial interests, such as protecting intellectual property or preventing unfair competition. There might be times when they give scope for private discussion, but I think most people can see that that would be very limited.
The amendment also gives primacy to the public interest. What has happened with NDAs is that people are asked to sign them almost as a matter of course in order to get into a meeting, and they have come to be used very widely now simply as a way to make sure that incompetence and wrong behaviour do not get into the public arena.
A number of journalists have done FoIs to try to get a sense of how many NDAs have been signed for HS2, and I was quite shocked to see—looking just at local authorities and civil society-type groups—that there have been some 340. This is just a strategy to prevent transparency in a project that is being paid for by the taxpayer. There should be a presumption of openness and of closure only in those circumstances where it is absolutely required for a valid reason. Right now the assumption is that everything will be secret unless there is some mechanism for opening it up.
As I said, I am particularly concerned about the NDAs which are being used to silence whistleblowers. Again, for people who may not be familiar with this, “NDA” is actually an American term. For individual whistleblowers, these are part of a settlement agreement. As noble Lords know, most whistleblowers are fired pretty much immediately; they lose their jobs and end up in employment tribunals. That drags on for years and then there is a settlement, or they are threatened with retaliation unless they come to a settlement which includes this vow of silence.
Quite a number of whistleblowers on the HS2 project have gone public—at great personal sacrifice. I feel that they should have proper protection, and that is one of the issues I want to discuss with the Minister. Like many in the transport world—including, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—I am aware of many more people who have accepted settlement agreements, including those silence clauses, because they were afraid for their personal livelihood and for their family. Whistleblowers are canaries in the mine. They should be nurtured, not silenced. Serving staff should never be afraid to raise concerns. HS2 has not been exemplary—to put it mildly—on this issue. It has behaved very badly, frankly, to quite a number of its own staff. If anyone doubts that, they should look at the way that information on issues around costings and land ownership compensation has finally surfaced. Instead of government and others being aware early on that there is a problem, the whole issue festers and by the time it reaches the ears of anybody in government, as far as I can tell, it is very difficult to correct a lot of the underlying damage.
I have to say this; it is important. Most of the whistleblowers on HS2 are great supporters of HS2. I am a supporter of HS2. But we want the project to be judged on its genuine merits and not incorrect claims. I do not believe that the project is being helped by the way in which information has come out—delayed, challenged and finally admitted. It has scarred the reputation of the project. It has undermined public trust, frankly, in any information that HS2 now provides and that is a real tragedy.
We politicians have to shoulder responsibility for some of this. There is a pattern whereby the Treasury pressures departments to understate project costs. That has infected not just this project but a lot of major infrastructure projects. Crossrail strikes me as another of these tragedies which have suffered from the need to come up with an attractive claim in order to get approval at various stages. Those who are running projects—and sometimes this includes the Ministers, frankly—are really afraid to admit when costings are shown to be wrong because they are afraid they will then be vilified.
In complex, difficult, long-term projects, attempting to assess the issues and the costs up front is extraordinarily difficult and we need to take that on board and understand that information will change, that facts on the ground will change and that in this very complex situation not everybody will get it right, but we need that correction to happen as soon as possible and for the information to be available in the public arena as soon as possible. Open kimono is really the only way in which to generate trust and sensible decision-making. Frankly, we will never get that kind of transparency unless we deal with this NDA problem and the silence clauses in settlement agreements. Change that framework and people will speak out, we will hear the canaries, and it will be possible to take action in a way that is beneficial to the project and fair to the taxpayer and all the various stakeholders.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We have heard already today about government steps to bring in new arrangements to improve governance, so I hope the Minister will be able to be tell us a bit more about non-disclosure agreements in relation to HS2, because one presumes that has something to do with good governance. My information is that HS2 currently has 342 non-disclosure agreements—that is the figure I have been given—including with businesses and landowners, but that not even a list of the parties with whom those agreements have been made is published, let alone their contents.
Who decides that information relating HS2 is so sensitive that its non-disclosure takes precedence over transparency and the public interest, including, I presume, some information relating to expenditure of taxpayers’ money? Is it the Government who make these decisions? Is it HS2? Is it a party with whom HS2 has a contract or an agreement? What happens if there is a disagreement between parties on whether there should be non-disclosure? Who has the final word?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, are entered into voluntarily with the consent of both parties. In the case of the HS2 programme, NDAs are used for good reason and in the public interest. For example, NDAs may allow HS2 to have open and frank conversations with stakeholders, including local authorities and businesses, on a range of plans and proposals—these are not firm schemes but plans and proposals; they are things that may come to pass or may not. By doing so, it has better access to the information it needs to inform the proposals then put forward. If all possible developments are public at all times, the alarm and concern created in local communities would be simply extraordinary.
NDAs provide huge value to the taxpayer and local communities by reducing generalised blight that would happen otherwise. HS2 entered into agreements with local authorities as part of the very early stages of exploring the different route options. This protected swathes of the country from suggestions of new infrastructure. What would have happened had those suggestions come out? Property values would have plummeted, yet most of those suggestions were just that—suggestions—and they would never have come to fruition.
The private nature of such conversations is helpful. It reduces worry and uncertainty for those affected by the scheme. The use of NDAs also protects the public’s private and personal data. Sometimes, it is necessary to share information between organisations. For example, there might be concerns about somebody’s welfare. HS2 has a duty of care but also needs to share such data in compliance with the law. NDAs allow this to happen. Protecting personally sensitive and project-related data in this way allows the project to avoid affecting property values unduly and to protect individuals’ rights. I am confident that the use of NDAs by HS2 is in the public interest. It is not a way to avoid transparency; it is a way to ensure that HS2 is able fully to scope the costs of the various proposals in a confidential manner and to ensure that whatever proposals are eventually put on the table are those most likely to succeed, while minimising the alarm caused in areas which, frankly, do not need to be alarmed because they were not in the end chosen.
The need for an independent assessor to testify to the public interest has been discussed extensively and considered by the Secretary of State for Transport during the passage of this Bill, including whether it might be pertinent to appoint further observers or implement a new complaints procedure. The conclusion has been that it is right that those who wish to do so should have the opportunity—they do not have to do it—to enter into an NDA with HS2 Ltd. In this sense, people who are affected by the scheme should be allowed to protect themselves and their private conversations with HS2 without concerns that their data will be shared with a third party. Just because these private agreements are just that, private, does not make them invalid or an illegitimate form of protection for the parties—it does not make them shady, as has been the impression I have been given by the speeches of some noble Lords. They are voluntary agreements that can be entered into for various reasons.
If an independent assessor were appointed to scrutinise such agreements, they would be breaching the privacy of those agreements. The appointment of an assessor would effectively prevent the sharing of information on a confidential basis. This would cause delay, which noble Lords tend not to like. It would increase uncertainty —again, a bad thing—and costs for those affected by the project and the cost of the project itself, which is ultimately paid for by the taxpayer.
I want briefly to mention that there are established complaints procedures for members of the public who wish to have their concerns considered through independent scrutiny. As noble Lords are aware from day 1 of Committee, there is Sir Mark Worthington, the independent construction complaints commissioner. There is also the residents’ commissioner, Deborah Fazan, who is in place to hold HS2 to account for the commitments in the residents’ charter. She produces periodic reports on HS2 performance against those commitments. Within HS2, there is an established whistleblowing hotline, called Speak Out. Speak Out provides a route for staff, contractors and members of the public to raise concerns about any potential misuse of taxpayers’ funds.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, mentioned that she would like a meeting. I would very much appreciate a meeting with her, although I might perhaps offer my colleague, Minister Stephenson, as the HS2 Minister. He would be better able to hear her concerns, because we need to get below the whole “Ooh, it’s a bit shady; 342—isn’t that too many?” I do not know: is it too many or is it too few? The whole point is: are the non-disclosure agreements the right ones, and are they reached voluntarily and for the right reasons?
I would like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, perhaps to have a meeting with my colleague, the HS2 Minister, to talk through some of the evidence and some of the things that may have happened in the past, which we have been able to remove, because of the steps that have been taken, and to discuss any ideas that she has for steps that we can take in future to ensure the requisite level of transparency—but also to protect the taxpayer and ensure that confidential conversations can take place when appropriate.
On the basis of my intervention, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
The Minister’s response has been compelling. She is right to point up the importance of HS2 Ltd being able to discuss with local authorities confidentially different route options, treatment of works, and so on. That is completely correct. Of course, if that was not possible, HS2 probably would not be able to have some of those conversations, because the issues raised would be too sensitive. Therefore, I do not think that the case for this amendment has been made even in principle.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is going to come in after me. If she is going to try to persuade the Committee that there should be some more different and onerous process for HS2 Ltd in respect of non-disclosure agreements, she will have to be franker with the Committee about that. I do not think that we should have general statements made that would lead to substantive changes in a non-disclosure agreement that could impede the work of HS2 Ltd, unless we are given instances that we find compelling to justify that.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not think I have anything further to say to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I too would very much appreciate hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
Thank you. I would very much like to take up the Minister’s offer of a meeting with the HS2 Minister, Mr Stephenson. That would be extremely helpful. I hope she might have the opportunity to spend a little bit of time looking at some of the cases. I want to challenge the myth that signing a non-disclosure agreement is essentially voluntary. I think that she will find that it is just standard practice, or a meeting is not offered.
The Minister will also recognise that the non-disclosure agreement then covers everything contained within the meeting. As I say, there may be nuggets that genuinely should remain confidential, but there is a great deal of information that should be out in the public arena. It is a mindset, in a sense, for how organisations conduct themselves—whether it is transparency around information not disclosed on an exceptional basis, when there has been careful thought about whether or not that information should be disclosed, or whether the presumption is that everything will be kept behind the closed kimono and information will made available only on an absolutely must or need-to basis. We need some rethinking on this, because that has not served us well.
The Minister will know from her own experience of looking at infrastructure projects that they come up with shocks. We are probably both very aware of Crossrail, which appeared to be completely on track almost until the very final moments, when we were all expecting the announcement of its opening, when we discovered that it was several years behind.
This issue has to be tackled. The issue of individual whistleblowers is one that I would very much like to take up with Ministers, because a salutary conversation between Ministers and senior management at HS2 could make very significant improvements in that arena.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Well, okay, I thank the noble Baroness for her further intervention. I am not wholly the wiser as to what she is trying to do here. She has mentioned the shock of Crossrail. I was not aware that that was anything to do with NDAs. But she was a Transport Minister, so she knows how projects work, and I was actually discussing Crossrail earlier today and asked exactly the same question about how on earth that happened. It is the case that sometimes, for whatever reason, costs increase, but I was not aware that with Crossrail there was an issue with NDAs. If she has information in that regard, I would be happy to receive it, because it would be news to me.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. I think we are in grave danger of having a debate about what is black and what is white; these are the kinds of things where there is actually a lot of grey in between. I do not think that a sweeping statement saying that all NDAs are wrong is at all helpful, and I do not support it. Similarly, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said, if there really are 340 NDAs for HS2, there is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that they are not all necessary for the good promotion of HS2 and its ideas and discussions. How many of them are more to avoid embarrassment? I do not know whether the Minister will be able to respond to my noble friend Lord Rosser’s request for the reasons but, if not, perhaps I could join the meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and talk about it further.
It has been a useful discussion, but I emphasise that, however it is taken forward, public interest and transparency have to be looked at alongside confidentiality. What I thought was really inappropriate was when I was told that the borehole information at Wendover was confidential. Why should borehole information for anything be confidential, especially when we have a very good geological survey of the whole country?
With those comments, I thank noble Lords who have spoken and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 11. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 11
Baroness Randerson
“Connectivity
(1) The Secretary of State must conduct an annual review of the impact of this Act on the connectivity of the UK Rail Network. (2) The review under subsection (1) must make reference to—(a) the impact of HS2 on connectivity in relation to—(i) the existing rail network, and(ii) new parts of the network constructed during the process of HS2;(b) future connectivity planning.(3) The review under subsection (1) may make reference to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on future connectivity planning.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the review under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, and each calendar year thereafter until 2035.”
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 11, I shall refer to the amendment in the name of the Labour Party.
The finances of HS2 do not stack up, unless it is used as a spine from which to hang a network of substantial improvements to existing rail services and a programme of new lines and stations. Amendment 11 in my name is designed to cover this by way of an annual review by the Secretary of State. The frequency is intended to keep the process of future planning under constant review because, for the sake of efficiency and cost effectiveness, it is essential that there is a steady flow of work for the rail manufacturing and construction industry. The Department for Transport needs to move away from the cumbersome feast-and-famine approach to railway building which has so hampered the industry in recent years.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, queried whether the eastern leg of HS2, phase 2b, would be built following the Minister’s confirmation in our previous debate on Monday that Bills for the eastern and the western legs will be separated. I invite the Minister to tell us whether there is any truth in the rumour that the National Infrastructure Commission, which is developing the strategic rail plan, might recommend that HS2 as a new line should be built only from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway, and that thereafter trains would join the existing main line to Nottingham, Derby and Leeds. Even if that line is improved and electrified, this would mean that there will be no gains in capacity and speed, and it will mean the loss of the economic development potential of HS2 which we have seen so well illustrated already in Birmingham. If there is truth in this rumour, it illustrates the UK’s fatal flaw: our failure to raise our eyes to the horizon, to build for the future, to plan for the future.
The work of Midlands Connect, for example, and its Midlands Engine Rail plans illustrates perfectly the way in which HS2 can and should be used to stimulate major improvements in rail services across the area and, beyond that, further to the north. It has planned three packages of improvements. Package West uses phases 1 and 2a as well as capacity in existing lines which is released by HS2. It would enable 20 more trains per hour into and out of Birmingham Moor Street station, improving links with the south-west, Wales and the east Midlands. There are plans to improve connectivity at Birmingham Airport and for faster trains on existing lines between Birmingham and Manchester. Then there is its Package East: a multimodal strategy to connect towns across the region into the HS2 hub station at Toton. But possibly most significant is its Package Connect. It has plans to enhance the east-west connection between, for example, Crewe and Derby, Nottingham and Lincoln, and so on, significantly improving journey times in an area where the percentage of commuters who travel by rail is woefully low. Why is that? It is largely because the speeds of the trains—the services at the moment—are low, and the services are infrequent. I must also not forget the importance of freight. Putting more goods on to the railways is important, and essential to a green future and to avoiding climate change.
The single unifying factor in all these plans is that they all depend in some way on the impetus that HS2 will provide. A high-speed long-distance railway leads to improved services for commuters, shoppers and leisure travellers as well as additional capacity for freight. Despite the falling numbers of rail passengers, and despite the fact that the pandemic has made us think again, there is every reason to believe that people will return to travel in the future. Indeed, they already have. Already, we are at roughly 100% of pre-pandemic road traffic levels, at a time when only 59% of us are back in work in our offices. If we were all to go back to work as we have done before, that would be an additional 2.7 million cars and other vehicles on the road per day. It is simply not possible and sustainable in terms of congestion, let alone the impact on air quality and emissions. For a green future we have to plan for a modern, fast and efficient railway.
I remind the Minister that in the general election last year the Government received a huge boost from electors in the Midlands and the north, who put their faith in the Government’s levelling-up rhetoric. Now the Government have to deliver on that, and HS2 is a key part of that deal. But as I hope I have illustrated, HS2 must be used as a catalyst for much more—for much greater change—and the north of England and the Midlands will have a pretty dim view of government promises if that does not go ahead as planned. I beg to move.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has made some powerful points. She has also teed me up splendidly because her amendment raises the issue of connectivity. I can see that the Minister is much looking forward to the fact that I am going to speak again about the connectivity of the east Midlands, Yorkshire and the north-east, which is imminently threatened by this review and potential cancellation of HS2 east.
Lest noble Lords think that I am unnecessarily alarmist on this, I am doing my public duty to see that this catastrophic and historic error is not made. Every time I raise this issue and engage with stakeholders, my concerns become greater. Since I made my remarks on Monday I have had a number of private representations, which it would not be proper for me to reveal because I gave non-disclosure agreements in response to those, but I have also had a very significant public representation —which I have forwarded to the Minister to give her an opportunity to respond in her reply—from Professor David Rae, who is a professor of enterprise at De Montfort University in Leicester, an area which would gain enormously from the benefits of HS2 east. Perhaps I may read the key part of his letter to the Grand Committee, because it specifically responds to the points I raised in our previous sitting on Monday. He writes:
“Consistent with your Twitter messages”—
I tweet summaries of my speeches because they are far too long to inflict on the public at their full extent—
“regarding the threatened axing of the HS2 Eastern link, a well-informed source tells me that the National Infrastructure Commission, which is preparing the Rail Plan”—
the one that the noble Baroness keeps referring to, and which she rightly says I do not like because it is the disguise for delaying or cancelling it—
“which will recommend the future investment, is more likely to propose that HS2 East is only built from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway (EMP) and there to join the existing Midland Mainline and follow existing … lines to Nottingham, Derby and North to Leeds. Even if this is approved, there are multiple negative effects. In terms of rail, there will be few gains in either rail capacity or speed, and none north of EMP. In effect the Leeds and Northern HS2 link would be via HS2 to Manchester and thence via Transpennine Rail”.
I should say in parenthesis that that means that the east Midlands would gain very little out of HS2 and the journey times to Leeds and the north-east would be significantly delayed because all of their HS2 journeys would need to go via Manchester. That presupposes that a tunnel is built under the Pennines at high speed to take the line from Manchester to Leeds, which itself, as I know from having looked at the costings, is a hugely expensive and very problematic project.
Professor David Rae continues:
“There is also a large economic development loss to the region. As you will know, the development of the Toton ‘Garden of Innovation’ new community and innovation district around the HS2 station—
the junction station between Derby and Nottingham that is proposed as part of HS2 east—
“is of strategic importance to the region and is one to which the Councils in Derby, Nottingham and respective Counties as well as the Local Enterprise Partnership … are committed. This is crucial to grow the high-value and high-skill capacity of the region, predicated on HS2, and if lost will set back the region’s economic development by 5 years. We simply cannot afford this loss, set against the effects of COVID-19 job losses and anticipated Brexit impacts.”
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, that was a very powerful speech by my noble friend Lord Adonis, and I have very little to add to it. I support this amendment. I think it is sensible that Parliament look regularly at how the HS2 scheme is being used to promote greater connectivity at local and regional levels, and of course I agree with my noble friend’s concerns about the eastern leg of the HS2 plan. The only other point to add concerns the work of the Select Committee. I have sympathy with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser, on the capacity of the county councils to deal with the consequences of the HS2 plan. The Select Committee felt that in one or two cases where we had petitioners making perfectly reasonable points, the county council had not responded to them in the way we would have hoped. There should be a strong message—although I doubt an amendment would be appropriate—that the councils need to gear up to cope with this major project.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, while I support everything that has just been said on this amendment, I do not want to repeat anything. There is a connectivity problem with HS2. If it were decided—wrongly, as has been amply outlined by my noble friend Lord Adonis—to truncate the eastern leg of HS2 somewhere in the east Midlands and, presumably, electrify the existing line so that HS2 trains will join the existing main line at some unspecified point in the east Midlands, there would be an immediate connectivity problem.
In the days when I worked for the railway, on the operating side, the regulation of trains was a fairly simple matter. Trains were broken down into various classifications: A, B, C, et cetera. Class A was an express passenger train, and signallers would normally give priority to such a train, regardless of circumstances —late running, bad weather, et cetera. Since privatisation, of course, things are somewhat different. It never ceases to amaze me sometimes, standing at Birmingham New Street station, to watch a late-running Pendolino train for London Euston being held in the station while a local train booked to leave behind it leaves on time and therefore in front of it, delaying the express passenger train even further. When I ask signallers and people responsible for operating the railway these days why these incidents take place, I am told, “Well, the lawyers will say that that was its booked path and if we delayed it further, there would, of necessity, be compensation payments”.
I raise that technical side for this reason, as far as this amendment is concerned: in Clause 34, “Objectives of Office of Rail and Road”, there are details about railway matters. If we are to have high-speed trains mixed in with existing passenger and freight trains, I just remind noble Lords on both sides that this will happen regardless of the completion of the Y-shaped layout planned for HS2. There will be another regulation problem thrown up by the addition of such trains to the existing traffic. Without going into any great detail, the Select Committee discussed the provision of an altered junction on a short stretch of the west coast main line that would have meant that high-speed trains, instead of joining the “down” fast line on their way to Crewe, actually joined the “down” slow line—again, as the result of the understandable desire to reduce expenditure—cutting over to the “down” fast line some small distance further north. That adds another complication so far as train regulation is concerned, on, as we have already discussed, an already crowded west coast main line. That situation, of course, would be repeated and worsened if the Y-shaped east Midlands leg of HS2 were truncated, as my noble friend Lord Adonis fears.
I have a question for the Minister, going back to Clause 34. I quote from the Explanatory Memorandum:
“The Railways Act 1993 imposes on the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) a duty to address certain objectives in the execution of its non-safety functions. These objectives do not currently contain any explicit requirement for the ORR to facilitate the construction of Phase 2a of High Speed 2. Subsection (1) adds such a requirement and thereby clarifies the ORR’s role for the benefit of the ORR and rail operators.”
My question to the Minister is, what role will the ORR have as far as connectivity and train regulation is concerned? I do not expect her to have the answer off the cuff, and I would be grateful if she would write to me. It is an appropriate matter, I hope she agrees, to raise in connection with this amendment and I hope we can find some way of answering this particular problem concerning the role of the ORR in future.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of these two amendments. They are vital to getting the best out of HS2. Amendment 11 was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, who mentioned 20 trains an hour in and out of Moor Street, and there is a great deal that needs to be done around Birmingham to improve local services there. She and other noble Lords mentioned the problem—or the not very good services—and the tracks that head from Birmingham eastwards towards Nottingham and Derby. I think there is quite a strong argument for either upgrading the existing lines or at least building HS2 section 2b there.
I have more of a problem with making decisions now about what should happen to HS2 between Derby and Nottingham towards Leeds and Sheffield. There are various ways of doing it, such as just upgrading the existing routes or improving the east coast main line, which I know my noble friend Lord Adonis is greatly against, as he said on Monday. However, all these things need to be looked at because when we were doing some of the consultation, such as it was, for the Oakervee report, it was quite clear that the demand for services in the Midlands and the north was primarily for shorter distance and to a large extent east-west, and therefore getting across the Pennines somehow is very important. Whether it is HS2, Network Rail or Transport for the North does not really matter as long as there are services there and further south from Birmingham to the Derby area. The key is to have frequent, reliable services going faster, but whether they need to be separate or together with HS2 is something I think the Minister is looking at in her study.
For me, HS2 is, as my noble friend Lord Adonis said, not a network but a line which starts in London, splits in two and goes to Manchester, and perhaps a little further north to connect with the west coast main line, and to Sheffield and Leeds. The network is there to connect with much improved local services, and therefore the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is very important. It needs to link with, I hope, improved local services.
I also support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Rosser to some extent. It is very important, but we are almost going back to the discussion we had about the Transport and Works Act and hybrid Bills and whether local authorities in the present set up have enough resources and are given enough time in Committee to make their arguments. That is something that I am sure we will continue to discuss over the next few weeks.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Lord Bradshaw? We will move on and I will call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and return to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, if we can connect with him. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I shall be relatively brief. My amendment is on a similar theme to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, but mine relates more specifically to transport provision in Shropshire and Staffordshire. It refers to the construction and maintenance of the HS2 works and to changes to general passenger movement caused by the works and the implications for railway stations in order to keep it within the scope of the Bill.
Shropshire and Staffordshire are not particularly well placed when it comes to public transport, and it looks as though HS2 phase 2a is going to present considerable upheaval for some residents during construction, and perhaps to a degree afterwards, when there is no direct subsequent benefit to them from HS2 phase 2a, as there will be no stations nearby that will give them easy access to the new high-speed service.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe raised the lack of transport infrastructure in Oswestry. Since Second Reading, it has been announced that the bus station in Oswestry could close. On the other side of the coin, there are rumours of the Government supporting the reopening of a railway station in Oswestry. Can the Minister say whether the Government would support such a station and obviously then the restoration of a rail link to Oswestry?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Lord Bradshaw, I think you are muted. You have to unmute yourself with the new system. Lord Bradshaw, I am sorry, but as we cannot connect with you, we will move to the Minister.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, connectivity between HS2 and the wider network and the impacts of HS2 on that network are critical concerns. The central aim of HS2 is to improve connectivity along its length and to ensure that it integrates with all modes of transport, including local rail and bus networks.
On rail specifically, noble Lords will be aware that Crewe, at the northern end of phase 2a, has a long history as an important hub on the railway network. Construction of phase 2a will allow passengers who connect through Crewe currently also to connect to HS2 services. This will significantly improve rail connectivity, and we expect regeneration benefits at the station and in the surrounding areas. The details of those services cannot be defined now but will be worked out in due course through existing rail operations processes.
The time to assess the connectivity benefits of phase 2a, whether by rail or indeed any other mode, will be when the railway has been built and the services have been planned such that other services can be connected to them. In the meantime, the Government continue to invest in local and longer range transport infrastructure in the UK to improve connectivity and capacity, and we continue to identify and assess problems and possible solutions.
We continue to talk to local communities and railway operators and to invest in infrastructure and services that level up opportunities for everyone across the country. For example, the Restoring Your Railway programme includes an ideas fund that provides development funding for early stage ideas to explore options to restore lost rail connections. Ten proposals are already being funded at the development stage so that they can move from the first round of the ideas fund to the subsequent stages.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked about the role of the ORR, and I shall be honest with him that I will have to write, but I will happily do so.
Many noble Lords have tried to lure me into a discussion of connectivity and services beyond phase 2a, but I fear that I would only repeat myself and I cannot countenance repetition, so I will not be lured at this point. We are talking about phase 2a, and I believe that there are huge opportunities for its connectivity, many of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and of course the Government take into account those sorts of opportunities whether or not one is building HS2 in the area because local connectivity is always important.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the question of the impact of construction on the transport networks in Shropshire and Staffordshire has been considered quite extensively in the environmental statement. The majority of the phase 2a route passes through rural Staffordshire. As I can confirm from my own visit to the route, some of the sites are accessible only by very minor roads. The environmental statement that accompanies the Bill therefore gives significant consideration to the issue of getting workers to and from the worksites in the most efficient and least disruptive manner.
The draft code of construction practice sets out that workforce travel plans will be developed with the relevant highway authority and these will take into account public transport and cycling and walking routes. It is our expectation that the existing railway network will not be used much on a daily basis by workers on HS2 phase 2a. The environmental statement, taking a reasonable worst-case approach, assumes that all workers will commute either in a car or in a van, with some element of ride-sharing. Worker accommodation will be provided at some locations, and this will reduce the volume of journeys. We also expect many of the workers to travel outside peak hours.
I therefore do not see the merit of requiring an annual review of rail connectivity, as suggested in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. There will be ongoing discussions about connectivity that will develop over time. The provision of transport in Staffordshire and Shropshire has already been looked at, but, of course, we will continue to be open to opportunities for further improvements. I hope that on this basis, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, my comments are about connectivity and probably relate more to Amendment 11 than to Amendment 14. The Minister has just spoken about connectivity, so it seems to be an appropriate moment to follow that point. I declare an interest in that I have close family living near the place where the trains will pass.
HS2 is a hugely expensive and long, drawn-out process; it should be viewed in that context. I am a supporter of high-speed rail, with the qualification that it is not satisfactory that direct travel between London and the north will still not be possible. Instead, travellers and their baggage will need to leave the station in Birmingham that they arrived at and swap to the new terminus, which, I understand, is to be called Birmingham Curzon Street, and is some distance away. This is not good enough for the 21st century; people are used to travelling with less disturbance and more convenience than that. This is an opportunity not to be missed to make a better connection.
I also concur with noble colleagues who have commented on trains, speeds, tracks and their suitability. There really is not much more that I need to say, because so much has been said, and I have been very impressed and interested, but I am a supporter. I hope that in the end this line will provide excellent connections and direct travel from London to the north. I wish it well.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Gardner for joining the Committee and sharing her thoughts with us. I am pleased that she supports HS2. She raised some issues about Birmingham, and I do not have the information to hand. I will write to her with further information about connectivity and the issues she raised about access to Birmingham Curzon Street.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this short debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for the impetus he has provided to us all with his points about the eastern leg and the whole issue of connectivity. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, pointed out, the importance of getting across the Pennines is one of the main points here. He also emphasised the demand for shorter-distance travel, which, of course, is what is freed up on existing lines by the building of HS2.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, deals specifically with issues in Shropshire and Staffordshire, and we might return to that later in the debate on road transport. There is clearly a very important need to improve transport links there. I say to the Minister, who said she wanted to stick to phase 2a: some of the examples I gave her from the Midlands Engine deal specifically with phase 1 and phase 2a and initiatives that flow from the existence of phase 2a. I am disappointed that she has failed to address in detail the point of my amendment, which is to force continued planning on HS2 as we move forward, and to integrate HS2 with other infrastructure developments in the areas through which it passes.
The rail industry is crying out for a smooth flow of future planning. It does not prosper from the stop-start approach, and there is a need for a smooth process in order to maintain skills and capacity within the industry generally. Having said that, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 12. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 12
The Earl of Lytton
“Mitigation of loss or inconvenience to owners or occupiers of land used in these works
In any matter relating to the entry on, occupying or acquiring of, private land, the nominated undertaker must take all necessary steps to mitigate the inconvenience or loss to any owner or occupier of that land.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that best practices in minimising loss or inconvenience are followed by HS2 Ltd and its contractors.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is fortuitous that this amendment follows the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about Amendment 7. I stumbled across this matter almost by accident in discussion with various bodies and individuals over the operation of the HS2 Ltd land acquisition regime. I am particularly indebted to Andrew Shirley of the Country Land and Business Association, of which I happen to be a member, and Kate Russell of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, of which I am not a member. I have also spoken to other chartered surveyor practitioners of the dark arts of compulsory purchase and compensation who have been prepared to share their experience with me. To some extent, the amendment builds on earlier amendments before Grand Committee on day one.
Kate Russell forwarded me a copy of a lengthy letter she sent on 1 June 2020 to Thomas Barry at the DfT in response to the general question—I paraphrase—what could be improved? Noble Lords will be glad that I paraphrase the seven pages of that letter, but I have permission to show it to any noble Lord who may be interested and to whom I have not already forwarded it to, but I have sent it to the Minister and those who spoke to Amendment 5. Bear in mind that this is sent by an official of a professional body, not a disaffected claimant’s agent. Even so, I would not have attached such importance to a single letter had it not encapsulated many of the same sentiments independently expressed to me by others. Please also bear in mind that phase 2a naturally follows the procedures laid down for phase 1.
Kate Russell first explained that the issues being encountered over land and property acquisition went far beyond the normal range and severity that she would have expected. In her letter, she encouraged the department to pause for reflection—a figurative pause, that is, because of course she did not ask for everything to be stopped—because of uncertainties due to design refinements, consequential to the reality of land acquisition and the implications for and disruption to claimants. She outlined the significant stress levels not only for claimants but also to professionals involved and that this has been directly due to the manner in which HS2 Ltd had been handing cases. So bad was this that the very notion of working on HS2 cases has become an issue in professional recruitment and retention, with her members seeking guidance because requirements of their tasks seemed to be at odds with professional codes of conduct.
Her letter goes on to cite several underlying causes. I truncate this, but there was the scale and timeframe of the undertaking and the implications of that, the highly impersonal manner in which the claims were handled and HS2 Ltd’s apparent desire for total consistency above all else in what is a sea of highly variable individual cases—in other words, uniformity in preference to fair balance to individual circumstances.
Of course, everyone recognises the need for value for money in these huge schemes, but the underlying sense expressed to me by another commentator was that the Treasury’s hands were around the financial throat of the department, which in turn has its around the neck of HS2 Ltd and so on, with HS2 Ltd acting in a similar manner towards its suppliers, professionals and, last of all, at the end of the supply chain, the claimants. This, in varying terms, was reflected in the views of everyone I spoke to on the point. The suggestion is that the structure and chain of command of this project is in large part to blame.
Ministers have publicly professed “compassion, fairness and respect” as objectives—or did, until the terminology changed to “compassion, dignity and respect”. When I heard the comments of noble Lords on Amendment 2, I wondered whether this terminology had been intended to refer to the graves and memorials of the long dead rather than to the pressing imperatives of the living. But the word fairness none the less seems to have disappeared.
The visible symptoms of this malaise are these: shifting the burden of proof and justification on to claimants even when it is plain that there must be a reasonable case in principle; challenging every claim line by line; the adoption of the unique HS2 Ltd “take” on matters such as injurious affection and then claiming that this is established practice; delaying payment for as long as possible by these means, or seemingly so; and claimants being driven to the point where they will give up and take whatever is offered to them because they simply cannot go on any longer. We have already mentioned the temporary access provisions which appear to have been used to occupy land first and deal with claimants’ costs at leisure. There is also the demand for professional service suppliers to adhere to these objectives as a priority over their professional rules of conduct, as I explained earlier, as well as overturning their recommendations if it suits. Finally, there is control from the centre to ensure uniformity with no delegation of any decision-making, regardless of the rigidity that results from the process.
Some of these tactics are commonplace and are easy to slant either way. For instance, if you make an internal, unminuted decision to apply a “beyond reasonable doubt” criminal proof standard to compensation claims in what should be a balance of probabilities civil test, that requires no new laws or regulations and can easily be defended as financial control, but which does lasting injustice. Similarly, if you ask for clarification for further and better details, not just once but drip-fed one after the other and each taking a turnaround time of several weeks, that can paraded as diligence. The timeframe can be endlessly spun out and, where payment is involved, delay the pay-out. Another tack when confronted with anything like a complaint is to deny everything to the point of calling black white.
These things are not unique to HS2 Ltd; they are part of the standard pattern of behaviour of large organisations which think that they are beyond the need for customer care or are too big to fail, or have only themselves or a government parent as a regulator, or believe that the noble purpose of their mission is more important than conduct, ethics and fairness, or perhaps all of these.
In our debate on Amendment 5, the Minister took a particular dislike to my reference to the perception of coercion: I did use that word. Perhaps she would prefer “strong-arm tactics” as an alternative, but this does seem to be what is going on here—not yet on an industrial scale, I suspect, but significant enough to matter and important enough for measures to be taken to reduce it, as suggested by Miss Russell. Please understand that this has nothing to do with the adequacy of the compensation claim; it is about the mode, culture and characteristics of implementation.
There are four basic principles that need to apply here. First, there has to be a high degree of accountability in the areas of ethics, fairness, transparency and professionalism, and that has to be embedded in the very culture of the organisation with a comprehensive and effective code of practice. Secondly, there has to be independent oversight and monitoring. Thirdly, there has to be an effective and accessible redress system. Fourthly, there have to be meaningful sanctions for poor practices in appropriate circumstances. The amendment would pave the way for this approach, but I acknowledge that it would require proper resourcing.
In particular among large construction enterprises and administrative organisations, there is a belief in spending much fine gold in defending the process in which they are engaged. Directors get together in order to defend the principle of their existence and what they are involved in. With that comes the question of the exercise of power for its own sake instead of making that process more efficient and transparent. I cannot count the number of times I have pointed out that this is a false philosophy that merely increases friction, although I do not doubt that it gives the impression of being busy, however fruitlessly.
With HS2 Limited I am getting the message that whatever form of corporate social responsibility is at work, it is not one that professionals or citizens universally recognise as a modern or effective duty of care or that it is confined to handling claims. The resultant delays, lack of trust, uncertainty, added disputes, blame shifting and financial loss and so on are capable of being mitigated to good effect were there, as Miss Russell suggests, a claimant strategy document that is worthy of the name, incorporating the four principles I have mentioned. Miss Russell has also told me that in September she inquired of the Department for Transport about such a strategy, having mentioned it in her letter, but she was told that it would be out “soon”, a word I have heard used so often by Government Ministers but which is then followed by no visible action, so that it has nearly lost all meaning and value. However, confirmation that this is somewhere in the pipeline does underline my general point about the need for action.
I invite the Minister simply to confirm that the production of a claimant strategy document is imminent, that it will be independently assessed and not just some internal box-ticking exercise, and that it will be available for us to scrutinise in draft at any rate before the Bill leaves this House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn from speaking to this amendment so I call the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst.
Lord Haselhurst (Con) [V]
My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. In general, while of course one should uphold the idea of best practice in these circumstances, we are never going to get to a situation where best practice is perfect practice.
I have seen the law on compensation tightened over many years and become more rigorous and more extensive. The present situation is that it is backed up, in the case of the hybrid Bill procedure, with the opportunity for an individual, community or business to bring their grievance to Parliament. The HS2 Bill has been through that process in the Commons and in the Lords.
One should remember that there will always be two parties to any negotiation. Our committee listened with great sympathy to many of the points that were made to us. Our job was to try to push both sides together to reach an agreement. Many an agreement was made, some of them without the petition having to be brought as far as the committee. Some claims seemed slightly far-fetched—that must be honestly admitted—whereas others were deeply emotional and it was difficult to find the absolutely correct way of addressing them.
I have seen various things in my political lifetime relevant to a discussion of this kind. In my first constituency, Middleton and Prestwich, those two towns were suddenly separated by a six-lane highway, the M62. That project finally tipped the Government of the day into recognising that it is not just land-take that should be measured in circumstances of that kind but that there are various other factors, such as noise disturbance, obviously. That led to the Land Compensation Act 1973.
For most of my political life I was the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which it was designated that London’s third airport should be established, at Stansted. The battle over where the third London airport should be put was fought for over 40 years. I was the unlucky person who was finally overridden in the campaign by the Government of the day. But I saw a whole host of types of grievances that arose and there is nothing more potent than aircraft taking off a mile or two away from where you live. One understands that the very concept of a high-speed railway gets people on the defensive, quite rightly.
However, I honestly do not recognise that from my recent experience on the HS2 hybrid committee. I think a great measure of justice has been done, as far it as can be when you are talking about the construction of a railway of this magnitude. I say to the noble Earl that I do not recognise too much of what he has just described to the Committee. What other colleagues who were alongside me on the committee would say I do not know but I think it was our general recognition, as may be judged from the report, that we were able to get accords in many difficult situations. Not all of them—maybe one or two of the claims were extravagant —but by and large petitions kept being withdrawn because an agreement was reached.
I just do not know whether it is possible at this stage to put into legislative form a compensation system which will ever be universally acceptable. There will always be consideration of the other side. If there is going to be wider public complaint about the rising cost of great infrastructure schemes of this kind, there has to be some sort of control on the level of compensation given, which will not, alas, fully satisfy every single person affected by the project. So I honestly do not see the need for an amendment of the kind proposed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I then call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Snape.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst. As members of the committee, we heard some familiar feelings from many of the petitioners. During my time in Westminster, I have served on committees on four hybrid Bills. Without exception, people affected by works of this kind go through various stages of concern, fear and outrage that their property could be taken, altered or knocked down. It is an inevitable consequence of projects of this size. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, I thought that those who appeared in front of the committee were treated pretty well by HS2 and its representatives. Like him, I saw many of them withdraw those petitions before it was necessary for us to come to a decision.
On all the hybrid Bills that I have served, without exception and across party, Members of both Houses have been aware of the sense of loss that people go through when their property is affected. We buy houses, too; we cherish our own homes and feel terribly strongly when projects such as this affect us.
Dealing with large organisations is never easy; I speak with some feeling here. I spent last night and the best part of about two hours this morning trying to get some sense out of Virgin Media, so I know how people feel and how irritated they become at saying the same thing to different people in the same organisation, but, by and large, it seemed to us on the committee—I think I speak for all of us who were on it—that HS2 did its best.
When Theo Clarke MP appeared before the committee on behalf of her constituents and others affected by this project, the chairman handled the matter in an exemplary way. The committee chairs on all the four hybrid Bills in which I have been involved have been pretty good, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, given his experience, was excellent in the way he handled both petitioners and HS2. Without knocking any heads together, and in his calm way, he got them to come to some sort of compromise. Therefore, like previous speakers, I do not see any need for this amendment. I just say to the Minister that if she can satisfy the noble Earl’s correspondent on every single one of those complaints, she will not be an Under-Secretary for very long.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have heard many noble Lords say that there is not a problem because the Select Committee, if it received complaints, dealt with them. I suspect that, if there was a problem and people got as far as petitioning about it, the committee would have made sure as best it could that it was solved, and that is very good.
However, I have also heard many examples of people not being paid, and some landowners who have found that HS2 was trespassing on their land, and maybe doing damage to it, not being paid for months or even years. That has been a common thing—and I suspect that both examples are equally valid. The real issue here is that, if there is no problem, the amendment does no harm to anybody. If there is a problem, it will encourage HS2 to behave, and pay for what it intends to occupy permanently or temporarily.
I suspect that the issue may have been something to do with the timing: the Select Committee sat for a certain time and the HS2 Bill has been around for several years. In the intervening period, what do people do if they suffer hardship? There is a lot of evidence, which I think that the Committee has heard before, that the budget that HS2 was given for land purchase by the department, and which the department was given by the Treasury, was woefully inadequate—probably about 50% of what was needed. That is probably one of the reasons, apart from having too much work to do, and maybe incompetence—I do not know—for late payments. HS2 and Ministers will have to do all in their powers to make sure that that it does not happen again for the next phase or two. There may be lessons to learn. In the meantime, I cannot see what is wrong with the amendment, which might incentivise HS2 and other businesses to behave in what is normally thought of as a normal business relationship.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue. In a way, this amendment goes alongside the previous one on NDAs. You wonder why the use of NDAs is apparently routine in an organisation on this scale. The problem with routine use of NDAs is that, while no individual one is possibly downright wrong, the whole oversight of the scheme gets suppressed. Therefore, it becomes difficult to see those early symptoms of things not working as they should.
We must also bear in mind that it is very easy for an organisation the size of HS2 to look overbearing, unfeeling and unreasonable. It is therefore very much in everyone’s interests that it operates as a good business with the highest ethical standards. It is, after all, a programme and a business for the future, producing something that will be at least 10 years in the making. Therefore, it needs to have modern, responsible business practices.
I suggest to the Minister that, while I am sure she will not want to accept the amendment, it would be an idea for the business practices of HS2 to be given a good look, with this amendment and issue in mind.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I will be brief. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, this amendment is about the attitude and approach of HS2. I tried to make a note of some of the things that he referred to. I think he referred to a highly impersonal manner and to the level of control to ensure uniformity of approach when not all cases are similar. I think he referred to the shifting of the burden of proof, to the delaying of payments and to the challenging of decisions line by line. I think he also referred to how it seemed that the Treasury put pressure on the DfT, which put pressure on HS2 regarding finances, and to how eventually all that financial pressure being applied was reflected down the line in the approach to claimants.
I will listen with interest to what the Minister says in reply and, in particular, to whether she accepts that there is validity in what is being said. The noble Earl clearly believes that there is, and I imagine that he is far from the only one who thinks that that is the approach of HS2. I know the Minister will take what has been said seriously. However, I hope very much that she will be able to offer some words that will at least indicate that she will look at the issue and seek to address the concerns raised.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to this amendment I need to apologise. There was an error in my speaking note on Monday which I need to rectify. The error was in the statement that I made in relation to Amendment 13, dealing with advance payments of compensation for temporary possession of land. I stated that the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 provides for advance payment of compensation in relation to the temporary possession of land and that the amendment was therefore redundant. While it is correct that Section 24 of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017 will provide for advance payment of compensation in relation to temporary possession, these provisions will not apply to temporary possession of land under the powers of this Bill. This Bill, like previous hybrid Bills and previous orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992, has a bespoke regime for temporary possession of land which does not provide for advance payments. In my detailed response to the noble Earl, which I have already promised to provide, I will give further details as to the practice of HS2 in respect of the timing of payments of compensation for the temporary possession of land. I will circulate this to all noble Lords who spoke in Committee and place a copy in the Library of the House. I reiterate my sincere apologies that that happened. It will not happen again.
I turn to the amendment. We have heard the underlying concerns which may have led to this amendment and I will set out what the Government are doing about them. Land is needed for the HS2 scheme to build the railway. Some of this land is purchased by agreement but most of the land is acquired through compulsory purchase. This is an unavoidable fact of building most new transport infrastructure and I recognise that, to those affected, it can be devastating. Most individuals affected will accept what the coming of this scheme means for them, come to terms with it and find a way to come to an agreement with HS2 as to when their land will be acquired and what compensation they will receive under the compensation code. For some, they will be happy with the arrangements and agree that their treatment by HS2 has been fair and proper.
However, a few landowners will feel that they have been unfairly treated. They may feel that there is inadequate compensation or that HS2 has not taken due note of their specific individual circumstances. The Government have taken note of those individuals and have been reviewing how they can improve the way in which the project is delivered for all those affected. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked if we would have a good look at the business practices in this area, and we have already committed to do so.
My colleague Andrew Stephenson has instigated a rigorous land and property review to assess the wider concerns that the amendment seeks to ameliorate. The letter provided by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, will form part of the evidence for that review, and I am pleased to be able to say that this review will be published very shortly. Of course, Sir Mark Worthington OBE, the Independent Construction Commissioner, deals directly with the complains of individuals affected by the project.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken; those who have been in favour of this amendment and those who think it is unnecessary. This was essentially a probing amendment—a fishing expedition, if you like—to discover the existence of or progress towards a document that I considered important.
I have noted what noble Lords said about the compensation code. I said in my opening remarks that this was not about the fact of the compensation code, and I tried to steer clear of any question of the quantum of compensation, because that is really quite outside my brief and my knowledge. I do know a fair bit about large projects, because when I worked in a public service, I had to deal with something called the A27 Folkestone-Honiton trunk road. I advise noble Lords that it has reached neither Folkestone nor Honiton, and there are large gaps on the way, but, hey-ho, that is what happens with these things. I also know very well about Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973—the compensation for physical factors where no land is taken, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst. The point here is that I had identified that the Department for Transport had something in train. I do understand that no compensation system can cover everything and no set of procedures in a large organisation can deal with every eventuality.
I am not sufficiently familiar with the process of how petitioners come to appear before the Select Committee. I do not know whether that happens after the point at which they have been in negotiation on compensation matters or beforehand in the prospect of something happening. Certainly with regard to phase 1 of HS2, I am not sure how much of the land acquisition and the acquisition of rights has actually taken place; I suspect that it is not a great deal and that a lot of design work is going on that needs to be sorted out before that can happen. The point I am getting at is that the Department for Transport seems to have admitted that it is doing something and I want to draw out the facts on that and find out what is happening, to provide some background to the reason why that was important.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their comments. I note also what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said about whether the validity of these things is appropriate or not. I turn now to the comments made by the Minister. I did wonder about the question of advance payments and I accept entirely her correction. However, I would say simply that there is an issue here. I am glad that the Government are looking at ways of improving the position and that they are committed to the land and property review, but I am not sure that I am encouraged by “very shortly” as a term of art and whether it is materially better than “soon”, “presently” or whatever other terminology is used. I am particularly interested in the point made by the Minister that there is no requirement to conclude an agreement before entry, or at least that is what I understood her to say.
I will say this: if you do not settle and get an advance compensation payment before entry, you will have someone who has had the use of their land removed, with all the disruption that that entails, but who does not have the money for restructuring or anything like that. In some cases, that may be harmless and inconsequential. After all, you do not earn much by depositing money in the bank these days. In other circumstances, however, I can see that it would be absolutely mission critical for the operation that is being compensated, so that needs to be looked at closely.
I welcome the opportunity of a meeting with the noble Baroness and Mr Stephenson. With that, although I may return to this matter later on in the progress of the Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to Amendment 15. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 15
Lord Rosser
“(5) The scheduled works may not commence until the Secretary of State has published a report considering the impact of road traffic resulting from the works.(6) The report must include—(a) an assessment of estimated levels of road traffic resulting from the works;(b) an assessment of the conditions of any roads which may experience an increase in traffic as a result of the works;(c) results from a consultation of residents and local authorities likely to be impacted in each Parish in which the works take place.”
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
This amendment provides that the
“scheduled works may not commence until the Secretary of State has published a report considering the impact of road traffic resulting from the works”,
and goes on to stipulate certain issues that the report must cover, including the
“results from a consultation of residents and local authorities likely to be impacted in each Parish in which the works take place.”
I want to refer to a specific case, which is one reason for my amendment. The Select Committee report contains a reference to a petition from Woore Parish Council, Woore being on the Shropshire/Staffordshire border. The petition focused on the impact on the village of construction traffic, primarily to service the works at the Madeley tunnel site, that would run via the A51 and the A525, which meet at a crossroads in the village itself. This would entail the widening of those roads and other works at certain points. The village shop is right where the lorries will turn and during the day there is likely to be a lorry every five minutes. The Select Committee said that there were important matters affecting the safety of the public and that these needed to be discussed between the parish council, HS2 and Shropshire County Council. It urged all the parties to have those discussions as soon as possible.
I understand that until now engagement by HS2 has been felt locally in Woore to be less than satisfactory. This is far from the first occasion when local communities that are going to be heavily affected by the impact of HS2 construction traffic over a lengthy period have felt that HS2 has been less than understanding and sympathetic to their valid concerns or willing to engage fully with local residents and local authorities to address those concerns and minimise impacts. I am aware of issues of this kind in relation to phase 1, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, referred on Monday when he said that even his successor as Member of Parliament for Uxbridge, namely the current Prime Minister, had just as much trouble getting answers out of HS2 as he did. What lessons do the Government think have been and are being learned by HS2 from phase 1 on this key issue of effective and meaningful engagement with local communities? Will those lessons learned be properly applied in phase 2a?
HS2 is a company whose basic purpose is to get the new line built. For it, I suspect, engaging with and addressing concerns raised by local communities about the impact of construction works in particular is a secondary issue compared to what must be major engineering issues associated with construction of the line which it has to address. However, to local communities the impact of construction works on them and their daily lives is the issue associated with the construction of HS2, particularly so when the opening of HS2 brings no obvious direct benefit to their community. Whatever the reality may be, HS2 does not always give the impression to local communities directly affected that it recognises this reality.
My amendment seeks to deal with this point. If the Government decline to accept it, I would like to know why they think it is not needed and why they are so confident that the kind of feelings felt in the village of Woore towards HS2 and its perceived lack of engagement and understanding of the impact of construction traffic on the village will be addressed and how.
The impact on Woore of the construction of HS2 is far from the only concern. Three parish councils have raised major concerns relating to HS2’s plans for the Stone railhead/infrastructure maintenance base. The Select Committee called for discussions as soon as possible between HS2, Shropshire Council and Woore Parish Council. The body most directly affected by the impact of the construction of HS2 is the parish council.
There is now a dedicated Minister for HS2 and a cross-government ministerial group. What will their involvement be in ensuring that HS2 engages properly with local communities such as Woore? Will the impacts on local communities and how they are being addressed be dealt with fully in the six-monthly reports to Parliament? Can the Minister assure me that if Woore Parish Council feels that the discussions which the Select Committee has called for are somewhat delayed or are not being entered into in the spirit and with the intent that the Select Committee clearly envisaged, as the body most directly affected by the impact of the construction of HS2 it can take its concerns about the discussions direct to the dedicated Minister for HS2? I hope the Minister will be able to go some considerable way towards addressing the issue to which my amendment relates. I beg to move.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser. We had a considerable discussion at the Select Committee about this matter; we felt then, and I certainly feel now, that these are matters for the local highway authority rather than a Committee of the House or the Minister herself. If the representations made by the parish council to Shropshire Council as the highways authority are powerful enough, surely they will be acted on. If they are not acted on, obviously the remedy is in the hands of local people at the next council elections. Beyond listening with some degree of sympathy to the petitioners at the time, we felt that, and I certainly feel now, that these matters are best discussed and debated and agreed at local level, and that this is a matter for the local highway authority. From that point of view, I do not see why the Minister should accept an amendment that would delay construction until these discussions have concluded. Given the Covid epidemic, I presume that that will be the reason why things have not progressed as quickly as we might have hoped. Still, I repeat, these matters are best debated and agreed at local level rather than in Parliament.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, there is a lot of merit in this amendment. As my noble friend Lord Snape says, it should not be necessary because local authorities should be required to deal with HS2, but clearly, in some cases, this does not happen. There is a similarity between what my noble friend Lord Rosser is trying to achieve with this amendment and what we will probably be discussing under Schedule 23 stand part. That is that, before any work starts, there should be a condition survey of the road and the traffic so that one can see what changes, if any, have been brought about by the construction and then, as necessary, deal with it. It is easy to say that local authorities should deal with it, but there needs to be a fallback that, if that does not work, the Minister’s door is always open so that he can deal with it and, if he thinks it is a reasonable request, he can instruct or advise HS2 to do a little more local engagement and respond to what may be justifiable complaints or concerns from the local authorities or residents.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, the road traffic issue is one of the thorniest problems associated with this project. When you look at many of the objections or petitions to the Committee, they are actually objections to the building process. That is not surprising: people do not want heavy traffic going past their door when they are not used to it. On the one hand, of course, residents and environmental groups have pressed for more tunnels. There are expensive lengths of tunnels planned. However, with more tunnels and long tunnels, every mile of tunnel adds greatly to the amount of site traffic, with lorries having to remove soil as well, of course, as lorries carrying heavy equipment to the site.
A series of initiatives and techniques is proposed by HS2 to mitigate the impact of the traffic. However, I fear that the use of local roads—and the M6, for example —is bound to impact on travel times and convenience for people way beyond the area close to the line of the project. Schedule 17 ensures that construction routes are submitted to local planning authorities for approval, so I have some questions for the Minister. First, the Committee’s report says in paragraph 69:
“Construction routes used by large goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes would require the approval of the local highway authority, except where they were using motorways or trunk roads and access to compounds with less than 24 two-way trips per day”.
That is 48 HGVs rolling past your window on a daily basis, which may not make much difference if you are on a major A road but would make a huge difference if you were on a quiet back road. Is this exception in relation to compounds, of the 24 two-way trips a day, a standard provision in construction contracts of this sort?
Secondly, given that it is the local planning authority that will make the decision on routes like this, what happens if the local planning authority withholds approval and cannot reach agreement with HS2 on a reasonable alternative route? Who then decides and where does the decision go? I hope that the Minister can provide us with some answers on that.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the impact of the works on local communities is of critical importance to the Government, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for tabling his amendment to allow us to have this discussion.
The environmental statement for phase 2a runs to some 17,000 pages and, within it, there is set out in great detail the impact of the proposed scheme on local traffic levels. To manage traffic flow, the phase 2a Bill includes powers for the control of construction traffic, requiring qualifying authorities to approve the local roads to be used by large goods vehicles—and this was noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson—where the number of large goods vehicles exceeds 24 trips per day, to or from a site. That is in total, yes, 48 trips, which over a 12-hour period is one every 15 minutes. The noble Baroness asked whether that was a standard provision in contracts. I shall have to write to her on that matter.
In addition, in the Bill there is a statutory duty on the nominated undertaker to have regard to the potential traffic disruption that may be caused and seek to minimise such disruption so far as reasonably practicable. I suspect that local communities will use that to make sure that action is taken, if there are measures that could be taken but which have not been taken.
As the project progresses and construction plans are finalised—and at the moment we should remember that this railway is not being built; there is no construction at all, so plans are still in development—local traffic management plans will be developed alongside these plans with local authorities, agreeing approaches to highways and public rights of way so that the impact on local communities is minimised.
Members of the public were able to petition the Bill Select Committees of both Houses. Further local mitigation measures have been introduced to the scheme to remove or reduce traffic and transport impacts on the basis of recommendations made by those Select Committees. In some cases, that included restricting and reducing construction traffic, maximising the use of rail and haul roads, and undertaking further traffic surveys.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raised the village of Woore. I took some time to look at my phone and see on Google Maps where Woore is, and it is at the junction of the A51 and the A525. While I have every sympathy for those who will be impacted, because there will be an increase in traffic and construction traffic, it is not the case that at the moment they do not have any traffic going through their village, which is at the confluence of two A roads. We need to make sure that they get the sort of measures that they are expecting. My understanding is that there has been no failure of engagement with Woore and that traffic-calming measures have been offered. Perhaps there has been a mismanagement of expectation here. As construction plans are developed, traffic management plans can be developed; without them, we can have all the engagement in the world, but that will not actually achieve anything until there are construction plans to put into play.
I am sure that Minister Stephenson, when we meet him next week, will have something to say about his ongoing commitment to community engagement and how he intends to be involved with it, since it is a very important part of his work. In the meantime, I hope that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
There are no questions to the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
I first thank the Minister for her reply and all noble Lords who participated in the debate. I just comment that I made it clear when I made my contribution that it was at the junction of the A51 and the A525 in the centre of the village. I also said that what would be entailed was widening of those roads and other works at certain points and that that junction was right at the centre of the village.
I have perhaps made some progress. It was after all the Select Committee that said that there needed to be further discussion as soon as possible—because safety issues were involved—between HS2, Shropshire Council and the parish council. I was not asking the Minister—nor do I think she took it this way—to immediately intervene. I asked that, now we have a dedicated Minister for HS2 and a cross-government ministerial group, what would be their involvement in ensuring that HS2 engages properly.
This is not the first occasion that we have had local communities saying to us that in their view—rightly or wrongly—they do not feel that HS2 engages as well as it should. I also asked whether, if the discussion with the parish council was either delayed or not being entered into in the spirit and intent that the Select Committee envisaged, it could take its concern to the direct dedicated Minister for HS2. I think that, in her closing comments, the Minister referred to the role of the Minister for HS2 in making sure that there was community engagement. I appreciate that that was on a general basis—she was not talking specifically about this case—but I hope that this is one where, if the parish council still believes that the discussion is not being entered into with the right spirit and with the necessary intent, it would not be dismissed by the dedicated Minister for HS2 if it made an approach to him with its concerns. It is then obviously up to the Minister what he would or would not do in the light of that approach.
Having made those comments, I again thank the Minister for her reply and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I just want to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, because I did not hear him mention the road names and now I feel very silly that I did not. I also want to say that in my role as Roads Minister, for example, if a local community feels that Highways England is not engaging with them, they bang on the door of their local MP, the local MP comes to see me immediately and tells me off, I go to tell off Highways England and something gets done. The HS2 Minister will play precisely the same role that I play in making sure that local communities are dealt with properly by whichever delivery body is working with them. We can obviously discuss this with Minister Stephenson shortly, but if I did not explain that particularly well, that is exactly the role I expect him to play.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of the question whether Schedule 23 be the 23rd schedule to the Bill. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Schedule 23: Party walls etc
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, given the Minister’s earlier remarks, I am delighted to provide a vehicle for what I detect she thought might be some excitement, and I see that I have a little more than an hour to do so. With a bit of luck, it will not take that long, but here goes.
Schedule 23 to the Bill makes fundamental changes to the long-established procedures for dealing with party walls, works at the line of legal property boundary and adjacent excavations, all of which are covered by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which I took through this House. However, the Bill does so for HS2 phase 2a purposes only.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Committee will be very much indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for that very full, comprehensive and interesting introduction to the party wall legislation as it applies to HS2. I have been involved in party wall disputes, but on a domestic basis. I assure the Committee that, even at a domestic level, people get very upset about it. It is really important that fairness and transparency is identified all the way along: the result may not be everything that all parties want, but there is definitely a feeling that a fair hearing has been had, that those who caused the problem are having to pay for it and those who suffer are given reasonable but not undue benefits.
I read the article in the Property Journal and I recommend it to all noble Lords, because it is a simple introduction to what I think the Committee must believe is quite a complicated subject. My purpose in speaking now is to try to ensure that a reasonable and fair solution is found to this, because we run the risk, I am told, that if it is not sorted out, there could be some class actions around for people who live adjacent to or above bits of HS2. The example I will quote comes from phase 1, but it is not surprising, because many party wall issues will not appear until the construction is getting close to starting. The text in the legislation is the same in both Bills, so I can give an example to explain what the problem is from my point of view.
I was alerted to this legislation by an eminent engineer, Sam Price, who petitioned against the phase 1 Bill about the approach to Euston, and I helped him a bit with other things, as some noble Lords may remember. One example was a house on the west side of the approach as trains come into Euston, a road called Park Village East. There is a very high brick retaining wall which has stood there for many years, but HS2’s current scheme—I appreciate that it is one of two current schemes—was to excavate down from the footing of that wall, about 10 metres down, and create something that, in cross-section, looked a bit like a birdcage, but of course it was very much bigger than that, with lots of concrete walls, diaphragm walls, concrete structures and everything. There is a fear that this high brick wall, which basically supports the road and the Queen Anne houses behind it, probably does not have any foundations, because it has been there so long.
The owner of one of the houses discovered that HS2 was planning to support this wall, before it started the excavation, by drilling horizontal soil anchors underneath the house, from the wall towards the back of the house, over the length of about 10 houses, and they are big houses. These holes, which might have been two levels of holes at about 1 metre centres, were designed to hold the house up and stop it settling. We can have views about whether that would be suitable, but that does not really matter. My friend Sam Price asked where under the party wall Act is the obligation for the residents of those houses to be given notice that HS2 wishes to do this work. The answer is that they have not been given notice. They hear about the work on the gossip, but not much else.
We looked at this a bit more with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is a real expert, as I am sure the Committee has understood. It seems that the legislation in the HS2 Act has been developed from the Crossrail legislation—of course, much of Crossrail was underground —which itself was developed from the party wall legislation that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned. From a quick reading of some of the issues that went on with Crossrail, it appears that there was a major problem near Hanover Square with party wall legislation. I suspect that has something to do with the two or three-year delay to Crossrail and Bond Street station because that has not been resolved. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that that is it. The problem is that this legislation on HS2 removes the obligation of an adjacent developer to serve advance notice on an owner whose property might be affected and removes the need for a joint condition survey undertaken by a professional surveyor. That is the first nub of it.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, commented that when it comes to being the final arbiter engineers are splendid people, but—. I speak as an engineer, and I think he is absolutely right. Engineers are very good at engineering but they are not surveyors and they are not party wall surveyors. That is an error in the Bill, because the final arbiter should be from the RICS, as in the 1996 legislation. I do not know whether the drafters consulted the RICS but I doubt it.
As it stands, this legislation is very unfair on residents. They will have no alternative but to go down the legal route. They should not be trying to stop HS2, and I do not think they will, but they deserve to be treated fairly. I am afraid I compare it to this. If we think about phase 1—just the section between Euston and Old Oak Common, although there are many other tunnel sections near Birmingham in phase 1 and further up the line—under this legislation the only remedy these people have is a class action, if they can afford it, against HS2. That will be a horrible delay. I am not trying to delay it, but I am trying to get fairness. I refer to our debates over the past few years on the postmasters scandal, which ended up as a class action. It was finally decided that the Post Office had acted illegally and £60 million was awarded against the Post Office, but the lawyers took £58 million of it so the poor old postmasters got nothing. We really do not want that.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has described the problems very well. I have met some of the experts he has read and I commend them. They are really looking for a solution to this that will not delay the project but will stop people trying to go to court because they feel badly treated. I think there is a solution, but I echo noble Lords’ requests for an urgent meeting with the Minister and whoever so that we can take this forward.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Berkeley persuaded me to add my name to this amendment. Having listened to the debate so far, I do not owe him any favours. I suppose that we should congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on his comprehensive knowledge of these matters. He mentioned the Crossrail Bill, which I served on. Fortunately, we did not get involved in the realms of the Party Wall etc. Act at the time, which is perhaps surprising. It also enabled my noble friend Lord Berkeley to return to another of the many other bees in his bonnet, which is the early part of HS1 between Old Oak Common and Euston. I do not think that that has taken the Committee any further forward as far as the debate is concerned.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, why was this particular schedule added to the Bill, bearing in mind the rural nature of the line that we are supposedly discussing, phase 2a of HS2? I repeat that no mention was made of any party wall difficulties during the passage of the Bill through the Select Committee. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us how many properties he thinks will be affected by Schedule 23 if it is included in the Bill. However, it seems to me that we could be discussing the vagaries of the property world for some considerable time without taking forward the Bill that we should be discussing, which covers phase 2a of HS2.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will not take long, but I want to say simply that when a noble Lord raises an issue of this complexity and technical detail, it deserves to be taken very seriously. While I fully realise that the issue is not really appropriate for debate in Grand Committee because it is much too technical and detailed to encompass within the form of our debates, that does not mean that it is not important. Therefore, I ask the Minister to make sure that when she has had her meeting with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, about the issues concerned she will set out in some form the outcome of those discussions in a letter to all noble Lords who are participating in this part of the debate today.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I can only agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, because I too would value a letter that gives some explanation. I have always been rather curious about party walls when looking at buildings, and I have often wondered how the issues are sorted out. I am absolutely delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and no doubt his colleagues at the time, created the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. How to overcome all the conflicting desires of the parties concerned seems to be quite a difficult concept. That legislation has lasted for 24 years and, given the number of party walls you see every day as you move around cities, it must work pretty well.
Surely the essence of taking this forward to this particular application should be to maintain the philosophy of the Act by working with what it says and making the minimum number of modifications and certainly not making modifications that would change the philosophy behind the Act and the fairness that has obviously been worked into it for it to have worked so well.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I knew there was a reason why I was looking forward to this one. I would be very grateful if the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, could send me the article about party walls; I am sure that all noble Lords would very much appreciate reading it.
On the Motion to remove Schedule 23, rather than address each of the noble Earl’s points in detail, as I do not feel properly qualified to do that, I shall put forward the Government’s reasons why the schedule should stand part of the Bill. We agree with him that the Party Wall etc. Act 1996 works in most circumstances. However, for major railway projects authorised by Parliament, it is appropriate to modify its provisions to streamline its processes, but also retain its protections for neighbouring owners. This was the approach taken by Parliament for the phase 1 Act and the Crossrail Act 2008, and it is the approach being taken here.
The modifications to the party walls Act in Schedule 23 have developed from those included in the Crossrail Act. The experience from the construction of Crossrail was that compliance with the party walls Act process, even as modified, raised risks to the project programme. It is therefore appropriate to alter the process for the HS2 project, as agreed to for phase 1, to avoid construction delays and associated cost implications.
The provisions in Schedule 23 are identical to those already agreed in the phase 1 Act, so this Bill ensures consistency across the HS2 project. Before I outline the proposed modifications in Schedule 23, I wish to make something clear. The regime I will outline does not apply where the underpinning works to adjoining buildings are due to HS2 excavations. Given the more intrusive nature of such works, a different regime is required. This regime is set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill and provides for the giving of notice; the right for adjoining owners to serve counter notices; for disputes to be referred to arbitration; and for payment of compensation. Similar provisions as regards the underpinning of buildings were made in the phase 1 and Crossrail Acts. I hope that goes some way to reassuring noble Lords that the protections for adjoining owners, where major excavation works are needed, are comprehensive.
I shall now continue briefly to summarise the effect of the proposed modifications in Schedule 23, and their purposes. First, the nominated undertaker, HS2 Ltd, would not have to serve notices under the party walls Act to carry out works to which the Act relates. Therefore, the adjoining owner does not have the opportunity to serve a counter notice. This simplifies the process and time taken for agreeing the works. However, the works would still have to be carried out in accordance with the plans and sections agreed with the adjoining owner, as is the process under the current party walls Act. If they are not agreed, the matter would be referred to a single arbitrator for determination, which I will refer to later.
Secondly, a neighbouring owner carrying out works under the party walls Act would not have an automatic right to place footings or foundations on HS2 land or to carry out works required to safeguard HS2 buildings and structures. The nominated undertaker could elect to carry out any such agreed safeguarding works instead of the neighbouring owner at the neighbouring owner’s expense. These modifications are necessary to protect the railway.
Thirdly, any disputes would be determined by a single arbitrator appointed in default of agreement by the president, at the time, of the Institution of Civil Engineers. This would replace the more cumbersome disputes determination process provided by the party walls Act. The purpose of this modification is to provide a speedier and simpler process for dispute resolution. It would ensure that, in a case involving complex railway works, the dispute was determined by a civil engineer with relevant skills, while leaving flexibility for a surveyor to be appointed where that was appropriate. In other respects, the provisions relating to the dispute process, including costs and appeals to the county court, would be the same as under the party walls Act.
The modifications would still provide safeguards for the adjoining owner including the right to compensation and for expenses to be paid in accordance with the party walls Act; the requirement to be given at least 14 days’ notice of the nominated undertaker’s entry on to land to carry out works, except in the case of emergency; that works are to be executed in accordance with such plans, sections and particulars as may be agreed between the nominated undertaker and the neighbouring owner or, in the event of a dispute, are settled by arbitration; and for disputes to be determined by a single arbitrator under the dispute resolution provided by Schedule 23.
These safeguards protect adjoining owners appropriately. To be clear, under the provisions of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996, which still apply, any works required to a party wall would be undertaken at the project’s expense, and compensation would be payable for any damage to the adjoining owner’s property caused by the works to the wall. These safeguards also go alongside the other protections for adjoining owners inside and outside of the Bill. The environmental minimum requirements, through the code of construction practice, provide for the necessary protections to manage and control any potential impacts on people, businesses and the natural and historic environment that may arise from the construction of the works authorised by the Bill.
Finally, we come to the point raised with great insight by the noble Lord, Lord Snape. Are there any party walls on the phase 2a route? The route is rural in nature. It is therefore not expected that many, if any, disputes requiring arbitration under the modified procedure will occur due to the works authorised by this Bill. Where necessary, the modified process would provide a safe and speedy resolution for both the project and the adjoining owner, if indeed there are any party walls on the route.
I shall write in response to the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. I would be grateful if the noble Earl could give some consideration to, and perhaps clarify, exactly what he would wish to change and why. It is very difficult to deal with a long list of, “I don’t like this, I don’t like that”, rather than understanding, given where we are in the process, what would make the difference to this Bill if it were to be changed.
Following all that, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his objection to the schedule being agreed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
There are no questions to the Minister, so perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, might want to comment briefly on what has been said.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Perhaps I may deal with a few points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. My understanding, having spoken to Shirley Waldron—who I mentioned earlier, and who was closely involved in Crossrail matters—is that Crossrail disapplied only Section 6 of the Party Wall etc. Act 1996; it did not disapply Sections 1 or 3, as the Bill seeks to do. She also told me in a phone conversation that the party wall matters had been completed so long ago that they could not possibly have been responsible for the current delays that have recently come to light. However, that might be only her view. I can confirm on good authority, because I checked today, that no one consulted the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors regarding the drafting of this Bill or, for that matter, the phase 1 Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, raised an interesting point about how many properties might be affected. It is difficult to know because the party wall Act provisions apply not only to party walls but to adjacent excavation and construction near to adjoining owners’ properties. Even with phase 1, in many instances the detailed design has not yet got to the point where an accurate quantification of all those affected in a densely urban area can be calculated. So I have to say that I just do not know. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked the Minister to report to the Committee. I am sure that there will be more to come out of this, and that point is noted.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, gave due praise to the operation of the party wall Act—of which I was not the architect; I was simply what is known in the trade as the parliamentary midwife of a private Bill. However, the provisions have been in existence in the metropolitan area of central London since the 1930s, and the principles of party walls have been with us since the year after the Great Fire. So in enacting legislation in 1996 that was going to apply to the whole of England and Wales, one was drawing on a cadre of very experienced specialists in central London. That experience has been rolled out across the country. It is a philosophical issue and a situation where all the provisions of the party wall Act hang together as a whole. The notification, the counternotification and all that follows, up to the conclusion of the dispute resolution procedure—the way in which it is appealed and the safeguards—are of a piece. They all interrelate. It is quite difficult to unpick bits of the Act without doing some serious mischief to the rest, and I think that that is what this Bill threatens to do.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
That concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. I remind Members to sanitise their desk and chair before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded at any point, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Lord Speaker’s Statement
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on behalf of the Lord Speaker I would like to make a short Statement about the plans for Her Majesty the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in June 2022, which will mark 70 years of her reign. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that such a historic occasion, never before seen in the history of our country, should be marked in a fitting way. Today, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport will make a Statement in the House of Commons about the national plans, and I would like to take a moment to update the House about what will happen here in Parliament.
Noble Lords will recall that, for Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee in 2012, Parliament gifted a stained-glass window in Westminster Hall. For this Platinum Jubilee, I can announce that a cross-party, bicameral project board has been established to decide what the next gift will be and to deliver it in 2022. As was the case in 2012, the right honourable Michael Ellis QC MP, the Solicitor-General for England and Wales, has been asked by both Speakers to manage this project and I extend our sincere thanks to him for his efforts.
As was the case for the Diamond Jubilee gift, no public funds will be spent to purchase the gift. The gift will be paid for from personal contributions made by Members of both Houses and a further announcement about the gift and how noble Lords can contribute will be made in the new year.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points. I ask that Ministers, too, are brief.
Covid-19: Levelling-up Agenda
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the consequences of their policies in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic on their levelling up agenda in England.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The Government recognise the significant impact of Covid-19 on every region and nation of the UK and remain committed to levelling up opportunity across the country. In recognition of this, we have announced unprecedented support for business, workers and local authorities across the UK, including support for 2.7 million people through the Self-employment Income Support Scheme, and have extended the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which has already supported 9.6 billion jobs and provided over £62 billion in business support loans.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the Northern Health Science Alliance reported two days ago that Covid has made economic inequalities worse, with reductions in mental well-being in the north costing the economy £5 billion a year, and that more people in the north have died. The Northern Powerhouse Partnership is calling for a northern economic recovery plan. The LGA says that in the north, where core services have already been cut by up to half in some of the poorest areas, more cuts will just make regional inequalities worse. South Yorkshire’s mayor, Dan Jarvis, wrote yesterday in the House magazine:
“The brutal reality is that the North is now on course for levelling down, not levelling up.”
Is it not now time for a huge transfer to the north of resources of all kinds and the powers to use them?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I think that we have seen a significant transfer of power to the north; Dan Jarvis, the mayor in Yorkshire, is an example of that. The Government are absolutely committed to levelling up and to reducing this inequality. That is why, for example, we have the £3.6 billion Towns Fund, which supports at least 45 places in the northern powerhouse and 30 places in the Midlands engine region.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I ask the Minister to make clear to her colleague the former Northern Powerhouse Minister in another place the huge contribution that culture has made to the regeneration of Gateshead and Salford, for example, and that football and culture are not mutually exclusive—it is possible to support both. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will soon publish a strategy for levelling up and, in the light of Covid, have the Government been restructured in order to tackle the problems for the north post Covid and the implementation of such a levelling-up strategy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the government structures in place at the moment are focused on tackling Covid, but support for levelling up and recovery across the country is at the heart of everything that the Government do. It was at the heart of the Chancellor’s plan for jobs, announced in the summer, which includes a Getting Building Fund of up to £1 billion to support local economic projects to get jobs and recovery back in local economies.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is unfortunate that the tiered system of local virus control led to political turf wars. This simply divides communities, as was seen with the handling of the Greater Manchester case. Can the Minister reassure the House that, in future, changes will not simply be imposed on historically deprived areas of the north of England with last-minute government press announcements at midnight and that local elected representative will be fully involved in the decision-making process and therefore share ultimate decision-making?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have been committed to having local leaders involved in decision-making at every step of the process. That has sometimes led to a more complicated process, which I think the noble Lord has pointed to, but we always endeavour to have joint decision-making wherever possible.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is clear that the Covid-19 pandemic is having a huge economic impact on businesses and livelihoods throughout the country. However, some regions are having to live through tougher and longer restrictions than others. I know that this Government are committed to their levelling-up agenda. Can my noble friend the Minister outline what extra support will be given to these hardest-hit communities?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, since the pandemic, the Government have provided £6.4 billion of additional funding to local authorities, but, in addition to this, for those areas that faced restrictions prior to the second lockdown, extra support was put in place for businesses that were closed or had their business severely affected by those restrictions. Local authorities got additional funding for grants to support the local economy.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, rumours emanating from who knows where in government are talking about cutting back HS2 phase 2b—the bit that goes from Birmingham to Leeds. This would mean that the journey times from Toton would go from 27 to 85 minutes for Leeds and from 93 to 106 minutes for Newcastle. How is this sort of thing compatible with government protestations about levelling up?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I do not pay too much attention to rumours circulating, and the Government remain committed to the High Speed 2 project.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
What is the noble Baroness’s assessment of the Treasury’s 80:20 rule, which decrees that 80% of funding for Homes England goes to the areas where homes are most unaffordable? This naturally ends up being the south and south-east of England. Will she accept that, when 46 of the red wall seats are only eligible for 20% of the funding for homes, this creates a blatant unfairness for the north? Can she tell the House what Government are doing to resolve this?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that funds from the £400 million brownfield fund announced in the Budget will unlock up to 24,000 high-quality homes across the country, with 90% allocated immediately to seven mayoral combined authorities to allow them to begin delivering projects that will benefit local areas.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, post Covid, there will be cities like mine—Leicester—that will be looking for investors to come and invest, given the loss of jobs? Does she agree that digital platforms are the key to getting most of our young people skilled? Will she encourage businesses, particularly disruptors from the digital platforms, to come and look at cities like Leicester to skill up and invest in young people and others?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend, and one of the things that the Government are doing to support digital skills is setting up a limited series of digital boot camp trailblazers to support local regions and employers to fill in-demand vacancies. We will look to roll out a national programme next year that will learn the lessons from this.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
The Alliance for Full Employment and Resolution Foundation research shows that there are now around 1 million 16 to 24 year-olds not in work. The alliance is predicting a need for 1.5 million training places by the end of the academic year. The Kickstart Scheme will not help anyone under 25 who has lost their job at the end of October, as they will not be eligible for help until next May. Does the Minister agree that the extension to the furlough scheme offers a breathing space to redesign the Kickstart Scheme in order to provide meaningful work or training in conjunction with local authorities and employers? Will the Government meet the Alliance for Full Employment to discuss its plan to get Britain levelling up?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Kickstart Scheme is specifically designed to support young people at risk of long-term unemployment, but that is not the only support that the Government are putting in place for those who may have lost their jobs or are struggling to find work, having finished their studying or training. For example, we have put £1.2 billion in to significantly expand and enhance our work-search support, including doubling the number of work coaches. That kind of support, alongside support for skills and apprenticeships, is available to young people in advance of them being at risk of longer-term unemployment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, Covid has accelerated modern trends such as remote working, and there is a great deal of education and training needed for that. Should levelling up not include a focus on digital trends, aiming to leap-frog post-industrial areas into the new era of work?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are absolutely committed to supporting digital trends and jobs. I just mentioned one of the training schemes that we have in place to support that.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allotted for this Question has now elapsed.
Sustainable Development Goals
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office plans to develop a strategy for how they plan to meet the Sustainable Development Goals; and when any such strategy will be published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Sugg) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK is committed to the sustainable development goals. The aims of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office—working to end extreme poverty, tackling the climate crisis, protecting our values and promoting sustainable growth—all contribute to meeting the goals. The integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy will further define the Government’s ambition for the UK’s role in the world and shape the FCDO’s objectives and priorities.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Covid shows the need for increased action by the global community towards achieving the SDGs and delivering on the commitment to “leave no one behind”. Prioritising the SDGs domestically as well as internationally is vital, as they provide a ready-made road map to recovery. What are the Government doing to establish a coherent cross-government strategy for achieving the SDGs and to improve engagement with stakeholders in line with the commitments that the noble Baroness made in last year’s VNR? On the transparency of aid spending, will she guarantee that ICAI remains independent of government and accountable to Parliament?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the SDGs provide a valuable framework to help us build back better in Covid-19 recovery. We are committed to implementing the SDGs and we have been proactive in our response to the pandemic. The SDGs have an important role to play, both here in the UK and in our international work. We will continue our regular engagement with stakeholders. On ICAI, I can confirm that it will remain independent.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con) [V]
My Lords, thanks largely to global efforts and UK leadership, recent research shows that the global burden of disease on women has shifted significantly from maternal mortality and morbidity to non-communicable diseases. In particular, the statistics on mental health are distressing. Depression is predicted to be the second-leading cause of global disability by 2020 and it is twice as common and more persistent in women. Dementia is also twice as common in women globally. Women and children are by far the most affected by violence and disaster, with post-traumatic and neurodevelopmental disorders still widely underdiagnosed. Despite all this, mental health accounts for less than 3% of global health budgets. In order to meet SDGs 3 and 5, can the Minister say how much ODA spending will go to women’s NCDs and mental health budgets, in particular?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I agree with my noble friend that mental health is a major concern that affects women around the world. This summer we published our approach paper on mental health and psychosocial disabilities. It clearly outlines our ambition to achieve an integrated and comprehensive rights-based approach to mental health support. It noted the significant gender disparity. It is important that while we continue to support our work on ending preventable deaths, we also address the growing burden of non-communicable diseases.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, given Brexit, can the Minister inform the House of how much UK aid that had gone through the EU will now be exclusively available for UK priorities, and can the likely billions be invested with the Global Partnership for Education, advancing girls’ education, of which I am a champion?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are indeed supporting the Global Partnership for Education. We look forward to co-hosting the replenishment conference with the Government of Kenya next year and we will announce our support for GPE in due course.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible.] the UN sustainable goals is threatened by lack of investment in some of the emerging markets in Africa, South America and the Middle East. Is it possible for us to concentrate more investment in this area?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
[Inaudible.] and we will continue to do so. I point the noble Baroness towards the UK-Africa Investment Summit, which we held at the end of last year and which set out what further moves we will take to increase our investment within Africa.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, the monitoring the sustainable development goals programme is a joint project between the FCDO and the UN Statistics Division. It supports 20 countries to feed data into the global set of 172 indicators. This is essential data if we are to meet the commitment to leave no one behind. The programme is successful and scores an A. Can the Minister say whether it will continue after May 2021?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness on the importance of investing in data. I am afraid I cannot commit to future spending in 2021 at this stage, but I agree that data is key to understanding progress against the SDGs and helping to identify where further action is needed. We will continue our partnership with the UN by ensuring that we provide the best data we can for countries around the world so that they can judge their own progress against the SDGs.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as a consequence of the Courtauld commitments, the Government have a partial strategy at least—one for the delivery of environmental goals in SDG 12. However, progress is slow and not on target for the reduction of food waste or emissions associated with the production and consumption of food, and we have no road map for the delivery of a water security target. The strategy is fine but what is being done to make sure that the goals are kept under proper review and, more importantly, realigned when necessary?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
We are, of course, committed to a sustainable and resilient recovery as we build back better from Covid-19. We look forward to hosting the COP 26 conference next November, where will be able to focus on all the issues that the noble Lord has raised.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, who exactly are the poorest of the poor who must not be left behind? Will the FCDO identify them? Are they the ones without food, water or healthcare? Are they refugees? Will the UK focus SDGs more on those suffering from endemic poverty, such as victims of slavery or Dalits who have to clean latrines day after day in India? I think the public would like to know.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, one of the core missions of the FCDO is to end extreme poverty, while also ensuring that all our programmes are reaching the bottom billion—the people most in need of the support that we give through our development programmes. We will continue to develop our programmes, making sure that we are reaching those most in need so that we do not leave anyone behind.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, the World Bank has said that, post recovery, we will need to reschedule debts, tackle climate change more energetically and promote livelihoods. Do the Government agree with that assessment? If they do, will they still ensure that we prioritise gender equality and poverty reduction in achieving those objectives?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we agree with that assessment and I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to prioritise tackling gender inequality.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, the extraordinary donation this week by Peter Baldwin and Lisbet Rausing of £8 million to the British Museum’s Endangered Material Knowledge Programme is a reminder of the international work that our museums do around the world, helping developing nations preserve and protect their heritage. Will the Minister assure me that culture will be at the heart of the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office’s work on sustainable development goals?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that culture is an important export, of which the UK is very proud, and we will continue to support culture wherever we are able to.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the Minister said yesterday that girls’ education is the top priority for our overseas aid but girls cannot stay in education if they are married off early with no access to contraception because they then spend the rest of their lives having more and more babies. Surely strengthening the availability of family planning and sexual and reproductive health services must be the top priority for overseas aid to achieve the sustainable development goals, especially during the pandemic.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
Girls’ education is indeed a key priority for the FCDO but so is continuing our support for sexual and reproductive health and rights. We are the world’s second-largest global bilateral donor on family planning. I agree with the noble Baroness that we must ensure that girls and women have access to family planning so that they can continue their education, contribute to the economy and decide how and when to have children and how many to have.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the third Oral Question. I call the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford.
Universal Credit
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woolley of Woodford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to maintain the £20 a week increase in Universal Credit (1) for the duration of, and (2) after, the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
We are having ongoing discussions with the Treasury on the best ways to support people through Covid-19 and beyond. We will of course update Parliament on any future decisions on benefit spending when they are made. Claimants can be assured, though, that the Government are fully committed to supporting those who rely on the welfare system and to ensuring it continues to provide a safety net to those who need it.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Government for extending the £20 universal credit increase and getting behind—even turbocharging —Marcus Rashford’s initiative to feed poorer children, many of whom will be black, Asian or minority ethnic. Does the Minister agree with me and the organisation Action for Children about the urgent need to develop and implement a UK-wide child poverty strategy that sets targets for its reduction and eradication?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Lord’s acknowledgement of the Government’s activities in this field is appreciated. We are very pleased that we have been able to implement our latest package and we acknowledge Marcus Rashford’s passion and commitment, which the Government share. I will need to take the strategy the noble Lord raised back to the department. That is not me trying to avoid the issue; I will do that, and I will come back to the noble Lord in writing.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
Families in receipt of legacy benefits, such as employment and support allowance, did not benefit from the very welcome £20 a week uplift in benefits. These people are just as likely to be affected by the financial impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and include many disabled people. Will the Government extend the increase in benefits to include those in receipt of legacy benefits, as recommended by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s Keep the Lifeline campaign?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The right revered Prelate raises an issue that many people are raising. The answer I have, in the politest terms, is that we have no plans to increase legacy benefits further. They were increased by 1.7% in April 2020 as part of the annual uprating exercise.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, in addition to those receiving universal credit, many more are in work but on very low earnings—all credit to them. Are the Government able to give any help to them?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The Government recently increased the national living wage to £8.72 per hour, which means the annual earnings of a full-time worker on the national living wage have increased by nearly £3,700 since 2016. The Spring Budget confirmed a tax cut for 31 million working people, and other tax changes make basic rate taxpayers over £1,200 better off. We have been able to extend the holiday activities and food programme with £220 million, and the Covid winter grant scheme has £170 million, so be in no doubt: the Government do care and do take action.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, every citizen, whether in paid work or not, deserves an income that allows a decent standard of living. We should not be permitting a system where discomfort and, indeed, poverty are built in. You cannot live on the standard allowance—no one can—and that is apart from delays in payment. How can the Minister possibly defend universal credit, even as a viable safety net, when demand for food banks is at a record high and homelessness is rapidly rising, even with the extra £20 a week?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I understand the noble Earl’s point, but as I said, we have put out a raft of additional support. I could read it out, but it would take the whole 10 minutes, if not longer. I understand his point, but the Government are taking action to make life better for people.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for recognising the important contribution of the £20 a week increase. Does she also recognise that the increase in housing benefit rates has made a significant contribution to reducing poverty? Does she agree that we should recognise the contribution made by the key workers in the DWP? The case managers, job coaches and all the staff have coped with a 600% increase in universal credit claimants since March, of which there are now 8.2 million. We should also recognise the contribution of its chief executive, Neil Couling, who has given dedicated and inspirational leadership to ensure a successful digitalisation programme which enabled the DWP to cope with the massive increase in claimants.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Lord acknowledges the significant increase in universal credit claimants, and I understand the importance of the issues he raises. He also acknowledged the key people at the DWP, not least Neil Couling and the whole executive team that works with him, who have done a sterling job and will continue to do so.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
I, like other noble Lords, welcome the retention of the £20 a week increase, which will indeed help many people. However, is the Minister aware of the report by the charity Scope on disability and the coronavirus, which found that many disabled people are feeling forgotten and experiencing isolation, a lack of access to basic essentials, delays in receiving benefits and medical care, and poor access to care and support? Will she assure us that the Government will meet with disability charities to ensure that all people with disabilities, and their families, receive the care and support they need during the coronavirus? Will she report back to Parliament on this?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to raise the issue of disabled people and the challenges they face. The noble Baroness will also know that my natural way of working is to agree to these things and to report back. The only thing I can offer her today is that I will talk to the Minister for Disabled People and let him know what it is she would like to do. I will report back to her.
Baroness Wyld (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome and acknowledge all the support measures the Government have put in place, but can my noble friend say a little more about the evidence base? How are the Government assessing whether the measures they have taken are having the desired impact among families on the lowest incomes?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness raises the important issue of evidence. Analysis shows that the Government’s interventions have supported the poorest working households, as a proportion of February income, the most, with those in the bottom 10% of the income distribution seeing no reduction in their income.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
My Lords, because the £20 uplift was not extended to legacy benefits, an adult on universal credit is given £94 a week to live on but her neighbour on JSA or ESA gets just £74 a week. The Minister told the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that there were no plans to change this, but she did not tell him why. Could she please explain to the House and the 2 million people on JSA and ESA why they do not deserve the same help when their food and bills cost every bit as much as those for people on universal credit?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I note the point that the noble Baroness makes and it is well made, but as I said, the Government’s position is that we have no plans to increase legacy benefits further. People on legacy benefits can transfer to universal credit and they can do a calculation before they transfer to make sure they will be better off.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
Like other noble Lords, I congratulate the Government on coming some of the way towards Marcus Rashford’s and other food campaigners’ demands. This weekly increase of £20 does pay for the bulk of a single person’s grocery budget and is one of the things keeping a lot of people out of food banks, although, as my noble friend Lord Clancarty pointed out, these figures continue to rise. It seems extremely ironic that the Government have decided to support food banks and declare that they are an essential part of our system when we should be working to abolish them, yet they are contemplating taking away this small increase of £20 and, as was just mentioned, not affording it to people on JSA or ESA. I come back to my noble friend Lord Woolley of Woodford’s original Question and ask the Minister: what plans do the Government have to keep this increase for the duration of the Covid-19 pandemic and after it? It does make a difference.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
As I already said to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, we are having discussions with the Treasury on the best way to support people both through Covid-19 and beyond. As soon as those decisions are made, Parliament will be advised.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed and we therefore move to the fourth Question.
Great Britain and Northern Ireland: Access for Goods
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of negotiations with the European Union in relation to ensuring unfettered access for goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, we have been unequivocal in our commitment to unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving to the rest of the UK market. We are delivering on that commitment in full, including through the draft statutory instrument we have laid to guarantee it from 1 January and the protections we wish to provide in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which, regrettably, your Lordships opposed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, supermarket chains and other business consortia in Northern Ireland are deeply concerned that goods supply lines will be cut off to them from 1 January 2021. Will the Minister, along with ministerial colleagues, and working with EU negotiators, ensure that flexibilities are built into food supply lines so that Northern Ireland businesses and consumers can continue to enjoy a wide range of choice and affordability with respect to all food products?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. The UK Government recognise, of course, the unique position of authorised traders, such as supermarkets, with stable supply chains and comprehensive oversight of warehousing and distribution, moving pre-packaged products for retail solely in Northern Ireland. We are continuing to pursue specific solutions for this trade.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, many of us in this House and elsewhere have long believed that the Government’s claims that the Prime Minister’s deal will produce unfettered trade are, quite frankly, delusional. Now that the Government have recognised that, instead of planning to breach our international obligations, would they not do better to look at constructive alternatives? For instance, what consideration has been given to the sensible proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and his parliamentary colleagues, which might just get the Government off the hook?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that the principle of unfettered access, and its legislative underpinning, was one of the key components of the re-formation of the Northern Ireland Executive. The UK Government are seeking to fulfil an obligation, and I regret very much that your Lordships, including the noble Lord, voted against it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the sheer scale of the burden on businesses created by the wholly inadequate preparations for the wider border procedures by the Government was laid bare by the National Audit Office report on Friday. Regarding Northern Ireland, food and drink producers still do not yet know whether goods going to Northern Ireland will have to have EU labels, UK labels or both. Can the Minister be clear, with six weeks to go, what labels will food and drinks going to Northern Ireland from GB have to have, UK or EU? What contingency procedures are in place if the Government cannot be clear to businesses?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord on his very specific point about labelling. Of course, I acknowledge that there are ongoing discussions in the joint committee, and that that is an issue. But the Government have a range of measures, already taken and in hand, which we have discussed with business, to facilitate GB-NI movement.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, but is not unfettered trade access what we want, what we have always wanted all along and what the withdrawal agreement guarantees, both for trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland—with a few minor checks—and of course trade between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? We are committed to all these things. Does my noble friend agree that, if President-elect Biden seeks reassurance against the destabilisation of the Northern Ireland peace process—reassurance that we all want—it is the European Union authorities and negotiators in Brussels who are his best port of call and whom he should be ringing?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will not follow the noble Lord into international diplomacy. What I will say is what I said with some force to the House on Monday: this Government are absolutely dedicated to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. That agreement has east-west as well as north-south aspects, and the rejection of the unfettered access commitment by your Lordships’ House was deeply unhelpful.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
My Lords, to go back to the Question that the noble Baroness asked, I am sure the whole House understands the concerns about supply to retailers in Northern Ireland, well expressed in the joint letter from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. However, the NAO report last Friday shows where the problem lies, when it confirms that the new border control posts we are constructing at Larne, Warrenpoint and Belfast will not be ready. What interim plans have the Government in mind to ensure that supply to retailers in Northern Ireland continues unaffected?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I gave an assurance on supermarkets and food supplies in an earlier answer. The Government are constantly, on a daily basis, monitoring and considering the maintenance of all links between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and have every confidence that they will be secure.
Lord Monks (Lab) [V]
We have long known that Brexit, plus a failure to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement, would lead either to new and more border arrangements in Ireland, and so to a likely breach of the Good Friday agreement, or, alternatively, to new barriers and obstacles down the Irish Sea, so threatening the integrity of the UK. At the general election, the Prime Minister assured us that neither of these unattractive options would be necessary, but does the Minister accept that, unless the Government find a third way, they will have failed their own tests and failed the country? What is this elusive third way?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, there is one way: support for the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. I trust very much that when the unfettered access provisions come back to this House, the Labour Party will support them.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, we are all aware of the extensive movement of animals across the internal Irish border and across the Irish Sea, and the extensive movement also of milk and milk products. If there is to be unfettered access across the Irish Sea, do the Government envisage that there will have to be checks at what will now become the EU’s external border? What progress, in that case, has been made towards recruiting the vets and inspectors needed to enforce the checks required there?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, work is under way, as noble Lords have raised before, in seeking to recruit vets and, in other areas of this policy, customs agents. That work is ongoing. We are hopeful that we will achieve the desired end.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, earlier this week, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland jointly wrote to the EU, imploring it to act sensibly and pragmatically to prevent any threat of disruption to food supplies to Northern Ireland. This is about defining goods at risk. We are in the ridiculous situation that the EU, unless it comes to a sensible arrangement, will ensure that all goods coming into Northern Ireland are goods at risk. Tins of beans on a Tesco lorry destined for Belfast, Portadown or Banbridge will be deemed at risk of being smuggled over the border by the supermarket at Dundalk. How ridiculous. If the EU does not see sense, will the Minister undertake that the necessary fallback, safety-net provisions will be there to safeguard Northern Ireland consumers—nationalist and unionist—as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have said?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I said earlier, the Government certainly take extremely seriously the need to ensure the security of this trade. I agree with the noble Lord that the protocol obliges both the UK and the EU to seek to streamline trade between GB and Northern Ireland.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Will my noble friend gently remind the European Union that any obstacles to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would be contrary both to Article 6 of the withdrawal agreement and to the Act of Union, which is a fundamental part of our legal order which the European Union has pledged to uphold? I hope and expect that the EU will agree arrangements to prevent such obstacles, because to refuse such agreement would constitute bad faith, justifying the activation of those parts of the internal market Bill that I hope the other House will reinstall and this House will duly accept.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with what my noble friend said. I underline his last remarks: it is astonishing that Keir Starmer required the Labour Party in this House to vote against a legitimate legal commitment to unfettered access.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Hong Kong: Legislative Council
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Northover
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that four pro-democracy legislators have been dismissed from the Hong Kong Legislative Council with immediate effect.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, yesterday was another sad day for the people of Hong Kong. China’s Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress imposed new restrictions, meaning that any Hong Kong legislator deemed to be supporting independence, refusing to recognise China’s sovereignty, seeking to support foreign forces’ interference or endangering Hong Kong’s national security would be disqualified. This decision led to the immediate removal of four elected members of the Legislative Council. Beijing’s actions breach both China’s commitment that Hong Kong will enjoy a high degree of autonomy and the right to freedom of speech, which is guaranteed under the Sino-British joint declaration.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, this is immensely serious for Hong Kong. What have the Government said directly to the Chinese Government about this major breach, as the Minister described it, of the Sino-British joint declaration? Will they consider taking China to the International Court of Justice for breaching its obligations under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, or has the United Kingdom undermined its ability to do that by threatening to break international law when it suits us?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Baroness’s second question, we remain strong supporters of the ICJ but, as she will know, going to the ICJ requires the agreement of both parties. I very much doubt that China would do so. On the specific measures that we have taken since China’s action, only an hour or so ago, the Chinese ambassador was summoned to the FCDO to meet the Permanent Under-Secretary. I have not seen the read-out of that but we have taken immediate steps there.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Lord McKenzie, we are struggling to hear you. Could you lean in a little closer to the mic?
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab) [V]
I will; I am sorry. China’s dismissal of four members of the Legislative Council underlined the worst fears about the national security law and its impact on freedoms of expression and judicial independence in Hong Kong. The new law, which apparently applies to everyone everywhere in the world, is generating alarm among universities with students who will return to Hong Kong at some stage and could face the risk of arrest. It makes a nonsense of “one country, two systems”. What representations are being made to the Chinese ambassador about the disqualification of the four pro-democracy lawmakers? What progress is being made in identifying senior Chinese Government officials who have committed serious human rights abuses?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. We have summoned the Chinese ambassador to register our deep concern on this issue. The noble Lord talked about all members of the Legislative Council; four members were suspended and removed while they were in the Chamber. Others have left the council in solidarity.
On identification, the noble Lord was, I think, alluding to global human rights sanctions. As I have said before, we cannot speculate on future sanctions that we may apply through that regime. Nevertheless, since the national security laws initiated the continuing suppression of freedoms in Hong Kong, we have aired—and continue to air—our deep concerns.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I gently remind noble Lords to keep their questions and answers concise.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
What course can Her Majesty’s Government follow that is likely to improve the situation for freedom in Hong Kong?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My noble and learned friend raises an important issue. On 6 October, 39 countries issued a joint statement at the UN General Assembly expressing deep concern at the situation in Hong Kong, building on the Human Rights Council statement in June. We believe that this joint approach with other international partners is the best approach in pressing China to live up to its obligations.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. What steps are the Government taking to co-ordinate an international response to the purge of democrats and the dismantling of democratic freedoms in Hong Kong? Does this include an international contact group, mobilising the G7, developing an alliance of democracies to co-ordinate targeted sanctions and a lifeboat rescue package, and working for the creation of a mechanism at the United Nations for a special rapporteur?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I have already said, we are leading the international response on Hong Kong. An increasing number of countries are joining statements through UN human rights bodies, which underscores the success of this approach. We have no plans to establish an international contact group. The Foreign Secretary is leading the way on this issue as a priority.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, the Government have provided a way for citizens holding a BNO passport to take steps to come here. A high proportion of people will miss out on this scheme, particularly those born after 1997. What other immigration measures have the Government considered in the interests of safety for the people of Hong Kong?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right to raise BNO status. It will open for applications at the end of January 2021. On the specifics of people born after a given date, certainly where they are connected to those who qualify for BNO status, our policy is not to separate families—they will also be included in the scheme.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, given the clear breach of the joint declaration and international law, how can we enlist support from European Union countries when the Government persist with Part 5 of the Internal Market Bill? Is this not a clear illustration of the Government’s chickens coming home to roost?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I assure the noble Lord that there are no chickens in my response, per se. On this specific issue, the fact that Germany delivered the statement at the UN Third Committee underlines the strong support in the European Union for our position on Hong Kong.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about his and the United Kingdom’s efforts at the United Nations and building support, but we obviously need to do more. The Minister failed to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about how we may build a better consensus through the use of the scheduled G7 meeting. Can he give a more specific answer?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Of course. We will continue to press this case, whether through the G7 or other multilateral fora. We are achieving success; I am sure that all noble Lords will acknowledge that the fact that we have seen an incremental increase in the number of countries supporting the UK’s position on Hong Kong illustrates the success of this policy.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, in view of this scandalous behaviour by the Chinese Government and their rejection of the criticism of western Governments, is it not time to encourage people not to support Chinese exports, as their economy is all-important to the Chinese?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have a strategic relationship with China. We continue to wish to strengthen that, but in a very clear-eyed way, and where there are abuses of human rights, whether in Hong Kong or indeed in mainland China, we will call them out.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
The offence of the four lawmakers who were expelled without legal process from LegCo—two barristers, an accountant and a medical consultant—was that they had allegedly supported requests to the US to impose sanctions on China for its interference in Hong Kong. What about this country? The United Kingdom signed the bilateral joint declaration, which by Article 3 guarantees the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong citizens. Does the Minister agree that we have a moral and imperative duty to take action now, not just to wring our hands—to impose sanctions or to take China to the International Court of Justice, as my noble friend suggested earlier?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises Article 3, and that is exactly what we are pressing: that China must uphold its international obligations. I have already covered the point on the ICJ; we will continue to work on a multilateral basis and bilaterally in raising this issue with Chinese authorities and the Hong Kong special administrative region as well.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, what assessment has the Minister made of the likely impact that Beijing’s purging of pro-democracy voices in the legislature will have on the rule of law in Hong Kong? Does he share my concern about the threat to the continued independence of the judiciary, and do the Government have anything specific in mind to seek to avoid that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally concur with the noble Baroness. There has been an increasing decline, and this is the second major shift this year with the introduction of the national security law and the suspension of democratically elected legislators. She raises an important point about the independence of the judiciary. Again, the national security law raises real concerns, as under it the Chief Executive now has the right to appoint judges as well. We will continue to raise that issue and our concern with China directly.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is an extremely serious development and I am sure that Her Majesty’s Government are working hard with international partners to ensure that democracy and human rights—and indeed freedom of speech—are maintained in Hong Kong. I have previously raised the fact that two crucial events are coming up where China has a leading role to play. As well as the COP next year there is the equally important meeting on the Convention on Biological Diversity, which China is hosting. Does my noble friend think that the prospects of these two global events are in any way endangered by these events in Hong Kong?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, China is an important partner and my noble friend is quite right to raise the two events coming up next year. We continue to work strategically and importantly on the priorities of the environment as a key issue in the lead-up to COP 26. However, events like this indeed hinder the relationship that we are seeking to build bilaterally with China.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, referred to people buying Chinese products. That is a large part of our retail sector but of course our financial sector, the City of London, is tightly enmeshed with banks that have expressed support for the Chinese government position and are heavily involved in the Hong Kong economy. What are the Government’s plans to tackle that issue?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already said, trade with China is important, but we must do so in a manner which reflects the importance that the Government attach to human rights. The noble Baroness raises the issue of financial services. It is for companies to make key decisions, but we remain very much committed that where there is a usurping of human rights we will raise those issues, whether that is happening in Hong Kong or mainland China.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the serious and continuing deterioration of human rights in Hong Kong and China, which government policy has been most effective: David Cameron’s toadying or Boris Johnson’s bombast?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
That is an interesting question for the noble Lord to put to a Minister who has served under both Prime Ministers. We live in the present, and that is where we need to focus. We have seen a systematic abuse in recent years in mainland China, whether we are talking about the Uighurs or indeed other human rights abuses, which we have often debated in your Lordships’ House. Currently, the steps that have been taken this year alone in Hong Kong illustrate a hardening of the stance and a real test of the Sino-British joint agreement. We will continue to press for that and press China to stand up for its international obligations. However, at the same time, we will continue to raise the bar against the usurping of human rights, be it in Hong Kong or indeed in China.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the brevity of their questions and answers. All supplementary answers have been asked.
Business of the House
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 17 November to allow the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 48 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 10, Schedule 1, Clauses 11 to 17, Schedule 2, Clauses 18 to 30, Schedule 3, Clauses 31 to 50, Title.
Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 September be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 November.
Electricity (Risk-Preparedness) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 September be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 3 November.
Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 September be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 3 November.
Covid-19 Lockdown: Homelessness and Rough Sleepers
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I refer the House to my relevant registered interests. We are in a second pandemic, the days are getting shorter, the nights are getting longer and colder, but we have a squabbling No. 10 and a shambolic Government, with no homelessness tsar in post. Can the noble Lord tell the House why there is such a poverty of ambition to prevent homelessness and keep people off the streets this winter? Where is the noble Lord’s zeal? Where is the fire in his belly to get homelessness finally sorted out?
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, families do tend to squabble a bit, but that has nothing to do with the massive ambition we have for ending rough sleeping. Some £700 million has been committed to end rough sleeping with a world-class policy, a programme in three stages, and the recent announcement of a further stage of the Protect programme. Our swift action has been praised by leading stakeholders, including Shelter, Crisis, St Mungo’s and Thames Reach. The policy speaks for itself: lives are being changed for the better and I see that my colleague, Minister Tolhurst, continues to lead in this regard, under the benign direction of the Secretary of State.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, in the spring the Everyone In scheme was a success, but post Dame Louise Casey—now the noble Baroness, Lady Casey—who is leading and taking up that role now, not at ministerial level but in Whitehall? If emergency shelters were deemed unsafe then, will the Minister confirm that they will not be used now? With so many families who rent threatened with homelessness, does the Minister agree that universal credit should cover the median rent in every part of the country, and will the Government do what they promised at the election and get on with scrapping Section 21 evictions? Finally, why are the Government only “asking” bailiffs not to carry out evictions? They have compelled so many on so much. What is so special about the bailiffs?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, that was a succession of questions. There is no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is a phenomenal force of nature. I watched how she took the troubled families programme and developed a fantastic resolve at all levels of government, and in the social and charitable sectors, to ensure that everyone worked together to tackle the malaise of the families who require a huge amount of support from the state—and then with the integration programme. We have really benefited from her work. However, we do see leadership from Ministers, including the Secretary of State, and a resolve to do something at all levels of government. We will build on that. As for the removal of Section 21, that is a manifesto commitment, and we will introduce legislation to deliver a better deal for renters, including repealing Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988, as a priority, once the urgency of responding to this dreadful pandemic has passed. I will write to the noble Baroness on the other matters.
Lord Bird (CB)
I do not know whether the Minister has read the Lancet report showing that the work done in the first lockdown led to a saving of 266 lives, that more than 1,000 people were prevented from ending up in hospital, and about 350 from ending up in intensive care. This is prevention. I have been working for the last 30 years to try to get successive Governments working on prevention—on stopping homelessness happening—because when people slip into homelessness, they die. I thank the Government for their efforts in the previous period, but I am also asking loads of questions. Where are the answers for this next period? More than anything, I want to know what we are going to do about stopping circa 200,000 people slipping into the treacle of homelessness because of their inability to pay their rent or mortgage.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
The noble Lord makes an important point about focusing on prevention. In all areas of public policy, we want to prevent things happening in the first place. In healthcare, for example, rather than just letting the disease get worse and then responding, we want to prevent it happening in the first place. That is why the money going towards ending rough sleeping—the £700 million that has been committed and continues to be spent—is a part of the wider package for tackling homelessness. There is an absolute resolve to deal with the issues that the noble Lord raises. We will continue to focus on prevention and also on the response to those who are on the streets.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
May I gently remind noble Lords to keep their questions and answers brief? A number of noble Lords still wish to get in.
Lord Polak (Con)
I guess it is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise but on the critical issue of homelessness this Government, and specifically the Secretary of State, Robert Jenrick, together with my noble friend the Minister, ought to be congratulated. As has been said, early in the pandemic they launched the Everyone In project, backed up with £700 million. In addition, the recent announcement of the Protect programme, with a further £15 million, will ensure that councils can offer everyone sleeping rough somewhere safe to go. However, does my noble friend agree that it would be reprehensible if any council used that funding for people who are not sleeping rough?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, it is important to focus the money designed for rough sleeping on rough sleeping—that is its intended purpose—but it is also important to deal with the wider issue of homelessness. I would point out that the Government have given £6.4 billion to local councils to support their communities through the pandemic.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
The Salvation Army has an innovative project for short-term housing solutions by using “meanwhile use” land to provide high-quality modular homes rooted in church communities and supported by wider community groups. This gives the residents the provision of a flat and the relational support of the community. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to the Salvation Army’s innovative approach to homelessness and similar projects?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we want to build on what works. I will take away this idea, make sure we give it due consideration and find out how we can support the Salvation Army in its policy ideas—and potentially scale them up, if they are working well.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, we have almost a repeat scenario of the situation we discussed earlier this month relating to free school meals. A very good government initiative earlier in the year—Everyone In—was widely praised, but now it is no longer in that form the responsibility is being passed, through the funding agreements that have been mentioned, to local authorities. That is the answer we got about free school meals. But, as we see in this morning’s press, local councils are facing widespread financial failures and are terrifically strapped for cash. A previous question supposed that the money had to be hypothecated for people suffering from homelessness and rough sleeping—but local councils have so many priorities that will match that. This will be another postcode lottery, if we are not careful. Why can the Government not have another Marcus Rashford moment, and do a U-turn? This month of lockdown is already under way, and the Question is about this month.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I was, unfortunately, a local council leader during a previous Administration under the leadership of Gordon Brown, when there was no Government more focused on ring-fencing every fund. My point was that if a fund is specifically for rough sleepers, it is right and proper that it be targeted on those who are sleeping rough. Most of the money that we are providing—the £6.4 billion—is non-ring-fenced money for local councils to put where their local communities need it most.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, there is a story in Sikhism about the young Guru Nanak spending money given to him for investment on food and blankets for the homeless who were shivering in the winter sun. This led to free dining areas in all the gurdwaras. Does the Minister agree that such facilities, underused in the current pandemic and common to all our different places of worship, can be a valuable resource to help the homeless on today’s streets?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
As Faith Minister, I completely agree. Places of worship, whether they are gurdwaras, temples, churches or synagogues, play a huge part in dealing with the social issues of our time, including homelessness.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that rough sleepers, and those working with them, are particularly vulnerable to Covid? Will he recommend to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation that they should be a priority?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to make representations to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation about making this decision.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allocated for this Question has elapsed. Rather than adjourn the House, if we can just take a minute to move round, I shall move straight into introducing the Fisheries Bill business.
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid proceedings will now resume. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
We now come to consideration of Commons amendments to the Fisheries Bill. These proceedings will follow guidance issued by the Procedures and Privileges Committee. When there are counter-propositions, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and capacity of the Chamber. Any Member intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members not intending to speak on a group should make room for Members who do. All speakers will be called by the Chair.
Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw.
When putting the Question, I will collect the voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counter-proposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. If a Member speaking remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, content or not content, to the collection of the voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email. The way in which to vote will be on a remote voting system through the Peers’ hub. We will now begin.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Thursday 12th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 143-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons amendments - (10 Nov 2020)
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1.
“(2) The “sustainability objective” is that—
(a) fish and aquaculture activities are—
(i) environmentally sustainable in the long term, and
(ii) managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment benefits and contribute to the availability of food supplies, and
(b) the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the intent of this House in focusing its attention on environmental sustainability. The Bill recognises the complexity and challenges of fisheries management and sets a framework that ensures that sustained environmental progress goes hand in hand with social and economic considerations. I should highlight some actions that Defra is undertaking that focus on environmental sustainability.
The Marine Management Organisation has issued a call for evidence on fisheries management measures for five marine protected areas to be implemented next year. Industry recognises the importance of sustainability and wants to work in partnership, as shown when it raised concerns about a scallop fishery on the Dogger Bank. Following constructive discussions with all four Administrations, the area was closed to conduct scientific surveys and provide increased protection to the stock in the area. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations stated that
“without a functioning ecosystem and policies which limit fishing to safe levels, there will be no fishing industry.”
The Cornish Fish Producers Organisation said that,
“it is simply bad business sense to ‘bankrupt’ fish stocks—a healthy marine environment is the cornerstone of the UK’s fishing future.”
We have previously discussed the Bill’s fisheries management plans. They are an important demonstration of the Government’s commitment to improving the marine environment. There are clear obligations for consultation, reporting and review of the plans, providing opportunities to hold the Government to account. We are already working with the shellfish industry advisory group to support its initiative to develop management plans for crabs, lobster and whelks. These valuable stocks currently have little management, so it is right that we prioritise these plans.
I will now address specific elements of Motion 1A. Lawyers advise me that removing “in the long term” would introduce significant uncertainty and hence legal risk to our policy development. Any fisheries management policy or measure could be challenged if there was potential for it to affect environmental sustainability. There are inevitable short-term impacts from development of aquaculture systems or port infrastructure that are managed through the planning and licensing process. The amendment could potentially prevent any further development to support coastal regeneration. We are clear, too, that to ensure long-term sustainability we must make progress in the short term. That is why in my prelude to my remarks on the amendments in the group I set out some of the work currently under way.
Turning to Amendment 1B, the United Kingdom has a well-established vision for clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas. The Marine Strategy Regulations 2010 require the Government and the devolved Administrations to produce a UK marine strategy for our seas to achieve good environmental status. This is a transparent, evidence-based process, drawing in the best available science on the condition of our marine environment. The Bill’s fisheries objectives link to the Marine Strategy Regulations.
Clause 2(1)(c) requires fisheries policy authorities to explain
“how the fisheries objectives have been interpreted and proportionately applied in formulating the policies and proposals”
as part of the joint fisheries statement. This explanation will, of course, rely on scientific evidence. The statement will include an explanation of how the fisheries policy authorities have sought to balance the individual components of the fisheries objectives, including the three elements of the sustainability objective, and the reasons for the fisheries policy authorities believing that the approach outlined in the statement represents the most appropriate way of meeting the sustainability objective, alongside the other objectives. I should also say that six of the eight objectives are environmentally focused, all of which will help deliver sustainable fisheries.
The joint fisheries statement will be subject to public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny, report its progress every three years and be reviewed at least every six years. This means that the statement on the proportionate application of fisheries objectives will be reviewed at these points too, with the necessary public consultation and scrutiny. This provides future accountability beyond this Government. Future policy development will be a collaborative and transparent process. Fisheries management plans will also be subject to public consultation. I hope that noble Lords, and particularly my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, will accept that I absolutely understand what they seek to achieve. We all share the overriding objective of a vibrant marine environment.
Amendments 3 and 4 deal with the removal of the national landing requirement clause and the quota for new entrants and the under-10s respectively. The Government recognise the strength of feeling across both Houses in ensuring that the UK benefits from fish caught in its waters, and that quota is distributed fairly. Last month, consultations were launched on both matters. The economic link and quota allocation to industry are devolved matters, and while the Government engage with their devolved counterparts on policy across the UK, I will necessarily focus on what we are doing in England at this point.
The key features of our proposals in our consultation on strengthening the economic link are to set a landing requirement of at least 70%, and for vessel owners to make up any shortfall in reaching that percentage of landings through quota donations. Quota donations are part of the existing economic link and they benefit the inshore fleet. This strikes a good balance where higher levels of landings will benefit UK ports and the wider economy, while ensuring that in most cases businesses can continue to operate using existing models.
The Government also consulted on future quota allocation and management in England in October. We sought views on whether a reserve of quota for new entrants should be established and how this could work. We will be working with industry in 2021 and beyond to develop jointly and implement solutions to this important issue.
Lack of quota is not the only challenge holding back new entrants into this industry. The Government are also working with Seafish and a range of training partners to offer apprenticeships across the UK on a range of subjects.
The consultation also sought views on how we should fairly allocate additional quota between sector and non-sector pools. The non-sector pools include under-10-metre vessels. The consultation sought broader views on quota management in future, and it sought expressions of interest for piloting community quota management schemes. Defra officials had a number of constructive and positive conversations with various members of the under-10-metre fleet about these initiatives.
Amendment 14 removed Clause 48 on remote electronic monitoring in UK waters, and Amendments 14A and 14B would reinstate that clause, made specific to English waters and vessels. I recognise the importance that your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, place on the benefits that REM can deliver and the need to make progress in expanding its use. I also welcome his helpful submission of evidence on behalf of the EU Environment Sub-Committee.
Monitoring and enforcement is devolved and the noble Lord’s amendments recognise this, but the fact that the previous clause removed by the Commons overstepped devolution was not our only concern, as has been made clear in both Houses. The noble Lord’s amendments would restrict us to specific management measures on a particular timescale. Existing powers in the Bill will allow us to implement REM, but with the flexibility to develop tailored management approaches. Our view it that a one-size-fits-all approach would be a return to the inflexibility of the common fisheries policy.
REM has benefits. Existing studies have shown that it can be an effective enforcement tool, but we agree that it can be used to build a better scientific evidence base as well. The Government also agree with those who have successfully rolled out remote electronic monitoring elsewhere that it is much better to do it with the industry, rather than to the industry.
That is why, on 19 October, Defra launched a call for evidence on expanding the use of remote electronic monitoring in English waters. This action has been welcomed by many environmental groups, including the Marine Conservation Society. The discussions on the call for evidence have shown a wide range of views. The evidence we gather will help us design the detailed options for expanding REM in the right way. In the first half of next year, we aim to have launched a consultation on these detailed options for rolling out increased use of REM. Defra will also work closely with all nations of the United Kingdom to develop a coherent approach to REM, while fully respecting the devolution settlements.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who I know wants to make progress on this—we all do—will accept the Government’s intentions and current work. This is about how we take this matter forward.
The Government have made clear commitments to exploring issues raised in your Lordships’ House with industry and other stakeholders through consultations and calls for evidence. Defra is already taking important action to improve the marine environment, which I very much hope noble Lords will welcome. With those remarks, I beg to move.
Motion 1A (as an amendment to Amendment 1)
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
In subsection (2)(a)(i) leave out “in the long term”.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I beg to move Motion 1A standing in my name. I draw attention to my environmental interests, as declared in the register. I am also a member of the Marine Conservation Society.
We are very nearly here with this important legislation. First, I offer my sincere thanks to my noble friend, who is the epitome of patience and understanding. I am sorry for all the extra work I have caused him and his hard-working officials. I also thank the Secretary of State and Fisheries Minister in the other place for the various discussions we have had. I have not had so much interaction with Ministers since I was the Deputy Chief Whip there, and that was normally telling them that they had to stay for votes.
My amendment is very simple, which noble Lords might expect from someone who is best described as a “bear of very little brain”. I simply want to remove the rather vague “in the long term” from sustainability. My fears are perhaps unfounded, and my noble friend has done his best to reassure me that the Bill will offer jam tomorrow, if it does not today, but I believe that we should be putting sustainability at the immediate heart of our fishing policy.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, who explained the purpose of his amendment so clearly. I can be brief on Motion 1B, because I believe—and I will come back to this—that the Minister agreed to the point of the amendment in his opening speech. The rationale of my amendment, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, is to ensure that the Bill places primacy on the environmental sustainability of fish stocks and the marine environment.
My amendment explicitly put environmental sustainability as the primary fisheries objective when I tabled it on Report. It was rejected by the Government because, it was argued, sustainability is a three-legged stool. It is about the environment, but it is also about the economy—the livelihood of fishers—and communities. I accept that sustainability is a three-legged stool. Amendment 1B asks how the three legs will be balanced against one another. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, I wish to see transparency in how these calculations are done. As he said, we must avoid making the same mistakes that we have made in the past. We do not need to repeat the arguments that we have heard many times during the passage of this Bill, that many fish stocks, not only in European and UK waters but in other waters around the world, are heavily overfished because short-term gain has always been put ahead of sustainability—the livelihoods of fishers today put ahead of the lives of the fish tomorrow. I am asking the Government to show us their workings. If they are going to balance these three elements of the stool, they must show us how. How have the joint fisheries statements balanced the three legs of sustainability, along with the other fisheries objectives?
In his opening remarks, the Minister answered this. I listened very carefully and wrote down what he said, which was that the joint fisheries statement will include an explanation of how the fisheries policy authorities have sought to balance the individual components of the fisheries objectives, including, importantly, the three elements of the sustainability objective, which is exactly what my amendment was asking for. Furthermore, he said that the fisheries authorities would also give the reasons why their balancing of these different elements of the objectives, including the sustainability objective, is the most appropriate way of meeting the sustainability objective. If the joint fisheries statements follow the indication that the Minister has given, we will end up with transparency, we will all understand the workings and we will understand that if sacrifices are being made in the short term to the marine environment on behalf of the livelihoods of fishers and their communities, we will at least know that this has happened, and why it has happened, which will be a significant step forward.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, I pay tribute to the Minister, his officials and the Secretary of State in the other place, for their very patient listening. I too have been a thorn in the side of the Minister and his officials. I apologise, but through these prolonged discussions over many months, we have improved the Bill and the surrounding commentary from the Minister at various stages. In thanking him, and in speaking to my amendment, I also support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. No doubt when we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, I shall support his amendment. I had the great privilege of serving under his chairmanship on the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, where we spent many hours cogitating and hearing evidence on remote electronic monitoring.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest, as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. I will speak to Amendments 14A and 14B in my name, but I shall first refer to some of the other amendments. It is excellent to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to whom I give all credit for his persistence in ensuring that this matter around objectives is not allowed to rest. I hope the Minister will give the noble Lord the assurances that he needs.
I will not go on about it after this, but I must say that the Government have made it quite clear that this Bill is the first time for 40 years or more that we have been able to have our own fisheries legislation—fundamental primary legislation—in this House and in the other place. There are good things in it, and I am delighted that the Government brought it forward, but they should have had more courage to make it, in the Prime Minister’s words, a world-beating and ambitious Bill, rather than one that takes us half way to the destinations we need to reach. I give it credit for where it has got us, but it could have gone further, which is why I am disappointed that the four amendments that this House sent to the other place were effectively rejected.
Regarding the ordering of the objectives of fisheries plans and management, by giving all those objectives equal status, there are a number of escape clauses to avoid the difficult decisions with the fisheries industry around setting tax and quotas. I suspect that we will not have a fundamental fisheries Bill for many years now, so these escape routes will cover future Governments as well as this one. Whatever reassurances we have now, we cannot be certain that they will be carried forward by future Secretaries of State or Governments. That is why I am so sad that we are repeating the mistakes of the common fisheries policy. However, I will move on, and if the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is happy with the Minister’s response, I give it full credit.
I thank the Minister for mentioning the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation. From what he says, I suspect that he has been in contact with it. It is great at promoting not only fishing activity but the whole supply chain and the excellent provenance of Cornish fresh fish products.
Going through a couple of those other amendments that we have not talked about so much and do not have counterproposals for, I recognise that the Government are moving ahead on the obligations regarding the proportion of fish landed, which I take positively. However, on the redistribution of quotas, I still want to understand from the Government, given the large foreign ownership of those stocks effectively through British companies, how the Government will resolve those issues and ensure that British fishers will still be the main beneficiaries of that extra quota, which comes from greater control over our EEZ, and not foreign owners of British companies. Will the National Security and Investment Bill, newly introduced in the other place, be a method by which we protect this resource for British fishers? Is that an intention of this Government? It deserves that level of interest, given the potential application of the legislation. Otherwise, we gain the EEZ, we go through difficult negotiations with the EU, and then we give it all away again. How do we ensure that we do not do that?
Coming to my own amendments on remote electronic monitoring, I very much welcome the Government having quickly put out a call for evidence. This will lead to a consultation, and I am also pleased that the Government have given a timetable for that, although it is not until next year, and clearly, even though we are almost into next year, the evidence has yet to come in.
I am slightly disappointed that there is still quite a bit of caution. Clearly, we have to take notice of the evidence that comes in to that call, but there seems still to be no understanding that REM is the way forward. It is the only technology to gain the right data and ensure that enforcement is effective. Sure, some of that might change, but it will change through the software and the way that information is used or processed; it will not be the technology itself—the technology will just get cheaper and easier to use.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated they wish to speak: the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to address the Government’s amendment to Clause 1 and the amendment of noble Lord, Lord Randall. The Government have proposed replacing subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 1 with a single subsection. To understand the implications, one must look carefully at the deletions. Subsection (3), which the Government would delete, states that the sustainability objective is the prime fisheries objective. It is reasonable to infer that the removal of this is tantamount to its negation. If sustainability is not the prime objective of fish stock management, it is logical to infer that the depletion of fish stocks would be regarded as a tolerable outcome if their preservation would stand in the way of the realisation of more favoured objectives.
One does not have to look far to discover what these objectives might be. The Government have encouraged an expectation that Brexit will result in a bonanza for British fishermen. They are keen to avoid an immediate disappointment of this expectation by restraining the fishermen. Fish are not vital to the UK economy. The incentive to conserve them is liable to be overshadowed in the short run by the desire of the Government to appease UK fishermen and supporters of Brexit in general.
That this is the immediate objective is confirmed by another deletion from subsection 2(a)—the deletion to which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, draws attention. The original clause declared the intention to avoid compromising environmental sustainability either in the short term or in the long term. The Government now propose to do this only in the long term. This invites the danger that, in the long term, there would be little left to sustain. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, has proposed that the remaining qualification, which refers to the long run, should also be deleted, so that the objective of environmental sustainability can be asserted unequivocally. I believe this to be his intention and I support his Motion strongly.
Thankfully, there are other passages in the confused text of this Bill that might give us greater hope for the survivability of fish stocks than the Government’s proposed version of subsection (2) of Clause 1. Clause 1(3)(b) asserts the objective of exploiting the marine stocks in such a way as to maintain the populations of harvested species above the biomass levels capable of producing the maximum sustainable yield. Notice that this is not an injunction to fish at the maximum sustainable yield—which would imperil the fish stocks—but to fish at a lesser rate, which would allow stocks to regenerate.
I am unaware of the provenance of this clause. It must have been placed there by someone with a proper understanding of fish stock ecology. It makes good sense and I wish to commend it.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute briefly on this group of amendments. I wish to speak to nothing other than Commons Amendment 3, relating to the deletion of Clause 18, which deals with the national landing requirement. I support the Government going down this path of accepting that we do not want to impose the rigidities of that formulation, and I entirely agree with what my noble friend the Minister said in introducing his amendments and speaking to that particular one.
As was said by my noble friend, and by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, this is about achieving economic benefits through economic linkage. The Government are pursuing this through their consultation. We must understand that the most important economic benefits will be derived from the new relationship we establish with the European Union and our role as an independent coastal state. We must make this happen.
I remind noble Lords—I know those present will know only too well—that we import two-thirds of the fish that we eat and we export two-thirds of the fish that we catch. The market and trading relationship that we have with our neighbours is as important as the relationship that we have around the allocation of fishing opportunities. It is said that a deal can be done: both sides are saying a deal can be done but both sides continue to say that such a deal has not yet been done in relation to fisheries. That is a sad fact, because it should be the case that a deal should be available. Some considerable time ago, the European Union accepted the proposition that there would be a move to zonal attachment rather than relative stability. It cannot deny the simple legal fact that we have now, and will have in future, sovereign control over our waters, but I think we all accept that there is a need to co-operate.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson—he understands this far better than I do—made the point that what we require for our UK fishing fleet is, in the years ahead, a reversal of the experience they have had in the last decades. Instead of the progressive reduction of capacity of the UK fishing fleet—which I think is something around 30% down over 20 years, and halved over the last 40 years—we want in the decade ahead to see the capacity of the UK fishing fleet increase, year on year. It is not simply about the allocation of additional quota, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, that could end up quota that is sold back to foreign boats.
What we want to see therefore—and what is, I think, the basis of a deal—is an acceptance on the part of the EU that there is a progressive increase in UK quota that is then made as additional quota available to UK boats at a pace realistic to their ability to increase capacity. They have been losing capacity, on average, at 2% a year, and we could maybe be more ambitious in recovering it—at perhaps 5% a year, and a 50% increase in capacity over 10 years.
It may be that this is not achievable in a straightforward deal with our European partners. But in the broader context of the relationship with the EU, such a shift and reduction in the available quota to our neighbours in the European Union is entirely negotiable, with compensation for those who lose access to quota in some of these other countries. That may be something we have to accept in the context of the deal.
However, it seems to me that one of the ideological barriers to understanding the nature of the deal that has to be struck is the proposition, constantly made by the Government, that there is no relationship between market access and quota. That is clearly not true. It was not true for the Norwegians: the European Economic Area discussions that Norway had with the European Union were about financial contributions, fishing opportunities and market access. Our deal with the European Union must include all those three aspects too. When we accept that, and the fact that we are substantial importers and consumers of fish caught by our neighbours, just as they buy from us, we then begin to realise that there must be a deal and how it might be achievable. We will then get the economic benefits through the expansion of our fishing fleet over a period of time at a sustainable rate, which, I believe, should be accepted, even by the most fervent advocates of the Brexit process—which I am not. But even those who are must accept that simply, for example, giving all the quota back to the English fishing fleet tomorrow will not suddenly create a large capacity that does not presently exist.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I shall speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I would like to say what a privilege it is to serve under his chairmanship on the EU Environment Sub-Committee.
I have spoken at every stage of this Bill about the benefits of remote electronic monitoring, and I very much support the conclusions that we reached in the other place when I was chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee. As the number one admirer of my noble friend the Minister, I believe that this amendment should be extremely helpful to him. I would like to quote what my noble friend the Duke of Montrose would have said had he been here. He feels that at the moment we are missing answers to the main questions about reasonably accurate records of stocks, and I think that this amendment serves to plug that gap. In my noble friend’s words, it
“might remove some of the resistance in the under 10m fleet”,
because we are exposing that. The amendment addresses what is missing at the moment, which is the scientific data that we need. I welcome the fact that under-10-metre vessels will be excluded and that that exclusion will apply to both UK vessels and other vessels fishing in our waters.
I want to impress on the Minister a sense of urgency in this matter. I welcome the fact that he has made a call for evidence and that we are to have a consultation in the first half of next year, but there will then be a further delay before the regulations are drafted and come into effect, and that is the missing link. Therefore, I urge the Minister to show a sense of urgency in this regard.
In regard to the quotas for under-10-metre fishing vessels, when I was MEP for Essex North and Suffolk South, the whole of the Essex coast was in my constituency. This issue is of immense concern to fishermen there and to fishermen in Filey and other parts of Yorkshire. I am sure that my noble friend will confirm that we do not need to have left the EU fisheries policy to achieve this, so, again, I hope that we can proceed rapidly to the donations and to allowing unused quotas to be used by the under-10s.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, always speaks with authority. If the Minister is not able to accept his amendment, I hope that he will say what vehicle he will use in this House to inform us how the three legs of the sustainability objective will be retained.
Finally, expressions such as “long term” and “shortly” always amuse me. Now, we learn from the Minister that we will hear before the summer about the regulations to bring part of these provisions into effect. Can my noble friend point to the specific part that “in the long term” will apply to? Is it the habitats directive? Which legal provision would prevent any possible future development of ports if the words “in the long term” were removed from Amendment 1? What specific legal provision can he refer to in that regard? I am struggling to understand, unless there is a specific provision in the habitats directive or other parts of what are now EU retained law in UK law.
With that, the one amendment that I would support, if he were to put it to a vote, is Amendment 14B, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that this Bill is not ambitious enough. I think that it is, and it is considerably more ambitious than it would have been if written a few years ago, as I am sure he would agree. In 10 years’ time, we might, with hindsight, say that it could have been more ambitious, but, given the current climate, I think that it is a pretty ambitious Bill.
I say that because one has to bear in mind the amount of detailed work and consultation that has gone on with the devolved Administrations. I will not point a finger at which of the devolved Administrations is not as keen on the environment as the Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Krebs, and I might be and has blocked some of the amendments that we put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, also talked about companies and business. I take a slightly different view from him on that. I welcome all investment in the fishing industry, wherever it comes from, as it is to the benefit of this country and the fishing industry. I hope that my noble friend Lord Gardiner will confirm that the taxpayer will not compensate or help English fishermen to buy back the quotas that they have sold but which the Scottish and other fishermen have not sold and who would therefore not benefit in the same way,
I join the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in his concern that Clause 1(3) is being deleted. I listened to my noble friend’s opening speech, but I hope that he will come back to this point, because it seems to me that sustainability should remain a prime objective of the fishing industry.
On Amendment 1B, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, on his persistence and, I think, his victory with the Government. He was right to highlight what my noble friend Lord Gardiner had said. Provided my noble friend confirms that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has correctly interpreted what he said, I will stick with the Government on this.
I was initially attracted by Amendment 1A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge, but he was wise to be pragmatic, because there are difficulties with deleting “in the long term”. However, I hope very much that in the short term we will get to where we are going.
Finally, on Amendment 14B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the Bill allows this to be introduced. I speak with the experience of having twice been a Minister for Fisheries many moons ago. I recall that the one lesson I learned from everybody I talked to in the fishing industry then was that, if you work with the industry, you get a better and quicker result than if you impose something on it. This is perhaps one situation where I suggest to the House that that bit of advice is the way forward. I know that my noble friend is keen to get this to work, but I think that working with the industry and getting it on side will be helpful. One has only to read the press reports of the great spat that is about to happen between President Macron and the French scallop fishers. Perhaps that is why President Macron is being so difficult over the fishing negotiations: he is trying to appease the industry on the one hand while clobbering it hard with the other.
We have made progress with the Bill. It is a substantial step forward, and I hope that none of the amendments is put to a vote.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have had no further requests from the Chamber to speak, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, this group of amendments seems to put all the controversial fishing amendments—as opposed to the controversial Crown dependency amendment—into one group. I ask noble Lords to forgive the length of my intervention at this stage of the Bill but it will be my only intervention today.
On Amendment 1B, I support the principles being put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. One of the most unedifying parts of the common fisheries policy is the annual December bun-fight over future quotas and fishing rights. This is a party where too many Ministers try to represent the fishers of their country against the fishers of a neighbouring country; they try to represent the fishers of today rather than the fishers of tomorrow, who unfortunately do not get a vote. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Deben, telling me once about an occasion when he was representing the UK at that year’s fisheries meeting. The Danish Fisheries Minister tried to take a long-term view of fishing opportunities; when he got home, he was promptly sacked for letting down his fishing industry. That is an example of why the common fisheries policy has sometimes been described as a tragedy of the commons —in other words, today’s fishers say to themselves, “There’s no point in me not catching all the fish I can now because if I don’t catch them while they are there, the other blighters will”.
However, all that is now finished. These are our waters that we are discussing. The other blighters cannot catch them without a licence issued by us. When we get remote electronic monitoring on to all the boats in our waters, British and EU, we will know exactly who is catching what and where and thus be able to prevent overfishing for short-term socioeconomic gain. So there is no longer any excuse for not taking a long-term sustainable approach to our fisheries.
I quite like the use of “long term”. In saying that, I am not trying to oppose the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Randall. I understand completely what he is getting at and I totally support his motives; he does not want short-term economic gain to trump environmental gain in either the short or the long term. However, I would quite like to have “long term” somewhere in this crucial Bill-defining first clause because it seems to me that that would make it clear that we are laying down these objectives for tomorrow’s fishers rather than today’s—for our current fishers’ grand- children rather than for those fishers themselves.
Coming back to Amendment 1B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, a commitment by the Minister on the Floor of the House may suffice at this stage. However, although I may have missed this in his opening remarks, I ask that he considers in his final remarks committing to reporting on this matter more than just once after the Bill has been enacted. It would be good to know that this once-in-a-lifetime chance to embed the right principles in our fisheries legislation will be an ongoing commitment for the long term— which, as I say, is what really matters.
Turning briefly to Commons Amendment 3, I can see why, with the Brexit negotiations still ongoing, the Government did not want their hands tied by the details of our Clause 18 on the landing requirement. I can also see why they would want more flexibility—and time, perhaps—to consult on economic links. However, it is a pity, in spite of what the Minister said, that the Government did not feel that they could have replaced our Clause 18 with their own clause setting out the principles of an economic link. We have now lost all reference in the Bill to a landing requirement or an economic link; as I say, that is a pity, particularly bearing in mind the vision that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, just gave us on how our negotiations with the EU might go over the next 10 years or so.
The same thoughts apply to Commons Amendment 4, which removed our Clause 27 on holding a reserve of quota for new entrants and smaller boats. The Minister in the other place said that
“the Government agree with the intention behind the clause, but disagree with the manner in which that intention is proposed to be delivered … It is our intention to consult on using some of the additional quota that I am convinced is coming to us to provide increased fishing opportunities for under-10 metre vessels … but I am afraid, because of the drafting difficulties, I cannot support the clause.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 10/9/20; col. 123.]
If the Government support the clause but not its details, why not put in something better of their own in its place? Even if consultation has to follow, this seems to be an opportunity lost. After all, such schemes have worked successfully in Denmark, on a more local scale in the Shetlands and probably in other countries as well.
The impression given by the Government’s amendment just to delete our Clause 27 is one of Executive bulldozing—that is, “We don’t disapprove of what is proposed but, rather than sitting down and working out what is needed, let’s just scrap it altogether and leave it to us, the Executive, to work something out in future without the parliamentary scrutiny that words on the face of a Bill might require”. As I said about Amendment 3, this seems like a lost opportunity to put something in the Bill, which is a pity because this Bill sets the framework for our UK fisheries for probably a whole generation.
Turning to Amendment 14B, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing forward once again the question of having remote electronic monitoring, known as REM, on fishing vessels in our waters and trying to get some form of government commitment into the Bill. Having looked at fisheries several times over the years on the EU sub-committee that the noble Lord very skilfully chairs, and having heard hours—if not days—of evidence on this subject, I am convinced that REM is going to be the key element to the successful and sustainable fishing regime that we all wish to see in British waters after we regain control of our own fisheries.
As I made clear on Report, we need REM to manage all the fishing in our waters. One of the most important reasons is that we do not have the necessary fleet available to police either our new fisheries policy or the terms and conditions that will accompany the fishing licences for all boats in UK waters. Bearing in mind that some 70% of all fish currently caught in UK waters are caught by non-UK boats, the management role of REM will be really important to the equitable management of our fisheries and thus the long-term sustainability of our UK fishing industry. It is important that our own fishers realise that if we are to change the share-out of the fish in our waters, albeit gradually, we will have to accept that REM is inevitable as we cannot monitor non-UK boats without monitoring our own. The sooner we have REM, the better it will be for everyone.
In a similar vein, I acknowledge that the Scottish fishing fleet catches 64% of all UK fish landed compared to the English fleet’s mere 28%, so one might think that this compromise amendment—Amendment 14B—applies only to England and would put an unfair burden on the English fleet. It might, but then again we should note that the introduction of REM to the Scottish fleet was in fact a manifesto commitment of the SNP, so I do not believe that any disparity would last for very long.
In any case, without going into all the detail of the advantages of REM that I spoke about on Report—such as providing data for zonal attachment and avoiding choke species—I firmly believe that the large amounts of real-time data that would become available to fishers and fishing authorities as a result of the introduction of universal REM would become a hugely valuable asset to all parties, including to the fishers themselves. I am convinced that, if they try it for a few years, the fishermen will not want to go back. I realise that Amendment 14B does not go as far as universal REM but I hope that eventually we will get it on to all boats.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his extensive introduction to this group of amendments, and for his time and that of the Secretary of State and his officials in providing a briefing. He has given reasons for why amendments in this group cannot be accepted. However, I regret that I find it difficult to accept the Government’s arguments.
We spent many hours and days debating the Bill, with contributions from all sides in an effort to improve it, preserve our fishing stocks, protect the economy of our coastal communities and give our fishermen an income which will sustain them into the future. That is not an easy task but, at the end of the day, if we do not protect our fish stocks, we will have received no economic or social benefits for either the communities or the fishermen.
Fishing must be conducted in a sustainable way and the environment must be protected. We are all aware of the severe challenges faced by our coastal towns and villages during the six months from October to March each year, when the tourists and second homeowners visit less frequently, and in some areas not at all. Coastal communities that attract thousands of visitors during the spring and summer months know that it is often the sight of the fishing boats in the harbour which are the draw.
However, unless fish stocks are preserved and sustained into the future, there is a very real threat to the prosperity of these communities. A smash-and-grab approach, whereby fish are taken over and above the maximum sustainable yield for short-term economic gain, will not produce the results needed. Transparency, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has indicated, is absolutely key.
Motion 1A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, is simple: sustainability is a must for ever. Is “the long term”, in the view of the Government, three years? Is it 10 years? It must be stretching into the future. Just what does “long term” mean? It is not acceptable in 20 years’ time for our grandchildren to say, “What is cod? What does it look like? What does it taste like?” I choose this species as it is the most widely available on fish counters today and in fish and chip shops, but it could be any species—skate, hake or haddock. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, makes very pertinent points about the invisibility of fish. Despite international commitments to end overfishing by 2020, only 58% to 68% of UK fish stocks for which data is available are currently fished at sustainable levels. This means that between 32% and 42% are overfished and not sustainable.
Motion 1B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, similarly presses the need for environmental sustainability. We know from previous discussions that the Government believe that sustainability is only a third of the basis for their fishing policies, with economic and social factors being on a par—a three-legged stool. This is a false premise on which to go forward; it will not protect fish stocks. Once fish stocks have depleted there will be no economic or social benefits. Sustainability must be the overarching consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, has spoken knowledgeably about the allocation of quota, and the bun-fight when it is distributed.
It is regrettable that the Commons has not sought to include and support Clause 18 for a national landing requirement. Similarly, it had rejected Clause 27, which would have ensured fishing opportunities for new entrants and boats under 10 metres. There is, therefore, little hope for those young men and women living in coastal communities who wish to make fishing their way of life. There is now no mechanism for them to plan for such a future; this is extremely short-sighted. As more mature fishermen retire, it will be essential to encourage younger people into the industry. Can the Minister say what measures the Government intend to put in place to encourage new entrants into the fishing industry?
Amendment 14B, in the name of my noble friend Lord Teverson, seeks to install remote electronic monitoring systems and cameras on all over-10-metre fishing vessels, including those fishing outside the UK EEZ. This would be phased in within the next five years after passing the Bill. His timetable is not unreasonable: he asks not for this to happen next year but for a phased implementation. The government consultation on the implementation of REM is to be welcomed. It is essential that robust and verifiable data is needed to support well-managed, accountable and sustainable fisheries. Trials of REM on UK vessels have already illustrated the benefits of this technology as a valuable monitoring tool.
So why is it so important to have this on the face of the Bill and not wait for the results of the government consultation? The NFFO policy statement is that Brexit provides an opportunity to take back control of UK fishing: control access to UK waters and ensure that UK fishermen get a fair deal on quotas; revive coastal communities, bringing immediate and long-term opportunities; and grow the UK’s industry as a world leader in sustainable fisheries management. It is not wrong—this is a once in a lifetime opportunity. However, it is the methods that it wishes to follow to achieve this which are flawed. On the subject of MSY, it believes that:
“Setting quotas in mixed fisheries for sustainable fisheries management … will not be helped if there is a legal requirement that elevates MSY above all other factors and an immoveable rigidity is introduced into fisheries management.”
MSY is key to sustainability of our fish stocks.
The NFFO is similarly
“against the blanket introduction of REM as this would raise a range of ethical, legal and practical questions that so far remain unaddressed”.
I am at a loss to understand what the ethical questions might be. One thing is very clear: introducing REM will leave no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what has been caught, where and what, if anything, has been thrown back, and where the catch is landed.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has supported my noble friend Lord Teverson in this eloquent amendment, as have other Peers. We wait to see what the result of the REM consultation will produce but, as my noble friend said, this was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and I deeply regret that we have not grasped it with both hands. Yes, there would have been difficult decisions, but now is the time to make them, not put them off for another day. I support all three amendments, which are absolutely vital for the future of our fishing industry and fish stocks over the next 30 years.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his letter setting out the Government’s reasons on these amendments, and also for the very helpful meeting with the Secretary of State and advisers earlier this week. However, we remain disappointed with the Government’s response. We believe that the substance of our original amendments was sound and a constructive improvement to the Bill. Having read Hansard for the Commons considerations of our amendments, I would say that we won the arguments even if we did not win the votes.
Of course, there is a particular irony in that, from the outset, we were told that we could not amend this Bill as it was a done deal with the devolved nations that could not be unpicked, yet here we are considering 101 government amendments that have been tabled since our amendments were opposed for that very reason. We will consider the merits or otherwise of the government amendments in other groups, but I want to say something more about our amendments at this stage.
First, on sustainability, I do not think that we will ever agree on the need for environmental sustainability to be paramount. The Minister knows the strength of feeling in the House on this issue. It was not helped by the argument he originally put forward that we should welcome the arrangements because they merely replicated those in the common fisheries policy, which, as noble Lords will know, has led to depleted stocks, whereby just over half of UK fishing stocks are fished at sustainable levels. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, leaving the EU was the one opportunity to make a dynamic difference to the sustainability of our fish stocks, and it feels like the Government have failed to grasp that vision and make it a reality.
Nevertheless, I welcome the commitments in the Minister’s letter to build sustainability into the pilot schemes for the fisheries management plans and to increase protections for the marine protected areas. However, there is clearly a great deal more to be done to demonstrate environmental sustainability in action and to persuade us that there has been a break with the discredited practices of the past. This is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which would require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on how the economic, social and environmental objectives are being balanced by the fisheries policy authorities. We would then be in a better position to judge the Government’s real determination to deliver change on this issue and there would be the transparency that we all seek. As has been said, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, has been tenacious in pursuing this issue, so I am pleased that the Minister was able to provide more detail in his opening comments on how the fisheries management plans will work and how the three-legged stool will be balanced so that we can hold local fishing communities to account for achieving all aspects of sustainability.
I also welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall. He is quite right to point out that environmental sustainability should be not just a long-term objective—or, as he put it, “jam tomorrow”; it should be for the here and now, in response to the immediate crisis, rather than a distant and worthy goal. That is the point that my noble friend Lord Hanworth echoed. It seems like a simple but important amendment and I hope that the Minister will recognise the strength of the concerns raised today on this issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I was not sure about the argument that coastal development might impact on short-term sustainability. I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to take this simple amendment on board, but I hope that the Minister was able, in his comments, to provide sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, that it will, in practice, be both a short- and long-term objective.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this fairly wide-ranging debate. I am particularly grateful for the kind and generous remarks that have been made.
I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that sustainability is at the heart of the Bill. I think that the work that we have all done together on the Bill shows a spirit of ambition—my noble friend Lord Caithness used the word “ambitious”. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will be satisfied that the opportunities will be as this comes into fruition. I do not think that we have missed opportunities in terms of legislative provision. The key and the test of all this is what this framework Bill will do to the marine environment, out there in the seas and oceans. That is when we all be judged—Governments, the industry—and when we will be able to see that fish stocks are recovering; indeed, that more fish stocks are recovering.
It is interesting that my noble friend Lord Randall spoke about the reference to “long term” and not wanting this, but the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, rather liked it. Our clear ongoing commitment, setting out how the fisheries objectives will be applied, is provided through Clause 2(1)(c), as I said. I repeat that this will be reviewed and updated with each iteration of the joint fisheries statement, which will be laid before Parliament and consulted on. There will be regular scrutiny of our ongoing commitment to ensure that today’s fishers’ grandchildren enjoy the benefits of a healthy and productive marine environment, with sustainable fish stocks that support a thriving fishing industry and vibrant coastal communities. I know that that is the objective of us all. I repeat: removing “in the long term” from Clause 1, as proposed by my noble friend Lord Randall, will introduce significant legal uncertainty and, we believe, hinder our policy development.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked about IVMS and REM. My understanding is that inshore vessel monitoring systems are a satellite-based monitoring system and enforcement tool that provides an accurate picture of the fishing location and activity of the under-12-metre fleet. Following public consultation in early 2019, the MMO is putting plans in place for IVMS to be rolled out to all licensed British under- 12-metre vessels operating in English waters. The date of implementation is not expected to be before late 2021. The devolved Administrations are all currently working on IVMS projects for their respective under-12-metre fleets. In comparison, REM includes integrated onboard systems of cameras, gear sensors, video storage and global positioning system units that capture comprehensive video of fishing activities. As I have highlighted, we do not want REM to be exclusively and alone an enforcement tool; we think that there are many other attributes of that system.
I know this was a point all noble Lords were concerned about, but I will flag up the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Cameron, who asked for a date for REM implementation. I particularly refer to my noble friend Lady McIntosh in saying that we are already using REM. The Government are clear that we will be consulting on increasing the use of REM in the first half of 2021, with implementation following that. I am not in a position to give a precise date today for when this will be implemented, but I can absolutely say—and I want to put this on the record—that the Government are absolutely seized of the importance of REM. Indeed, other technologies may come along in the future that will also assist us with all the things that we hope and intend that REM will do, as I have described. However, I understand and accept that everyone wants action on this; I share that feeling, as do the Fisheries Minister and the Secretary of State.
I welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Randall and the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who highlighted the importance of transparency in quota setting. I agree with them, and that is why we supported my noble friend Lord Lansley’s amendment on Report, which provided further transparency about the criteria used by setting this in the Bill. These amendments also made clear the link between the fisheries objectives and quota distribution through Clause 22. That means that the fisheries administrations will need to explain, through the joint fisheries statement, how their policies on quota allocation contribute to the achievement of the fisheries objectives. As I have said, six of the eight are environmentally focused.
The Secretary of State’s determination for UK fishing opportunities will be required to be laid before Parliament under Clause 25(2) in the version of the Bill that went to the House of Commons. This will be an additional opportunity for scrutiny not previously available under the EU system. There is still more that we need to do to achieve our ambitions for the marine environment. The Government are already taking action through our work to implement the joint fisheries statement and the fisheries management plans. The Bill will put in place the framework to make that action even stronger.
I received some questions. If there are any that I do not answer fully enough, in my opinion, I will write to noble Lords, but I hope I have answered most of them. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about foreign-owned vessels and the economic link. Foreign-owned but UK-flagged vessels will continue to be allowed to fish in UK waters. They will need to meet the economic link criteria, as all UK vessels must. In England, our consultation proposes strengthening these criteria, realising an ever-greater benefit from these boats.
The noble Lord also asked about REM. We are clear that it is a route forward, and we want to make sure that its uses can be maximised beyond enforcement, as I said. My noble friend Lord Caithness made a point that I addressed in my earlier remarks: I think we all agree that it is much better that we work with industry to get this done because that is how we will have the right arrangements to ensure that the fishing industry—this is why I quoted those remarks from Cornwall and elsewhere; it is something that we increasingly need—sees the quest for sustainability as the heart and soul of what it is doing.
My noble friend Lord Lansley referred to negotiations. As the Bill is negotiations-neutral, for me to start speculating on any deal may not be helpful to your Lordships today. Our quota consultation makes clear that we want to do something different with additional quota so that it is not distributed through FQA units. In relation to fleet capacity, currently managed by restrictive licensing and quota allocation, we believe that the fleet could catch additional quota with no need for expansion.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the National Security and Investment Bill. I will make sure that that point is put to my colleagues, but I am afraid I am not in a position to opine on it myself. My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about buy-back. The quota consultation asked for views on different ways of distributing additional quota negotiated. This relates not to a buy-back scheme but to different ways for fishers to access quota in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, asked about the “national benefit objective” in Clause 1, which will require the fisheries administrations to set out their policies for achieving benefits for the UK from fish caught by UK boats—a clear reference to the economic link.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked about port development. My understanding is that this is subject to habitats and other regulatory regimes. Plans are also subject to environmental assessment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, rightly asked about new entrants. I should have said that it is not just fishers’ grandchildren but their children whom we want to be engaged in this sustainable harvest, with excellent food coming from our waters. Helping to safeguard the industry’s future by encouraging new entrants is very important. We will look at how we can best work with industry to encourage that as part of our work to reform the fisheries management regime.
There was also a reference to the landing requirement. I have to mention carefully the helpful comments and messages that we—or other noble Lords—sent to the other place. On the point about landing requirements, we have brought forward this consultation on the proposal to increase the landing requirement to 70% to incentivise a higher level of landings into the UK and to ensure a stronger link between vessels fishing UK waters and the UK economy. This figure has been chosen because we believe it strikes the right balance between the need for a strengthened link and recognition that it is appropriate for some vessels to land their catch outside the UK, while demonstrating an economic link through quota donations. As I said, we are seeking views in our consultation on the appropriateness of the 70% figure.
I will look at Hansard, but I want to confirm, so there is no ambiguity, that I absolutely recognise the points all noble Lords have made in their amendments. It is why I set out in my opening remarks some of the action that is already being taken in the short term, as with Dogger Bank and shellfish. It is not that we want to be doing these things in years to come; we need to be doing them now, and we are doing them now. We need to work progressively so that, in our waters at least, we have a sustainable harvest with a sustainable environment, not just for the harvesting of the fish that we want to eat but for the entire ecosystem, which is clearly a key priority and responsibility of the UK Government. For those reasons, I beg to move my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no request to ask a short question of elucidation after the Minister. Does any noble Lord in the Chamber wish to contribute further? In which case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Randall.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this wide-ranging debate and particularly those who spoke to my amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and others who had a different take on what I was reading into the Government’s amendment, and I can understand there are several ways of interpreting it. I am still slightly at a loss about the point of port development, because I do not think that actually impacts decisions to set fishing quotas above sustainable levels, but I shall leave it there.
Despite my prodding the Government once or twice, I still believe they have the environment at the heart of their policies. I shall continue to ensure as best I can that that is the case, but I am an optimist, and I think we will see further measures coming forward that will encourage me. I shall continue to talk about the marine environment and fishes, but I can assure my noble friends in the Government Whips’ Office that any plans they had for me to sleep with the fishes are unfounded, as I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 2.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, as your Lordships will have seen in my letter of 3 November to all Peers, the House of Commons agreed a number of changes to the Bill. I hope my letter was helpful in setting out the reasons for those changes.
Amendment 2 extends the timeframe for the publication of the joint fisheries statement from 18 months after Royal Assent to 24 months. This change was necessary due to the delays in the passage of the Fisheries Bill, mostly, latterly, as a result of Covid-19. Had this amendment not been made, key stages of the drafting and adoption processes would have fallen within the pre-election periods for all three of the devolved legislatures, and so they requested we make this change. We believe it would not be appropriate to be making potentially new policy decisions as part of the JFS drafting process during any pre-election period.
Amendment 5 expressly allows the publication of personal data relating to funding recipients, and Amendments 66, 67 and 68 make equivalent provision in relation to the devolved Administrations’ funding powers. There should be transparency when public funds are made available. The publication of such data is in the public interest and facilitates fraud deterrence and detection. The publication of data on grant beneficiaries was raised during the development of our future funding scheme, and this amendment expressly addresses this concern.
Amendment 77 and the consequential Amendments 13 and 27 strengthen existing legislative protections for seals in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. The amendments greatly restrict the circumstances in which any intentional killing of a wild seal is lawfully permitted. We have, however, retained important exemptions: it will, for instance, still be lawful to euthanise a wild seal suffering from catastrophic injury, pain or disease.
These changes are necessary for the UK to comply with new import regulations being implemented in the United States of America. From January 2022, the United States will only allow imports of fisheries products from countries that do not allow the killing, injuring or taking of marine mammals as part of commercial fisheries. Not complying with this requirement would result in a significant loss of export revenue for the United Kingdom. In 2019, wild-capture exports to the United States were worth approximately £13.3 million.
Given the possible impact of this change on the catching sector, Defra undertook a targeted consultation in England before committing to any changes. Defra also agreed to legislate on behalf of the Northern Ireland Executive, and their respective legislative regime for seals needed time to be worked through. For both these reasons, this amendment had to be introduced at a later stage in the Bill’s passage.
Both environmental non-governmental organisations and parts of industry have responded positively to this change in legislation. The Seal Research Trust said this would improve the welfare of seals. Parts of industry highlighted the potential future importance of the US market.
Amendments 98 and 100 extend specific existing exceptions from landing obligations in the north-western waters and the North Sea respectively so that they apply until 31 December 2021. Two new exemptions are also introduced relating to Norway lobster in the North Sea, replacing an existing exemption and an exemption for plaice in the North Sea that will also be implemented by the EU from January.
These exemptions are supported by scientific evidence collected by the EU’s Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, which we considered with our world-class scientists in Cefas. We have been clear that scientific evidence will underpin our future fisheries management policies. This particular science and analysis were only available after Report stage in your Lordships’ House.
The other part of Amendment 100 enables the UK to adopt its own conservation measures for North Sea cod from next year, which will apply to all vessels fishing in UK waters by revoking provisions in retained EU law.
Turning to the more minor and technical amendments agreed by the other place, Amendment 8 inserts “sea fishing” to clarify the scope of regulation-making powers under Clauses 36 and 38. Amendment 17 makes a small change to the definition of “minimum conservation reference size” to make clear that it aligns with the widely accepted approach. Amendment 28 removes the Lords privilege amendment. This is a routine procedural issue. Finally, Amendments 78 and 79 update references to two regulations that have been replaced.
The Bill has been enhanced by these changes, ensuring we have the necessary legislation in place to develop our approach to future fisheries management. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
What a delicious irony, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said. We were told that this Bill could not be amended by ourselves due to devolution—look at all the amendments here—and now we have found out the United States can change this Bill but we cannot. It is a great irony, and interesting arguments about territoriality are coming out. What is interesting is that there is no better ammunition than this to show, if we have a trade deal with the United States, that we should not be having chlorinated chicken or the other things we talk about, given that we have had to concede on seal welfare—not that I do not welcome sea welfare.
What I welcome in particular is the transparency element that comes in. This is important for making it absolutely clear who receives grant schemes or other schemes to help the industry, as any other industry, and how those are received, so we can have a good audit of that process. I welcome that very much.
In terms of the landing in north-west waters, that is an illustration where I agree with the Government. There has to be pragmatism around how we operate the landing of fish. That is why making the detail of that in future, as we discussed in the last group, will be quite complex but essential. Do I take it from that that the exemption is for only one year? Is that exemption there only until the Government have decided what the broader landing rules are? That is my real question.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and for the letter dated 3 November explaining the Commons amendments to your Lordships’ House, where the Bill started. Many of these amendments followed up on suggestions and inquiries initiated here, which the Government have had time to consider further during the Summer Recess, including in several consultations.
Once again, this House had a serious impact, delivering improvements to government legislation. These amendments provide examples of that work and could be categorised as important but may be more minor policy changes, drafting improvements and corrections.
Amendment 2 is one such amendment where, following probing, the initial provision for publication of the joint fisheries statement was set at 18 months after Royal Assent. The new proposal is to extend this to 24 months, as the noble Lord said. The pandemic and a succession of pre-election purdahs have resulted in slippages. I am glad that the Government have been able to be realistic—something it is often difficult to praise them for. However, having said that, it is frustrating that we will not get to see the outcome of that process for quite a while. Perhaps the Government will not need all the extra time that they have given themselves; we remain ever hopeful.
Amendment 5 is another example where, following debates and then amendments in the Agriculture Bill, the Government have come forward to provide explicit clarity that this extra provision does not contravene compliance with data provisions in the GDPR. We welcome this consistency and Amendment 66, regarding Scotland, Amendment 67, regarding Wales and Amendment 68, regarding Northern Ireland, which follow up with the devolved Administrations.
Amendments 13 and 27 and new Schedule 9 in Amendment 77 on the conservation of seals would strengthen protections to comply with the US Marine Mammal Protection Act, as necessary before 1 March 2021 to be able to export fish products to America. While this provision gave rise to some controversy concerning seals specifically, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pick up on the fact that to encourage exports the UK is prepared to change how it does business. However, when challenged on maintaining standards provisions on imported food in the Agriculture Bill, the Government claim that they cannot require compliance with UK provisions for imports. The shadow Secretary of State, Luke Pollard, mentioned trade from New Zealand, which does not have these added protections and from where we will continue to import product. Does the Minister see any double standard here?
He might like to dance on the head of a pin—we will enjoy that—saying that this compliance is with conservation of seals provisions, not food standards. What if there is any re-export of food products to the US? Alternatively, I recognise Monday’s conversion in the Agriculture Bill that, under CRaG amendments, it is now recognised that there will not be a non-regression of standards and the Government should no longer be peddling that line.
Amendment 17 is a further amendment of second thoughts on drafting. It would make a small change to the definition of “minimum conservation reference size” to specify individual fish in terms of their maturity size and not the size of the marine stock. We support this amendment and also support Amendment 8 in relation to sea fishing of boats. I note that Amendment 28 in this group removes financial privilege from the legislation as the Bill started in your Lordships’ House.
The remaining amendments are technical corrections and additions to Commission-delegated regulations, which will avoid further secondary orders. With those comments, we are entirely content with the amendments proposed.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Grantchester, for their welcome of these amendments.
I welcome the positivity from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the importance of transparency. It is something that the Government have picked up on in terms of recognition. I again put on the record that all we—this Government and future Governments—do needs to be transparent as we seek to reassure everyone, including your Lordships, that we want to achieve success for the marine environment.
I welcome the noble Lord’s point about pragmatism. The exemption is in place only for one year. We are reviewing our future discards policy and considering how it could be better made to fit the mixed fisheries in UK seas.
Given the time allocated, I am not sure that I want to jest about the Agriculture Bill and some of the exchanges we may have. Of course, I am bound to say that, as everyone knows, there is a considerable legislative framework behind which we are all secure in terms of import standards and requirements in relation to agricultural goods—but perhaps we might leave that for a further moment.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that we will publicly consult on the JFS next year so I am certainly not looking at needing to wait as long as might have been suggested—two years—before anyone sees it. Drafts are being shared at a high level. Again, it is important that, as we move forward on all these matters, Parliament and your Lordships’ House do the right thing. In the end, if we do not get this right, we will have failed; that is not something that any Government would wish to do with their custodianship of our seas and the opportunities that this responsibility presents to us.
With those comments and the general endorsement of the two noble Lords, I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received no requests to ask a short question. I beg your pardon. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, wishes to ask a question.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will not detain the House. I have a quick question that arose from a question from the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Will extending the timeframe of the joint fisheries statement to 24 months have a knock-on effect on fisheries management plans? I just want to check with the Minister that that delay will not cause everything else to be delayed. I apologise for not asking this earlier.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, so that I do not mislead the noble Lord, I will write to him about that. Triggering work on the fisheries management plans is another stream of work; a response may come. As it has not, the easiest thing is for me to write to the noble Lord. It is an important point and I am sorry that I do not have the answer before me.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Moved by
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 3 to 5.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 6.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that we have worked closely with the devolved Administrations in the development of the Bill. This has led to various requests from them for additions to the Bill, many of which could otherwise have been made under their own legislation. The department’s preference is to be collaborative and constructive when working with the devolved Administrations. Given the pressure that parliamentary timetables are facing it was felt that, in this spirit of co-operation, the Government should make these changes for them. These amendments support a collaborative approach to fisheries management across the UK.
We have waited until now to make these changes as we wanted to ensure that the devolved Administrations’ legislative consent processes had been successfully completed before tabling some of these amendments. It was not until Report in the other House that all three DAs consented to the Bill, allowing for the other place to agree a package of amendments relating to the DAs. The amendments relating to the devolved Administrations’ functions can be divided into seven themes, and I shall explain what each theme does.
At the request of all three Administrations, Amendment 10 and consequential Amendments 23 and 40 will enable a sea fish licensing authority to exercise fisheries and related product movement functions on behalf of another such authority. This would facilitate arrangements for one Administration to become a single point of contact for the fishing industry, or to deliver a speedy process on behalf of the other Administrations. This could be used, for example, in relation to verifying catch certificates. Consequential Amendments 6, 15 and 16, 18 to 20, 41, 69, 71 and 75 move definitions so that they apply across the whole Bill.
Turning to technical SI extensions to foreign boats, the Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, or DAERA, requested that we extend technical fisheries management measures in some of their secondary legislation to foreign boats, as provided for in Amendment 39. Amendments 29 to 38 make consequential changes to Schedule 4 as a result of Amendment 39. These regulations help protect vulnerable stocks, for example by prohibiting the catching of undersized fish. This is in line with our policy of ensuring that any foreign boats given access to UK waters comply with restrictions that apply to UK boats. Similar provisions have been made in Schedule 2 for England and Wales statutory instruments. Noble Lords will understand the pressures of getting the statute book updated in readiness for the end of the transition period. It would have been very challenging for the Scottish Government and Northern Ireland Executive to have delivered these changes to secondary legislation themselves.
As for procedural changes, at the request of the Scottish Government, Amendment 43 and consequential Amendment 25 confirm that orders made under Section 22A of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 can be made under the negative procedure, which is not clear under the current drafting. At the request of Scottish Government lawyers, and following advice from UK Government lawyers, these changes are applied retrospectively to remove any uncertainty about the effect of existing Scottish statutory instruments.
Turning to Wales, the definition change and Senedd competence, Amendments 12 and 24 reflect a change requested by the Welsh Government to the definition of “Wales” in primary legislation, consequential on the extension of Welsh competence provided by the Bill in relation to the offshore zone. Additionally, Amendments 7 and 73 clarify that where the Senedd has legislative competence, subject to the consent of a Minister of the Crown, Welsh Ministers will also have equivalent executive competence, subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. Amendment 72 clarifies that the scope of the Welsh Ministers’ powers to make regulations under Clauses 36 and 38 is specific to sea fishing.
Regarding DAERA marine powers and other technical changes to Schedule 10, Amendment 85 and consequential Amendments 86 to 88, 90, 91 and 93 to 96 provide DAERA with the power to manage fishing activity in the Northern Ireland offshore region for the purpose of conserving the marine environment. Similar provision for England and the other devolved Administrations is in Schedule 10. At their request, we are also making minor changes to the powers of the Scottish and Welsh Ministers in Schedule 10 in government Amendments 80 to 84, 89 and 92. These include changes to the parliamentary procedure for some orders and adding time limits to emergency orders made by Scottish Ministers.
In conclusion, I am pleased that the devolved Administrations have now consented to the Bill, which is an excellent example of collaborative working. I hope noble Lords will appreciate the need for this package of amendments agreed to in the other place, which supports the alignment of fisheries management across the UK. I beg to move.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction to this hefty group of amendments. These amendments deal with requests from the devolved Administrations, as she said. Most are consequential on four main amendments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I am interested in the way the devolved Administrations have amended the Bill, when during our debates in Committee and on Report we were told that there could be no amendments that might affect the devolved Administrations.
The main amendments are Amendments 10, 12, 39 and 85, alongside a raft of minor drafting amendments. Amendment 10 and the amendments consequential on it—Amendments 15 and 16, 18 to 20, 23, 40 and 41, 69, 71 and 75—provide arrangements for a sea fish licensing authority, which is the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the Northern Ireland department and the MMO. We support these. Amendments 12 and 24 are consequential on Clause 43 and relate to the interpretation of the Welsh legislation, in both English and Welsh, and to the offshore zone, subject to the Secretary of State’s approval.
Amendment 39, which is extremely important, inserts legislation relating to several regulations affecting shellfish, scallops, sharks, skates and rays, razor clams, et cetera, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Amendments 29 to 38 are consequential on Amendment 39. The fish and shellfish in the list in this amendment are nearly all endangered in one way or another, and it is important that there is transparency over their protection and that they are not overfished or taken undersized, as the Minister said. The list is extensive; as it is at the request of the devolved Administrations, we are happy to support these amendments, but we make the point that these fish and shellfish need to be sustainable and their stocks carefully monitored.
Amendment 85 and consequential amendments insert new powers into the Schedule for the Northern Ireland department relating to exploitation of sea fishery resources in its offshore region. This also includes consultation with the Secretary of State, the MMO, and Scottish and Welsh Ministers. Consultation has risen rapidly up the fishing agenda on a range of matters, and consultation with the devolved Administrations is essential. The sheer number of amendments we are debating today indicates that some of this can be very last minute—that is a bit of a danger. However, there are legitimate reasons for these amendments and for them being so late, so we support them, albeit at a somewhat late stage of the process.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I intend to speak quite briefly, but first, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation of these changes. Having looked at the small, technical amendments in this group, I do not have a problem with them, but I return to the issue of devolution in the broadest sense. I raised earlier the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, raised: because it has now been raised several times, it would be helpful if the Minister would explain why we were told that the Bill was a done deal with the devolved nations and could not be amended, when it seems, quite understandably, that negotiations have been ongoing, as evidenced obviously by the amendments before us today. It leaves a slightly sour taste because it feels as if we were slightly misled about the process that was taking place. Can she clarify that for us?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, there has been much debate on the challenges posed by devolution in previous stages of the Bill, and the amendments made for the devolved Administrations in the other place demonstrate opportunities that will be open to us in the future to work positively across the four nations of the UK. I acknowledge the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, but genuinely feel that this was a timing issue. As the Fisheries Bill was introduced in this House, it gave us more time to introduce them at this stage, when it came back to us, once conversations had concluded and after it became clear that there would be no time for the devolved Administrations to pass their own legislation, and we would therefore be in a position to do so on their behalf.
I am grateful for the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and for her support. I am particularly grateful for her comments on Amendment 39. The whole intention of extending this list is for us to preserve stocks from an extensive list of species. I am glad that, through constructive and collaborative working with the devolved Administrations, we have been able to deliver a Bill that is truly for the whole UK. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have received a request to ask a short question of elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. Lord Adonis?
I have to inform the House that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, is proposing to speak in Grand Committee and his request has arrived, somewhat erratically, at the wrong Chamber.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
It was a moment of puzzlement for me, too. Given that, as far as I understand it, we have no other questions for the Minister, I will proceed to put the Question.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 7 and 8.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, four themes of the changes made by the Government relate to the Bill’s licensing provisions. I would like to make it clear why these changes were necessary and why they were made in the other place. Before I do so, I clarify for the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, today—if that is all right with your Lordships—that fisheries management plans will not be delayed and can be brought forward before the JFS is adopted. Clause 9 specifically provides for this. I am sorry; I should know the Bill better by now, but I hope that helps.
Government Amendments 11 and 26 are necessary to ensure we comply with the provisions of the treaty entered into with Denmark in 1999 on maritime delimitation between the United Kingdom and the Faroe Islands. That 1999 agreement provides for a special area in the UK exclusive economic zone, exclusively in Scottish waters, over which both parties exercise jurisdiction for fishery management purposes. The amendments to the Bill ensure that we can implement this treaty and meet that international agreement. They provide that Faroese-authorised foreign vessels can continue to fish in that area, which is 0.01% of the UK EEZ, without also requiring a UK licence. Were these amendments not made, we would not be able to implement the treaty, putting us in breach of our international obligations.
It was only through working on a new framework fisheries agreement with the Faroe Islands throughout this year that we were able to agree the approach to continued implementation of the 1999 treaty and to make these amendments. We have a very positive relationship with the Faroe Islands on improving the way the sea is managed and governed. International negotiations are reserved, but implementing international agreements, for example by licensing fishing boats, is a devolved matter. We have worked closely with officials and Minister Ewing in the Scottish Government, and colleagues across government, to come to an agreed approach that respects both reserved and devolved competence.
Amendments 44 to 63 introduce a contingency arrangement to issue approval for foreign fishing vessels more quickly and make a consequential wording change. The preferred approach is to issue individual licences to foreign vessels which, following negotiations, may fish in UK waters. Experience has shown that, sometimes, some annual fisheries negotiations can extend into the next fishing year. It could then take some time for the various parties to collate the information needed for the licensing process. During this time, fishing activities would be disrupted, which could cause unnecessary tensions. We do not want to exacerbate those tensions or disrupt fishing further. This is a pragmatic response to such a circumstance and has the support of the devolved Administrations.
To manage this, the other place agreed to introduce this contingency approach, which would allow approval to be issued for a list of vessels, rather than individual vessels. This approval would be faster, but time limited until individual licences can be issued.
Amendment 64 revokes legislation in England, Wales and Scotland made as a contingency in March 2019 in the absence of the Fisheries Bill and in anticipation of an earlier departure from the EU. The Northern Irish legislation has already been revoked. The Bill provides for the regulation of foreign boats fishing in UK waters if access is negotiated. All foreign vessels approved to fish in UK waters will need a UK licence. We waited until we thought we had certainty that the Bill would receive Royal Assent before the end of this year before making these amendments as its licensing regime replicates and supersedes that in the contingency SIs.
Amendment 99 and consequential Amendments 97 and 101 are clear examples of where close collaboration between the four fisheries administrations has proved invaluable in ensuring that the Bill is doing what it needs to. The amendment revokes Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets, known as SMEFF. This regulation sets out part of the EU’s licensing framework. This is broadly similar to the UK’s framework for licensing so there is no need for a parallel regime such as SMEFF. I am grateful to Scottish officials for identifying the need for this change. That is why the other place agreed to revoke it.
Finally, on minor and technical amendments relating to licensing, Amendments 9, 70, 74 and 76 make minor changes to provisions that prevent powers in Clauses 36, 38, and Schedule 8 being used to modify the Bill’s licensing functions. Amendment 65 clarifies licensing transitional provisions. Two amendments were also made at the request of the Crown dependencies to Schedule 4, which deals with minor and consequential licensing amendments.
These are the changes that have been needed to the Bill’s licensing provisions and why they were brought forward in the other place. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, because I had never heard of this 1999 treaty before. It is quite important because we are in the ratification process of a UK-Faroes fisheries agreement. I will raise one or two things about this which perhaps the Minister can explain to me.
Commons Amendment 11 is very strict. It says:
“No prohibition, restriction or obligation relating to sea fishing imposed by any enactment applies to … anything done or not done by or in relation to a foreign fishing boat”
that is a Faroe Islands-regulated vessel. Given that this is our EEZ, that seems to take away completely our rights to inspect or apply any regulation whatever to Faroes vessels fishing within our EEZ within this special zone. That seems a very asymmetric agreement or condition, given that our own vessels presumably still have to do that. Having read the treaty very quickly, Article IV says that we have no rights of inspection whatever. I am sure that the Government have this worked out but I would like to be reassured that we have some way of making sure that this area is responsibly fished. Occasionally, we have our disagreements with the Faroes. We generally have a good relationship with the Faroes, and obviously with Denmark as the ultimate sovereign nation. However, a couple of years ago we had a strong dispute over fisheries there regarding a particular species, so there are examples of the Faroes and us falling out. I would appreciate the Minister’s explanation of that.
I wished to bring up one other matter but I will leave it at that. That is my key issue on this area and I hope that the Minister will be able to help me.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction to this group of amendments and for his explanations. I am also grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. This group relates mainly to the carve-out for the Faroe Islands temporary foreign vessel licences and other minor technical provisions. Amendments 9, 70, 74 and 76 are technical and replace references to the devolved Ministers in Clause 41 with “sea fish licensing authorities” instead.
Amendment 11 and the consequential Amendment 26 update compliance with the 1999 treaty with Denmark and enable the Scottish Government to manage this shared area and issue licences to permitted foreign vessels as the Faroes, while in the UK’s exclusive economic zone, are exclusively in Scottish waters. I am not sure that there should be the difficulties that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, envisages, but I await the Minister’s reply.
Amendment 44 and the bulk of the amendments in the sequence in the middle of this group concern the definition of “temporary foreign vessel licence” and how this will apply on a contingent basis when the UK becomes an independent coastal state with an agreement with the EU concerning the UK’s exclusive economic zone and licensing arrangements. Necessarily, this could take some time—meanwhile, fishers need to be able to continue activities. I agree that the flexibility this provides is commendable. In the Commons, the shadow Secretary of State Luke Pollard asked whether secondary legislation would need amendment to specify these arrangements. The Fisheries Minister Victoria Prentis said that she would need to check this position. Will the Minister be able to confirm today that this has indeed been done and that no further orders are required?
The point of these provisions is made on the assumption that the UK will be able to negotiate a continuing relationship with the EU after 31 December this year. That is not that far in front of us. Many of us are beginning to count down the remaining parliamentary sitting days, during which timetable the various relevant trade treaties will need to be examined and approved by Parliament. On an earlier amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, spoke on the likely outcome of the way forward in relation to the landing requirement. The Minister replied that the Bill is neutral on any outcome of negotiation. I will not pursue this any further, as I sympathise with him when he says that any comment from him may not be helpful at this stage.
The remaining amendments are technical, tidying up various provisions. For example, Amendment 64 concerns the timing of differing legislation at different times of the tortuous Brexit debates. Amendments 21 and 42 concern provisions in Schedule 4 regarding the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and the extent of Section 2 of the Fishery Limits Act, as the Crown dependencies did not confirm their approach until the beginning of August. I am very glad that this bit was achieved with them. The remaining amendments tidy up retained direct EU legislation. This and all the amendments in this group are agreed.
We will all look forward to the necessary announcements on the conclusion of successful negotiations with the EU. I contend that they should now become easier following the amendments to the Agriculture Bill to secure a non-regression of standards so necessary to the attainment of a level playing field with Europe.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Grantchester. We are into a technical range of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, asked about the Faroe Islands. While the 1999 treaty permits either party to license foreign vessels to fish in this small section of shared sea, it does not mean that there are no rules. Many of the licence conditions will be similar for either party issuing a licence. The UK will still exercise standard control and enforcement. The 1999 treaty also includes a commitment by both parties to co-operate on marine protection measures which further preserve this area.
Considerable work has been done. Certain discussions could obviously be undertaken only once we had left the EU, so negotiations with the Faroe Islands Administration have been taking place this year. I reassure your Lordships that in no way does this mean that there is not proper responsible control. As I said in my opening remarks, we are working with the Faroe Islands because both countries share an ambition for strong governance and custodianship of what is a very small but very important part of our UK EEZ. We should be consistent throughout.
I will look at any further points, but I am not going to embark on any commentary on negotiations and standards. This has been well and truly aired. Standards are supreme.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have two requests to ask short questions of the Minister. Both noble Lords are in the Chamber. I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am here because of the problems I experienced with my microphone yesterday. I have two brief questions for my noble friend. I am half-Danish, so I welcome anything that can be done to help the Faroese. Does he not share my concern that this agreement with the Faroes is completely asymmetrical? The noble Lord, Lord Teverson might also have made this point. From memory of the rollover trade agreement, we export £90 million of goods to them and they export £270 million of products to us—most of which are fish. This will not help Scottish and other fishermen in this country. I agree to it, but we must accept that it is asymmetrical and not in the country’s best interests.
I have a hazy recollection of studying international law at university—just after we joined the European Union. Denmark has always claimed historic rights to fish in the North Sea. I understood—from an impeccable source at the Daily Express—that it has been preparing a case to put, presumably, before the International Court of Justice to maintain those historic rights. I am not expecting my noble friend to reply today—he may wish to write to me and share it with other colleagues. Is he aware of this hazy recollection of mine that the Danes had historic fishing rights and that they are going to resurrect them?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, we agreed to a treaty in 1999. We have worked closely with Minister Ewing, who is quite rightly ferocious in his support of Scottish fishing interests. We are working collaboratively with the Faroe Islands, respecting an international arrangement. On the historic rights, as I am not the Fisheries Minister but a custodian of this Bill I am not aware of any illegal activity. I had better write to my noble friend so that those who know can give an authorised version.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to ask the next short question of the Minister.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I am a member of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee of your Lordships’ House. We are spending a lot of time not only looking at the content of treaties, but also understanding how these are implemented into domestic legislation. I am confused. Can my noble friend explain how the 1999 treaty to which this refers was implemented into domestic legislation? Why did this not lead directly to its continuation or amendment? This is the second time we have looked at this Bill; in the first draft, licensing of fishing boats in our EEZ was considered.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I may need to clarify this again. We were not able to open discussions with the Faroe Islands while we were still members of the EU. It was only in January 2020—at the same time as the Bill was introduced—that we were able to begin discussions and explore options to implement this change. I am not an expert on the 1999 legislation. It would be more helpful to my noble friend if I wrote to him with a detailed answer.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 10 to 13.
“Agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities
(1) A sea fish licensing authority may make arrangements for—
(a) any of its fisheries functions, or
(b) any of its product movement functions that are not fisheries functions,
to be exercised on its behalf by another sea fish licensing authority.
(2) Arrangements made by a sea fish licensing authority under subsection (1) in relation to a function do not affect that authority’s responsibility for the exercise of the function.
(3) A sea fish licensing authority that exercises functions on behalf of another sea fish licensing authority under subsection (1) may charge that other authority such fees as it considers reasonable in respect of the cost of doing so.
(4) Subsection (1) does not authorise the making of arrangements in relation to any function of making, confirming or approving subordinate legislation.
(5) The power of a sea fish licensing authority to make arrangements under subsection (1) does not affect, and is not affected by, any other power of the authority to make arrangements relating to the exercise of its functions by other persons on its behalf.
(6) In this section—
“fisheries function” means a function relating to fisheries, fishing or aquaculture;
“product movement function” means a function relating to the movement of fishery products—
(a) into or out of the United Kingdom, or
(b) within the United Kingdom.”
“Foreign fishing boats that are exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated
(1) No prohibition, restriction or obligation relating to sea fishing imposed by any enactment applies to—
(a) anything done or not done by or in relation to a foreign fishing boat at a time at which the fishing boat is in waters lying within the Special Area and is exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated, or
(b) anything done or not done in relation to sea fish that were caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying within the Special Area at a time at which the fishing boat was exclusively Faroe Islands regulated.
(2) For the purposes of this section a foreign fishing boat is “exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated” if—
(a) there is in force a licence issued by or on behalf of the Government of the Faroe Islands authorising it to fish in waters lying (to any extent) within the Special Area, and
(b) the fishing boat is not on a list maintained and published by the Scottish Ministers for the purposes of this subsection.
(3) In this section—
(a) “enactment” has the same meaning as in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and includes an enactment contained in or made under this Act;
(b) “the Special Area” means the Special Area, as defined in Article 4 of, and Schedule C to, the Faroe Islands Treaty;
(c) “the Faroe Islands Treaty” means the agreement between—
(i) the Government of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark together with the Home Government of the Faroe Islands,
relating to the maritime delimitation in the area between the Faroe
Islands and the United Kingdom, entered into on 18 May 1999.”
“Interpretation of Welsh legislation
(1) In the Interpretation Act 1978, section 23B (application of Interpretation Act 1978 to Welsh legislation), as substituted by paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4), is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In subsection (6), for “and “Wales”” substitute “, “Welsh zone” and (subject to subsection (7)) “Wales””.
(3) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) In relation to a provision that—
(a) relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, and
(b) is contained in an instrument made after section 45 of the
Fisheries Act 2020 comes into force,
“Wales” includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limit of the territorial sea.”
(4) The Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4) is amended in accordance with subsections (5) to (8).
(5) In section 1(3)(d) (duty to keep accessibility of Welsh law under review)—
(a) in the English language text, omit “applies in relation to Wales and relates to subject matter which”;
(b) in the Welsh language text, omit “y mae’n gymwys o ran Cymru ac y mae’n ymwneud â phwnc”.
(6) In section 3 (legislation to which Part 2 of the Act applies), after subsection (3)
(a)in the English language text, insert—
“(4) In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health and is made after section 45 of the Fisheries Act 2020 (c. 00) comes into force, the reference in subsection (2)(b)(iii) to Wales includes the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward limits of the territorial sea.”;
(b) in the Welsh language text, insert—
“(4) Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod ac a wneir ar ôl i adran 45 o Ddeddf Pysgodfeydd 2020 (p. 00) ddod i rym, mae’r cyfeiriad yn is-adran (2)(b)(iii) at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.”
(7) After section 40
(a) in the English language text insert—
“40A Application of this Part in relation to the Welsh zone
In relation to subordinate legislation that relates to fishing, fisheries or fish health, references in this Part to Wales include the area of the Welsh zone beyond the seaward
limits of the territorial sea.”;
(b) in the Welsh language text insert—
“40A Cymhwyso’r Rhan hon mewn perthynas â pharth Cymru
Mewn perthynas ag is-ddeddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â physgota, pysgodfeydd neu iechyd pysgod, mae cyfeiriadau yn y Rhan hon at Gymru yn cynnwys yr ardal o barth Cymru sydd y tu hwnt i derfynau atfor y môr tiriogaethol.”
(8) In Schedule 1, in the Table—
(a) in the English language text, after the entry for “Welsh tribunal (tribiwnlys Cymreig)” insert—
“Welsh zone (parth Cymru) | “Welsh zone” has the meaning given by section 158 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (c. 32) (and see article 3 of the Welsh Zone (Boundaries and Transfer of Functions) Order 2010 (S.I. 2010/ 760), which makes provision about the limits of the zone)”; |
“parth Cymru (Welsh zone) | mae i “parth Cymru” yr ystyr a roddir i “Welsh zone” gan adran 158 o Ddeddf Llywodraeth Cymru 2006 (p. 32) (a gweler erthygl 3 o Orchymyn Parth Cymru (Ffiniau a Throsglwyddo Swyddogaethau) 2010 (O.S. 2010/760), sy’n gwneud darpariaeth ynghylch terfynau’r parth)”.” |
“Conservation of Seals
Schedule (conservation of seals) contains amendments of the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (1985/171 (N.I. 2)) in connection with prohibiting the killing, injuring or taking of seals.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 14.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 15 to 21.
““fishery products” means—
(a) fish or other aquatic organisms resulting from fishing or aquaculture, or
(b) products derived from aquatic organisms within paragraph
(a);”
““minimum conservation reference size”, in relation to an aquatic organism, means the size of a member of the species of which the organism is a member, at the level of maturity of that organism, below which capture or retention is prohibited or restricted;”
““Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (see section 8(1) of that Act);”
““sea fish licensing authority” means—
(a) the Scottish Ministers,
(b) the Welsh Ministers,
(c) the Northern Ireland department, or
(d) the Marine Management Organisation;”
““subordinate legislation” means an instrument made under primary legislation or under retained direct EU legislation;”
“(6) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the following provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man—
(a) subsection (1)(a) of section 38 (power to make provision for the purpose of implementing international obligations),
(b) subsections (4) to (6) of that section,
(c) section 39 (interpretation of section 38),
(d) sections 41 to 43 (regulations under section 36: scope and procedure),
(e) section 50 (regulations), and
(f) section 51 (interpretation).”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 22.
“(6) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the following provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man—
(a) subsection (1)(a) of section 38 (power to make provision for the purpose of implementing international obligations),
(b) subsections (4) to (6) of that section,
(c) section 39 (interpretation of section 38),
(d) sections 41 to 43 (regulations under section 36: scope and procedure),
(e) section 50 (regulations), and
(f) section 51 (interpretation).”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this clause enables the UK to extend to the Crown dependencies by way of Order in Council the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations for the purpose of implementing international obligations relating to fisheries, fishing or aquaculture.
The UK Government, on behalf of the Crown, are responsible for the international relations of the Crown dependencies. The Government are responsible for representing them at an international level for their obligations under international law. The purpose of this clause is to ensure that we can support the Crown dependencies to meet their international obligations.
This debate comes at a time when the Crown dependencies are developing their own international identities in accordance with the directions of their Governments and of formal frameworks agreed between them and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the UK remains responsible for the Crown dependencies’ fisheries obligations under international law.
This clause is not a means of imposing legislation unnecessarily on the Crown dependencies. It is for the benefit and protection of the UK and the Crown dependencies in relation to international obligations in the highly unlikely event that it were needed. It applies solely to the part of Clause 36 which concerns the power to make regulations implementing international obligations relating to fisheries, fishing or aquaculture. It enables us to meet our responsibilities and obligations in the event of unforeseen circumstances.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, for her letter of 28 October, on behalf of the Constitution Committee. The committee published its views on the clause on 9 November, following my response to her letter. The committee makes some important points on which I should like to respond.
First, the committee says:
“The Government should seek powers only when they are necessary and their use is anticipated”.
Such an approach is entirely appropriate in the majority of cases. The inclusion of a permissive extent clause in primary legislation is not uncommon. It is used to help provide support or act as a safety net. For example, the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 provides for marine licensing provisions to be extended to Jersey by Order in Council. However, the reason for introducing this clause is to enable us to act in the most unexpected and unforeseen of circumstances. Having legal and constitutional clarity is an important responsibility for the Government to deliver.
Lord Beith (LD) [V]
I am grateful to the Minister for his careful explanation, and for dwelling on some of the constitutional aspects of the matter, but I am still moving Motion 22A, in my name, that this House disagrees with Commons Amendment 22, introducing, as it does, a power for Ministers to apply sections of the Fisheries Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man without their consent.
It came as an unpleasant surprise when the new clause appeared at such a late stage in the Bill’s progress. As the Minister indicated, my interest in such matters dates from work I did on the 2010 and 2014 Justice Committee reports on the Crown dependencies, which analysed, assessed and promoted the modern relationship between the UK and the dependencies. In every relevant respect, that 2010 report was accepted by the Government of the day.
The report set out a relationship that respected the legislative autonomy of the dependencies, which would not normally be the subject of Westminster legislation unless they wished to be. Along with that went a policy of increasing entrustment, enabling the dependencies to develop their relations with the wider world, including, in the case of the Channel Islands, their very close neighbours in France.
The UK, of which the Crown dependencies are not, and never have been, a part, remains responsible for international treaty obligations of the dependencies. The framework agreements were put in to ensure that this could be done effectively, while respecting their autonomy. I shall quote from the Guernsey agreement of 2006, but the other dependencies have similar agreements. Paragraph 13 of that agreement says:
“Guernsey has an international identity which is different from that of the UK.”
The agreement continues:
“The UK recognises that Guernsey is a long-standing, small democracy and supports the principle of Guernsey further developing its international identity … The UK has a role to play in assisting the development of Guernsey’s international identity. The role is one of support not interference … Guernsey and the UK commit themselves to open, effective and meaningful dialogue with each other on any issue that may come to affect the constitutional relationship … International identity is developed effectively through meeting international standards and obligations which are important components of Guernsey’s international identity … The UK will clearly identify its priorities for delivery of its international obligations and agreements so that these are understood, and can be taken into account by Guernsey developing its own position.”
A key question for the Minister is: do the present UK Government stand by that agreement? The clause suggests otherwise. It represents a threat to impose Westminster legislation when there are adequate means available to resolve differences when they arise. The best way is bilateral discussion, in which the UK is clearly in a strong position, given its size and resources. In any case, the islands themselves have a strong commitment to maintain their British identity, and their international reputation for good government and good faith.
Alongside all that is the requirement that island legislation requires Royal Assent, and therefore is considered at Privy Council level in the UK. That is a mechanism by which the UK seeks to make sure that international obligations are satisfied. The processes have worked, and they have resolved issues. I am not aware of any significant outstanding issues that the process has not coped with.
However, the clause says, “We’re not sure we can trust you, and if we think it’s necessary we will, without your consent, legislate from Westminster to override your legislative jurisdiction.” The Government may say—indeed, they have said, and they are saying it again today—that this is extremely unlikely, but the possibility has already been noticed by the French media, and that could undermine the Bailiwick of Guernsey, or Jersey, in their discussions with their close neighbours.
The Minister quoted the Constitution Committee. Its report, which is critical of the clause, states:
“We are not persuaded of the necessity of Commons amendment 22.”
The Minister’s letter said that the Government
“do not currently have any specific concerns which we would envisage using”,
the clause to address. The committee then stated in response that the Government,
“should seek powers only when they are necessary and their use is anticipated.”
The Minister also quoted that. The Committee in paragraph 9 states that the Commons amendment,
“undermines the domestic autonomy of the Crown Dependencies and is contrary to long-standing practice.”
We are left with a clause that the Government say they have no plans to use but hold as a threat. That reverses the trend towards greater recognition of the dependencies’ autonomy and entrustment in their international relations.
My final questions are these: is there intended to be a change of constitutional policy towards the Crown dependencies such that a power to extend Westminster legislation without consent will become a feature in more UK legislation and, if so, why are the Government not more interested in a wider discussion of such a fundamental change in policy and the constitutional relationship? Or have they stumbled into an unnecessary row because someone somewhere in Defra, who has always wanted the department to have that power, got it out of the drawer and into this legislation? I have a strong suspicion the latter might be the reason.
I note the Government’s proposal for a mechanism for discussions in the context of marine management with the dependencies. Welcome though they might be, they do not make any difference to the fundamental constitutional issue. The Government surely have enough problems to tackle without picking an unnecessary quarrel with our loyal friends in the Channel Islands. I know that the Minister who is responding today, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, is not one for picking quarrels. He should see what he can do to bring this quarrel to an end.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the noble Baroness, Lady Couttie, and the noble Lords, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick. I will call them in order.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
As a serving member of the Courts of Appeal of Guernsey and of Jersey, I do not normally speak on Channel Islands matters, at least if there is any possibility that it might disqualify me from sitting on some future appeal. This permissive extent clause, most unusually not consented to by either Guernsey or Jersey, merits a departure from that general rule.
There is no need to speculate as to why the Government insist so strongly at this time on a power to implement international fisheries agreements in the Channel Islands. The Minister has, after all, told the Constitution Committee that,
“we do not currently have any specific concerns which we would envisage using the PEC to address.”
I accept that formulation, while noting the care with which it is drafted. I shall, however, speak as someone with a little understanding of the legal systems of the Channel Islands on the constitutional consequences that are feared in the islands were this clause, said by the Minister to support the Crown dependencies, to be activated.
There was no hint in what we heard from the Minister that Orders in Council issued under the clause would be anything other than automatically binding in the Channel Islands. The point I want to get across is that under the laws of Jersey and Guernsey, it is at least doubtful that such a clause would even allow the United Kingdom Government to legislate in future for the bailiwicks without their consent. The States of Jersey Law 2005, like the Code of 1771 that preceded it, assumes that the UK Parliament may legislate for Jersey but places an important fetter on that power. Discussed by the Royal Court in the terrorist asset-freezing case of 2011, Section 31 of that law appears to signify that any Order in Council to extend the provisions of the Fisheries Bill to Jersey would need to be approved by Jersey’s legislature, the States Assembly, before it could be registered.
The States of Deliberation has a similar function in Guernsey under Article 72A of the Reform (Guernsey) Law 1948, as amended. Does the Minister accept that an Order in Council providing for the implementation of international obligations in the Channel Islands could take effect there only with the consent of the States Assembly and the States of Deliberation? If he cannot agree—I suspect that his instructions may be that he cannot—we enter into dangerous and heavily disputed waters.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, it a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and, like him, I declare a Channel Island interest in that I chair the Alderney Gambling Control Commission and am a vice-chair of the Channel Islands All-Party Parliamentary Group. To say that the inclusion of the permissive extent clause in Clause 52 has upset the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey is an under- statement. They are affronted by it, and for very good reason. The clause is neither necessary nor appropriate; it respects neither the bailiwicks’ legislative autonomy nor their centuries-old constitutional relationship with the Crown. This is almost exactly the view taken by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred.
I shall quote another section of that report, which states:
“The long-standing practice of the United Kingdom when it ratifies an international agreement has been to do so on behalf of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and any of the Crown Dependencies that wish the international instrument to apply to them. Where legislation has been required, it has been enacted by the Crown Dependencies’ own legislatures, subject to the usual requirements for Royal Assent, and any potential differences of view have been dealt with in bilateral discussion rather than by the imposition of legislation from Westminster.”
The report goes on to state:
“We recommend that the Bill be amended so that consent of the governments of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (as appropriate) is required prior to the use of these powers.”
The crucial word here is “consent”.
Reading the Hansard report of the Bill’s Report stage in the House of Commons, I commend the speech of Sir Robert Neill MP, the chairman of the Justice Committee:
“There is a long-standing constitutional convention … that the normal process is that we legislate for the Crown dependencies only with their consent. They are not former colonies or British territories, and they are not part of the United Kingdom in the strict sense. They are possessions of Her Majesty the Queen, by right of her position as successor to the Duchy of Normandy. That is why they do not have representation here. Where necessary, their legislative dealings with the UK Government are dealt with historically through the Privy Council, and are now safeguarded by the Ministry of Justice via the person of the Lord Chancellor. So their constitutional position is different.
The Government have recognised that in the past, for example in tax transparency legislation, where this House accepted that although we have the power to legislate for overseas territories, we do not constitutionally have the power to legislate for the Crown dependencies in a like manner.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/20; cols. 307-08.]
It is almost exactly one month since this government amendment was first considered. The Bill started in your Lordships’ House on 29 January. It received our normal thorough scrutiny, with four days in Committee in March and two on Report in June. Throughout all those stages, and indeed during the Commons consideration at Second Reading and in Committee, there was no reference to this new clause.
The Minister said that the Government would have preferred to introduce the new clause earlier with the consent of the Crown dependencies, and indeed there were discussions between Defra officials and the bailiwicks of Guernsey and Jersey in July, after the Bill had left your Lordships’ House, about the inclusion of a PEC. The island Governments, however, made it clear, verbally and in writing, that they did not want a PEC included; in other words, they denied their consent to it, pointing out that the bailiwicks are responsible for ensuring that they fulfil all the international obligations to which they have agreed to be bound, including by making legislation themselves in their respective jurisdictions.
The islands meet these international obligations by implementing appropriate policies and making and enforcing relevant legislation. The Channel Islands can legislate very quickly, if needed, to comply with international obligations and to resolve any international situations, as they have in the past. Any issues that arose could be dealt with effectively by the islands themselves, and the PEC is therefore unnecessary, and, from a constitutional point of view, wholly undesirable.
At this stage, I draw the House’s attention to the views of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, who is the only Guernsey-born Member of your Lordships’ House. She cannot take part in this debate but she has sent me this note:
“I was planning to focus on the issue of trust. Trust which has always existed … between the Channel Islands and what is affectionately known as ‘The Mainland’ or ‘The Other Side’. Every islander has relatives, friends, connections ‘over the other side’ and it is almost taken for granted that the interests of the two jurisdictions coincide, even while recognising and being proud of their own distinctions. It will be a source of great distress that this trust should be undermined as this legislation threatens to do and is surely not in the long term interests of either my home island or those of the government. The relationship between Guernsey and the UK government is based on mutual respect and an understanding of different perspectives and for the government to make these changes without any communication, let alone consultation, shows a gross lack of respect for the constitutional relationships which have worked well for decades. This is a constitutional issue, not one confined to fishing and would set a most unhelpful precedent for future relationships between ‘our dear Channel Islands’ and the UK.”
As I am sure your Lordships will be aware, “our dear Channel Islands” was how Winston Churchill described them in his liberation broadcast on 8 May 1945.
I do not want to be unfair to the Minister, or indeed to the Fisheries Minister, Victoria Prentis, as in recent days they have attempted to persuade Ministers in Guernsey and Jersey that what they are attempting to do is fair and reasonable. I should express my own appreciation that they took the trouble to talk to me last Tuesday.
I heard from Victoria Prentis’s office on Tuesday this week that Defra will
“establish a committee to discuss the Crown dependencies’ international obligations”.
We heard a similar commitment from the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, this afternoon. That would be a tiny step forward, but it does not alleviate the Channel Islands’ concerns and would not justify the inclusion of the PEC in the Bill. In his letter to the Constitution Committee on 2 November, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, gave his
“absolute assurance that it is still government policy that legislation should not be extended to the Crown dependencies without first consulting their Governments and seeking their consent.”
When he replies to this debate, can he clarify that absolute assurance: that, in consulting the bailiwicks, the Government would act only once they had not just sought but received their consent, and that that is not just government policy but long-standing, established constitutional principle and practice? If he accepted that, he would at least be following the recommendation of our own Constitution Committee. If he does not do that, I really cannot see any alternative other than to agree to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
Baroness Couttie (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, whose speech I entirely agree with. In the interests of brevity, I will not reiterate some of the points that he has made.
I begin by reminding the House of my interest as a Guernsey financial services commissioner. I am speaking today to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith.
The effect of Clause 52 is to require the Channel Islands to follow the law as it pertains to regulations within international fishing agreements that the UK signs with or without the islands’ consent. The Channel Islands are independent, sovereign states that can create their own laws without interference from the UK. Although it is true that the UK represents the Channel Islands on the international stage, and is therefore responsible for ensuring that they follow the international law that the UK signs up to, the Channel Islands believe that this relates only to areas such as defence, human rights and foreign policy, and that fishing in their own domestic waters is a domestic matter and therefore does not fall under this obligation.
The PEC created in this amendment also raises some broader sovereignty issues that other speakers have touched upon and the concern that the UK could, at some time in the future, seek to further undermine their independence. They fear for where this may lead. I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could confirm in his reply that that will not be the case.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and to the Fisheries Minister in the other place for their time discussing this matter with me and for the progress we have made towards a level of compromise that, while not satisfying the Channel Island legislatures, mitigates to some degree what they see as an infringement on their sovereignty.
My noble friend the Minister agreed at our meeting that regulations that the Channel Islands are required to implement will be subject to consultation by the committees spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, with the Channel Islands legislatures, and that all reasonable steps will be taken to respond to and mitigate the concerns that the consultation raises. I would be very grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
He also agreed that, in so far as the UK enters into international fishing agreements that contain regulations that are not relevant or appropriate to the Channel Islands, they will not apply. This situation could arise when developing regulations associated with fishing agreements signed with countries located some distance away from the Channel Islands, such as Norway and Iceland, and this can be achieved because of the regional structure of the plans to manage the fishing industry and trade in the UK, post Brexit. Again, I would be grateful if, in his closing remarks, my noble friend the Minister could confirm my understanding.
The Channel Islands and the UK have long enjoyed a constructive and positive working relationship, which I am sure we all hope will continue. It is unfortunate that the UK Government felt the need to include their amendment in the Bill and that they did not feel that the usual channels of communication, which have worked for so long, could be used instead to ensure that both the UK and the Channel Islands abide by their international obligations. It is doubly unfortunate that this issue has arisen around fisheries—an industry that, although not large on the Channel Islands, is nevertheless a vital part of the islands’ culture. I very much hope that the compromise I have outlined today is accepted.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the powerful speeches by the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and my noble friend Baroness Couttie.
The relationship between the UK and the Channel Islands respects the distinct laws and ancient customs of the islands. They are not represented in the UK Parliament, and by charter and advention, the UK Parliament does not legislate for the islands without their consent. It is settled practice that the UK Government consult the main Channel Islands before they may bind them to obligations in international law.
As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has already stated, the Fisheries Bill was amended at a late stage in the other place to include a permissive extent clause, or PEC. As other noble Lords have said, the PEC seeks to enable the UK Government to extend, through an Order in Council, certain provisions of the Bill to the Crown dependencies. As the Minister stated, this is largely related to the fulfilment of international obligations in Crown dependency waters. The use of PECs in relation to the Crown dependencies is extremely rare and fundamentally based on the established principle of prior consent. In this instance, both Guernsey and Jersey have consistently made absolutely plain to the UK Government the islands’ position towards the PEC as an unnecessary, unwanted and disproportionate measure.
The PEC offers neither a precise object nor a defined timescale for its scope and application. Furthermore, it does not contain any consultation provisions prior to its potential application. However, I welcome the words of the Minister about the committee that may be established.
In its present state the PEC is open-ended and overreached by the UK Government into an area where the main islands’ legislative frameworks are considered competent. In addition, the islands have stated that the UK’s effort to meaningfully consult—including through the fisheries management agreement—are belated and do not represent a solution to the PEC issue.
The Government still plan to go ahead with the use of the PEC unilaterally, and would use other consultative channels, such as the FMA, only as a supplementary method of engaging the Crown dependencies. I am briefed that both Guernsey and Jersey fundamentally disagree with the premise behind this and continue to oppose the PEC in the strongest terms. I am very supportive of them in this.
I will not repeat in detail the comments of other noble Lords on the report by the Constitution Committee of 9 November, except to say this. At paragraph 4, it states:
“The governments of the Channel Islands have expressed concerns about the ‘Permissive Extent Clause’ … We draw the attention of the House to the constitutional implications of this new subsection.”
At paragraph 7, it states:
“We are not persuaded of the necessity of Commons amendment 22. The Government should seek powers only when they are necessary and their use is anticipated.”
Finally, paragraph 9 of the report states that:
“Commons amendment 22 undermines the domestic autonomy of the Crown Dependencies and is contrary to long-standing practice. We recommend that the Bill be amended so that consent of the governments of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man (as appropriate) is required prior to the use of these powers.”
By passing this amendment, the Government are going against the unanimous view of this House’s Constitution Committee. That is a serious matter and one that I regret.
The Government state that the Isle of Man has agreed to this amendment. I would like to point out the legal system there is Manx customary law, a form of common law. The relationship between the Crown and the Channel Islands respects the distinct laws and ancient customs of the islands, which are rooted in Norman-French customary law—an important difference, on which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, might be able to elaborate. As a non-lawyer, I find this a perfect valid reason for their different view.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and other speeches which have been highly critical—justifiably so—of Commons Amendment 22. Like the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I am a member of the Constitution Committee. As noble Lords have heard, we reported on 9 November that Amendment 22 raises issues of constitutional importance. It is the long-standing practice of Parliament that it does not legislate for the Crown dependencies without their consent. As your Lordships have heard, Amendment 22 has caused considerable concern in the Channel Islands, and understandably so.
It is particularly regrettable that the Government introduced the permissive extent clause at so late a stage of the passage of this Bill through Parliament. The amendment was tabled on 9 October, four days prior to Report and Third Reading stages in the House of Commons. The Bill had its First Reading in this House as long ago as 29 January. The 11th-hour tabling of the new provision has deprived this House of any opportunity to debate this amendment prior to today. It gave the House of Commons very little opportunity to consider the amendment. On a matter of constitutional importance, that is inexcusable.
It is particularly inexcusable when the hybrid procedures of this House prevent noble Lords, with very limited exceptions, participating remotely at this stage of a Bill. It means that those noble Lords who are unable to travel here to protect their health are simply deprived of a voice. On 12 October, when the Senior Deputy Speaker introduced the report explaining the hybrid procedure for Lords consideration of Commons Amendments, the noble Lord said by way of justification for limiting remote participation at this stage:
“By the time a Bill reaches these late stages, the issues have already been well debated”.—[Official Report, 12/10/20; col. 880.]
On this important provision, they have not been. That is another reason it is simply inexcusable for the Government to introduce a matter of constitutional importance so late in the Bill. I suggest that the Procedure Committee reconsider the hybrid procedure on ping-pong—the procedure that prevents remote participation apart from for a person moving a Motion—when, as in this case, a provision has not been previously considered by the House.
That would all be bad enough, but the introduction of a provision of constitutional importance so late in the passage of the Bill is especially objectionable when the Government do not even suggest that there is any urgent need to act on the powers they now wish the House to confer on them. On the contrary, the Minister was clear this afternoon, and in correspondence, that it was “highly unlikely” that these powers would ever be exercised.
The Minister was equally candid in his letter to the esteemed chair of the Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton. He said—it has already been quoted but it is so extraordinary that it bears repetition:
“To be clear, we do not currently have any specific concerns which we would envisage using the PEC to address.”
Moreover, in that same letter, the Minister assured the committee he accepted that
“the Crown Dependencies take their international obligations extremely seriously; and I am confident that they would meet any required commitments, legislating domestically if required, in any normal circumstances.”
The position is clear. Even the Government do not suggest that there is any current or anticipated need for this extraordinary provision. They would simply like to have the powers in case something unexpected were to turn up.
When the provision was debated in the House of Commons, Sir Robert Neill, chairman of the Justice Committee, accurately described it as a
“‘break glass in emergency’ clause”,
and simply not good enough to justify what he described as
“trespassing on the constitutional integrity of the Crown dependencies”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/20; col. 308.]
I agree, except that I would say “trampling all over”, rather than “trespassing on”. We should not break constitutional conventions because there is a remote possibility of a need to exercise powers in the future. Far less should we be doing so by way of a provision introduced so late in the passage of a Bill that it has not received the detailed consideration which it deserves.
Commons Amendment 22 is indefensible, except on the basis that any legislation for Jersey and Guernsey without the consent of the Channel Islands would have no legal effect there, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I look forward to being briefed to argue the point before Mr Justice Anderson in the courts of appeal in Jersey and Guernsey, but for the obvious conflicts of interests that we would both have.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Does any other noble Lord in the Chamber wish to speak? No. In which case, I turn to those listed for the debate and call the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Motion 22A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Beith, which would leave out Clause 52, deals with the PEC, or permissive extent clause, which affects the Crown dependencies in unusual circumstances and protects the UK against any part of it breaking international law, which would affect the whole of the UK. Other noble Lords have spoken very eloquently about this. My noble friend Lord Beith has set out extremely well the case for deleting Clause 52, and we have also heard from other noble Lords on this subject. It would seem extremely high-handed of the Government to introduce the PEC against the wishes of the Crown dependencies of Guernsey and Jersey.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has spoken from his personal knowledge of the law of the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey, and other Peers have also spoken knowledgeably to Motion 22A. The Bailiwick of Jersey has written to Peers stating that the use of the PEC in relation to the Crown dependencies is extremely rare and fundamentally based on the established principle of prior consent. In this instance, both Jersey and Guernsey have consistently made it plain to the UK Government the islands’ position that the PEC is an unnecessary, unwanted and disproportionate measure.
The Bailiwick of Jersey does not consider that the UK Government have yet put forward a credible argument as to why the PEC is necessary in Jersey’s case, and I very much agree. Jersey already possesses the ability, under the Sea Fisheries (Jersey) Law 1994, to give effect to any legal obligations related to fisheries management within its waters. The UK Government have not been able to provide any previous precedent or reasonable scenarios in which Jersey’s current regime could be considered insufficient.
In their letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, on 2 November, the Government state that they have been trying to reach an agreement over the last 10 months. Not to have reached an agreement over this period is no excuse to impose the PEC on reluctant Crown dependencies.
The Channel Islands All-Party Group has also written expressing considerable concerns about this matter. My noble friend Lord Chidgey, who cannot be present this afternoon to make his own contribution, is similarly concerned about the legal implications of the UK imposing the PEC on Guernsey and Jersey.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this new clause, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for raising his concerns, with which we have considerable sympathy. As ever, it is unfortunate that this issue has come before us at such a late stage. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, raised some very important procedural issues around the consequences which arise from that, and the lack of scrutiny that we can therefore give to the proposals.
We have all read the exchange of correspondence with the Constitution Committee, and the Minister will know that its latest report says that it is
“not persuaded of the necessity”
of the government amendment on the permissive extent clause, and that what is being proposed is “contrary to long-standing practice”, in which differences of view are
“dealt with in bilateral discussion rather than by … imposition … from Westminster.”
Clearly, the Constitution Committee speaks with great authority. We should take its advice seriously. It is a great shame that events have come to this, particularly since the circumstances in which the permissive extent clause would be used seem so obscure and unlikely. It feels as though the lawyers in Defra have got carried away anticipating events that are never going to happen, a point made by a number of noble Lords.
When we spoke to the Secretary of State and the Minister, Victoria Prentis, earlier this week, we were told that further discussions with the Channel Islands would take place this week, and that it was hoped that the outstanding issues would be resolved. We were optimistic. However, having spoken to Guernsey’s Minister of External Relations yesterday, and heard the voices from around the Chamber today, I gather that, despite further discussions, concerns remain. The Minister also told me that this was damaging relations with their French neighbours and playing badly in the French media, a point confirmed in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Beith. I agree with the quote from my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, that this is an issue about trust, and that it is a great shame that the strong relationship and trust that have existed in the past are now being undermined.
I am sorry that we are debating this issue and that it remains unresolved. There must be further bilateral discussions to resolve the matter. At a minimum, I hope that the Minister will commit to continuing discussions with the Crown dependencies on this issue, not only in a committee, but on a more urgent basis. These matters surely must be resolved now, well in advance of any conflict, rather than potentially in the middle of any crisis which might provoke the use of a PEC.
Secondly, I hope the Minister can be explicit about the very narrow circumstances in which he envisages these powers being used, because that is a mystery to many of us. I think all noble Lords would like to understand the type of event that would provoke the imposition of a PEC.
Lastly, I hope the Minister can acknowledge the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others. The legal position is that, where an international instrument is to be applied to a Crown dependency, it will need to be enacted by the dependency’s own legislature rather than being imposed on it. If that is the case, then it needs the legislature’s consent in the first place, which rather negates the existence of a PEC.
I hope the Minister is hearing the voices from around the Chamber on all this. It is a great pity that we are ending our consideration of the Bill on such a note of discord. I hope he can come forward with a way through. As this is my last appearance on the Bill, I add my considerable thanks to the Minister and the noble Baroness for their considerable patience and courtesy throughout this process; they went much further than many in making sure that we were properly briefed and had access to the best possible advice. On that note, which I am sorry we have ended on, I hope the Minister is able to come back with something constructive. I look forward to his response.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I call on the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, to reply to this important debate.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this is an extremely important debate. I am grateful for this challenge; it is rather like playing tennis with someone much better than oneself, and one hopes that that raises one’s game. When lawyers are about, I get a shade nervous. I am also nervous as I am second to none in my regard and indeed affection for the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. I am reminded here of the reference to Winston Churchill and the reference to two of the Crown dependencies and their history with the Crown.
Not only for me personally but for the Government, the essential nature of working with the three Crown dependencies is the warmth and positivity of that relationship as we are all part of the British family. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, that I am grateful to him for his opening remarks, because we stand by the framework agreements, recognising the Channel Islands’ international identities. That is different from the UK ensuring that we can meet our international obligations. This is an area where I, not being the Fisheries Minister but having to attend to this matter, have tried to get my head around how this clause comes into our international obligations and why I am going to endeavour to persuade your Lordships that this is solely about how it relates to the UK’s international obligations. Indeed, that is why it is in Clause 36; it is defined because it is about all of us adhering to obligations that, as I said in my opening remarks, play out for everyone in the British family. There is therefore that last resort, that safety valve, of having provisions that enable adherence to international obligations that would have adverse impacts.
To the remarks of my noble friend Lady Couttie, I say that our preference, indeed our expectation, is that the Crown dependencies will implement the necessary legislation to meet international requirements that apply to them. As I have said, the clause provides protection for the British family on the international stage, but obviously we hope we will not have to use it.
I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. My view is that, when I take out an insurance policy, I am dearly hoping that my house does not burn down but I have a backstop. I have given very lay consideration to the issue of responsibility in this new adventure as an independent marine state, given the international obligations that we as the British Government will have. I think it is rather important, when I am seeking to persuade, to say that I personally see merit in this, but we do not in any sense want to have difficulties with the Crown dependencies.
I hope noble Lords will appreciate the requirement for the UK Government to be able to ensure that they meet international obligations for the protection of all parts of the UK—and indeed the Crown dependencies, which is the crux of the matter. That is a responsible international-facing Government ensuring that we can continue to meet our international obligations on sustainable fishing. We will of course continue to work very closely with the Crown dependencies at all levels but of course particularly at official and ministerial level.
I say to a number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Couttie and Lord Northbrook, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that, having worked with my honourable friend Victoria Prentis, the Fisheries Minister, I am sure she is determined to ensure that, in the setting up of a committee with the Crown dependencies—as I have said, within the possible structure of the fisheries management agreements—to consider and assess how the implementation of the international obligations is going to be worked through. That is what we will want to do.
I agree with the sentiments that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has expressed about the importance of dialogue and continuing discussion. There is continuing work to be done on this matter with this Bill and with the responsibilities that the Government now have as an independent maritime state. I want to put on the record and re-emphasise that, through the committee or through other work, it is vital that the communications and collaborative working with the Crown dependencies are designed to ensure that we may not ever need to use this last-resort measure. That is the whole purpose of dialogue and good friendship in protecting, as I have said, the British family. I say publicly that I understand the sentiments that the noble Baroness has expressed.
I shall repeat this so it is on the record: the committee could deal with issues that may lead to the activation of the permissive extent clause. It is not intended that this clause and the regulation-making power that it relates to would be used to legislate for the Crown dependencies without their consent, unless it were to become necessary to implement an international obligation that applied to them. I emphasise again that that would only ever be as a last resort, after full consultation and the exhaustion of all other options.
I shall answer some of the questions that were asked. I looked at the Ministry of Justice guidance on this matter. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Pannick, that the MoJ advises that although consultation and consent should be sought in all circumstances, PECs can be included in Bills without the prior agreement of the Crown dependencies in exceptional circumstances and where a Bill engages the UK’s constitutional responsibilities for defence and international relations. This position is reflected in the Fact Sheet on the UK’s Relationship with the Crown Dependencies that was published by the MoJ in February this year. I will look at what both noble Lords, with their legal advantage over me, have said. I have referred to the MoJ guidance and that is the best that I can do on the matter, but it is available for further consideration.
I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—and to all noble Lords—that working with Crown dependency officials and Ministers will clearly be very essential. We raised the idea of this clause before the Bill was introduced in January, then discussions took place at official level aiming to narrow the scope of the clause to what is required to protect the British family and other Crown dependencies. We consulted on them formally later this year. As I say, this is why the discussions for this Bill are specifically about Clause 36 and our international obligations. I should also say to the noble Lord that this clause does not legislate for the Crown dependencies before activating the PEC. We would consult and seek to achieve the same results through other options—for instance, of course, Crown dependency domestic legislation.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received a request to ask a short question from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I express my appreciation to the Minister for the considerate and thoughtful way in which he responded to the debate. I would just like clarification on that very last point. He has drawn attention, quite rightly, to the constitutional history between the United Kingdom Government and the Channel Islands. Does he not accept that the way in which harmony can be restored is by just saying “yes” to this question: if the Channel Islands do not consent to the use of the PEC, will the Government not insist on it?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I understand the instincts of the noble Lord exactly. On international obligations, the whole point about the last resort is that, if international obligations were not being adhered to in a certain part of the British family, it would be the responsibility of the UK Government to act accordingly. All I say in answering the noble Lord— positively, I hope—is that I believe that everyone I have spoken to who would have responsibility would work collaboratively and exhaust every option available. It would be triggered only if all those options were exhausted in order to adhere to international obligations. This is my point.
Also—if I am allowed to say this and if this is the last moment—I respect immensely all noble Lords who have participated in the consideration of this Fisheries Bill. This is indeed my first experience of us dealing with a Bill as the first House; I can tell your Lordships that, when I saw the number of amendments coming back from the other place, I was not the only one whose heart may have sunk a bit. I think it shows that, when we are the second House and have other points to make, the other place sends us messages back as well. I place on record my deep appreciation of the Front Bench opposite and the Back Benches on all sides of the House for the collaborative way in which I believe we have worked, seeking to do the best we can for the marine environment and the future of our fisheries communities—which, after all, bring us such nutritious food, often in very difficult circumstances. I place my thanks on record and have no doubt that we will have further work to do.
Lord Beith (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has taken over this but I am afraid that he was not as persuasive as he sometimes is—certainly for me. I want to pick up on a couple of his points before thanking the noble Lords who took part in this debate.
On international obligations, the dependencies understand and carry out their international obligations. They have the legislative and policing capacity to do so, and the UK Government would not face any problem in persuading them to take the necessary and appropriate action where it was clear that it was needed. There are many areas in which international obligations exist and the Government do not appear, as far as I can see, to be running around creating powers like this in areas in which conditions could arise where there are international obligations to be satisfied. The existing system works and does not need to be changed.
Secondly, on the legal situation in both Guernsey and Jersey, which was so helpfully raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, the note that was passed to the Minister was not really about that—I do not blame him for that—but about the legal situation on including a permitted extension clause in the Bill in the first place. It does not really address what would happen under Guernsey or Jersey law if the Government attempted to use the power. The amount of uncertainty that exists in that area is something that the Government will have to take into account.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the points he raised illustrated the high level of knowledge and experience that Peers brought to the debate. I mention the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Faulkner, Lord Northbrook and Lord Pannick, the noble Baronesses, Lady Couttie and Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Bakewell, who suggested that the Minister should withdraw the clause, which could be achieved by accepting my amendment, in order to discuss the matter further with Guernsey and Jersey.
The Minister has not accepted good advice but, at such a late stage, in the face of Commons acceptance of the clause, our options are limited, and I do not think a vote would be helpful. I can only hope that the very severe response from experienced and knowledgeable Members of this House has made clear to Ministers that on no account should they make use of these powers without having obtained the consent of the Crown dependencies to do so. They would face a very serious reaction if they were to attempt such a course without consent. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 23 to 101.
“(da) section (Agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities) (agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities);”
“(da) section (Foreign fishing boats that are exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated) (foreign fishing boats exclusively Faroe Islands-regulated);”
“(4A) Section (conservation of seals) and Schedule (conservation of seals) (conservation of seals) come into force on 1 March 2021.”
(4B) In Schedule 4, the amendment made by paragraph 6(13)(d) is treated as always having had effect.”
“(4) A foreign vessel is prohibited from carrying in the English zone velvet crab that were caught in waters lying within British fishery limits and are below the minimum size mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).”
“(a) in paragraph (1) omit “wherever caught”;
(b) in paragraph (2), after “applies” insert “(wherever caught)”;
(c) after paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) The landing in England or Northern Ireland from a foreign fishing boat of any sea fish to which this article applies that were caught in waters lying within British fishery limits is prohibited.””
(d) a foreign fishing boat outside British fishery limits.”
“SCOTLAND
The Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) (Scotland) Order 1999
22 (1) The Lobsters and Crawfish (Prohibition of Fishing and Landing) (Scotland) Order 1991 (S.S.I. 1999/88) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 3 (fishing prohibition)—
(a) in paragraph (2), for “a relevant British” substitute “any”;
(b) in paragraph (3), for “within the Scottish zone or anywhere outside that zone” substitute “outside the Scottish zone”.
(3) In article 4 (landing prohibition), for paragraph (3) substitute—
“(3) The prohibition in paragraph (2) does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(4) In article 5 (powers of British sea-fishery officers in relation to fishing boats), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) (Scotland) Order 2000
23 (1) The Sea Fish (Specified Sea Areas) (Regulation of Nets and Other Fishing Gear) (Scotland) Order 2000 (S.S.I. 2000/227) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 3 (application), in paragraphs (1)(b) and (1B)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Prohibition of Fishing for Scallops (Scotland) Order 2003
24 (1) The Prohibition of Fishing for Scallops (Scotland) Order 2003 (S.S.I. 2003/371) is amended as follows.
(2) In articles 3 and 4 (prohibitions of fishing for king scallops) for “a Scottish fishing boat or by any relevant British” substitute “any”.
(3) In article 6 (powers of British sea-fishery officers), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Shrimp Fishing Nets (Scotland) Order 2004
25 (1) The Shrimp Fishing Nets (Scotland) Order 2004 (S.S.I. 2004/261) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 3 (prohibition on fishing for shrimps without a separator trawl or sorting grid), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
(3) In article 4 (powers of British sea-fishery officers), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Sharks, Skates and Rays (Prohibition of Fishing, Trans-shipment and Landing) (Scotland) Order 2012
26 (1) The Sharks, Skates and Rays (Prohibition of Fishing, Trans-shipment and Landing) (Scotland) Order 2012 (S.S.I. 2012/63) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (definitions) omit the following definitions—
“fishing boat”;
“relevant British fishing boat”;
“Scottish fishing boat”;
“third country”;
“third country fishing boat”.
(3) Omit article 3 (application).
(4) In article 4 (prohibition of fishing for tope), for “a boat to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”.
(5) In article 5 (prohibition of trans-shipment of tope), for “a boat or vessel to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”.
(6) In article 6 (prohibition of landing tope)—
(a) the existing provision becomes paragraph (1);
(b) in that paragraph, for “a boat or vessel to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”;
(c) after that paragraph insert—
“(2) The prohibition in paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to tope caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(7) In article 7 (prohibition of landing specified species of shark, skate and ray)—
(a) in paragraph (1), for “a boat or vessel to which this article applies” substitute “any fishing boat”;
(b) after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) The prohibition in paragraph (1) does not apply in relation to a specified species caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(c) in paragraph (2), for “paragraph (1)” substitute “this article”.
(8) In article 8 (powers of British sea-fishery officers in relation to fishing boats), in paragraph (1)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”;
(b) omit sub-paragraph (c) and the “and” before it.
The Regulation of Scallop Fishing (Scotland) Order 2017
27 (1) The Regulation of Scallop Fishing (Scotland) Order 2017 (S.S.I. 2017/127) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation), omit the definition of “British fishing boat”.
(3) In article 3 (prescribed minimum size for landing king scallops)—
(a) for paragraph (3) substitute—
“(3) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”;
(b) in paragraph (5), omit sub-paragraph (a).
(4) In article 4 (restrictions on number of scallop dredges), in the opening words, omit “British”.
(5) In article 5 (exemption from restrictions in article 4), in paragraphs (1),
(2), (3)(a) and (4)(a), omit “British”.
(6) In article 6 (requirement to install a functioning remote electronic monitoring system), in paragraphs (1) and (3), omit “British”.
The Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (Scotland) Order 2017
28 (1) The Prohibition of Fishing with Multiple Trawls (Scotland) Order 2017 (S.S.I. 2017/325) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 3 (prohibition of method of fishing), in paragraph (1)(b), for “relevant British” substitute “other”.
The Specified Crustaceans (Prohibition on Landing, Sale and Carriage) (Scotland) Order 2017
29 (1) The Specified Crustaceans (Prohibition on Landing, Sale and Carriage) (Scotland) Order 2017 (S.S.I. 2017/455) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation), omit the definition of “foreign fishing boat”.
(3) In article 3 (prescribed minimum size for landing edible crabs in Scotland), for paragraph (2) substitute—
“(2) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(4) In article 4 (prohibitions on landing, sale, exposure or offer for sale or possession, or carriage of velvet crabs)—
(a) in paragraph (4), after “Scottish zone” insert “, or a foreign fishing boat within the Scottish zone,”;
(b) for paragraphs (6) and (7) substitute—
“(6) The prohibitions imposed by—
(a) section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph
(1), and
(b) paragraphs (4) and (5), do not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.
(7) The prohibition imposed by section 1(2) of the Act, as read with paragraph (2), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(5) In article 5 (prescribed minimum size for landing spider crabs in Scotland), for paragraph (2) substitute—
“(2) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(6) In article 6 (prescribed minimum size for landing green crabs in the Orkney Islands), for paragraph (2) substitute—
“(2) The prohibition imposed by section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraph (1), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
(7) In article 7 (prohibitions on landing, sale, exposure or offer for sale or possession, or carriage of lobsters)—
(a) in paragraph (10), after “Scottish zone” insert “, or a foreign fishing boat within the Scottish zone,”;
(b) for paragraphs (12) and (13) substitute—
“(12) The prohibitions imposed by—
(a) section 1(1) of the Act, as read with paragraphs
(1) to (7), and
(b) paragraph (10), do not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.
(13) The prohibition imposed by section 1(2) of the Act, as read with paragraph (8), does not apply in relation to sea fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
The Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2019
30 (1) The Sea Fish (Prohibited Methods of Fishing) (Firth of Clyde) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/419) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation), in paragraph (1), omit the definition of “British fishing boat”.
(3) In article 3 (prohibited methods of fishing), in paragraphs (1), (2) and (3), omit “British”.
NORTHERN IRELAND
The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993
31 (1) The Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of Fishing and Fishing Methods) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1993 (S.R. (N.I.) 1993 No. 155) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 4 (exceptions), omit “to any person who is not a British citizen or”.
The Razor Shells (Prohibition of Fishing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998
32 (1) The Razor Shells (Prohibition of Fishing) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998 (Northern Ireland) 1998 (S.R. (N.I.) 1998 No. 414) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 4 (exceptions), omit paragraph (a).
The Crabs and Lobsters (Minimum Size) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000
33 (1) The Crabs and Lobsters (Minimum Size) Order (Northern Ireland) 2000 (S.R. (N.I.) 2000 No. 200) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation)—
(a) omit the definition of “British fishing boat”;
(b) for the definition of “foreign fishing boat” substitute—
“foreign fishing boat” has the same meaning as in the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section 51 of that Act);”.
(3) For article 4 substitute—
“Exemptions
4 The prohibitions imposed by section 127(1) of the Act, as read with Article 3 and the Schedule, do not apply in relation to seafish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
The Conservation of Scallops Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008
34 (1) The Conservation of Scallops Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2008 (S.R. (N.I.) 2008 No. 430) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation), omit the definition of “British fishing boat”.
(3) In regulation 3 (prohibition of fishing and fishing methods) in paragraphs (3), (4), (7)(b) and (8), omit “British”.
(4) In regulation 4 (exemptions), omit paragraph (a).
The Edible Crabs (Conservation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020
35 (1) The Edible Crabs (Conservation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2020 (S.R. (N.I.) 2020 No. 152) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 2 (interpretation), for the definition of “foreign fishing boat” substitute—
“foreign fishing boat” has the same meaning as in the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section 51 of that Act);”.
(3) For regulation 5 (exemptions) substitute—
“Exemptions
5 (1) The obligations and prohibitions imposed by regulations 3 and 4 do not apply to any person operating under the authority of, and in accordance with a permit granted under, section 14 of the Act.
(2) The obligations and prohibitions imposed by regulations 3 and 4 do not apply in relation to sea-fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.”
The Edible Crabs (Undersized) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020
36 (1) The Edible Crabs (Undersized) Order (Northern Ireland) 2020 (S.R. (N.I.) 2020 No. 153) is amended as follows.
(2) In article 2 (interpretation), for the definition of “foreign fishing boat” substitute—
“foreign fishing boat” has the same meaning as in the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section 51 of that Act);”.
(3) For article 4 (exemptions) substitute—
“Exemptions
4 (1) The prohibition imposed by section 127(1) of the Act, as read with Article 3 and the Schedule, does not apply to any person operating under the authority of, and in accordance with a permit granted under, section 14 of the Act.
(2) The prohibition imposed by section 127(1) of the Act, as read with Article 3 and the Schedule, does not apply in relation to sea-fish caught by a foreign fishing boat in waters lying outside British fishery limits.””
“(4) This paragraph does not confer power on a sea fish licensing authority to make arrangements for a licensing function to be exercised on its behalf by another sea fish licensing authority (see instead section (Agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities) (agency arrangements between sea fish licensing authorities)).”
“(d) in subsection (11)(b), after “approval”, in the second place it occurs, insert “or annulment”.”
““temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that— (a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks;”
“(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;
(ii) ”
“(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.
(2B) A temporary foreign vessel licence shall be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Welsh Ministers or of a person granting the licence on their behalf.
(2C) In paragraph (2B), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.”
“(a) in the heading, for “Delivery” substitute “Granting”;
(b) in paragraphs (1) and (2), for “delivered” substitute “granted”;
(c) in paragraph (3)—
(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;
(ii) for “a nominee’s” substitute “an”;
(iii) for “delivered” substitute “granted”;
(d) after paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by electronic means at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (3) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(3B) A notice communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b) (publication on website) shall be treated as given immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.
(3C) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2B) shall be treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.”;
(e) in paragraph (5) (in each place it occurs), for “delivered” substitute “granted”.”
(ii) omit “, and a notice which is communicated in accordance with regulation 2(2)(b),”;
(iii) for “delivered or given” substitute “granted”;”
“(e) after that definition insert—
““temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.”
“(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;
(ii) ”
“(ba) after that paragraph insert —
“(1A) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Scottish Ministers or of a person granting the licence on their behalf.
(1B) In paragraph (1A), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.”
“(a) in the heading, for “Delivery” substitute “Granting”;
(b) in paragraphs (1) and (2), for “delivered” substitute “granted”;
(c) in paragraph (3)—
(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;
(ii) for “a nominee’s” substitute “an”;
(iii) for “delivered” substitute “granted”;
(d) after paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (3) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(3B) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated in accordance with regulation 3(1A) is to be treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.”;
(e) in paragraph (5) (in both places), for “delivered” substitute “granted”.”
“(6) In regulation 5 (time at which licences and notices to have effect), in paragraph (a)—
(a) after “3(1)” insert “or (1A)”;
(b) for “delivered” substitute “granted”.”
“(ba) for the definition of “notice” substitute—
““notice” means a notice of variation, suspension or revocation of a licence;”;
““temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and
(b) has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.”
“(a) in paragraph (1)—
(i) after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;
(ii) for the words from “the owner” to the end substitute “an appropriate recipient (“P”)”;
(b) after that paragraph insert—
“(1A) In paragraph (1) “an appropriate recipient” means—
(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a relevant fishing boat—
(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or
(ii) a nominee of the owner or charterer;
(b) in relation to a licence or a notice, relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.”;
(c) in paragraph (2), after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence, ”;
(d) after paragraph (3) insert —
“(3A) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by communicating it to the relevant person by—
(a) transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
(b) subsequently publishing it on the website of the Marine Management Organisation or of a person granting the licence on its behalf.
(3B) In paragraph (3A), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
(a) if the fishing boat is registered in a member
State, the European Commission;
(b) if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.”; (e) omit paragraph (8).”
“(5) In regulation 4 (time at which licences are delivered and notice given)—
(a) in the heading and paragraphs (1), (2), (3) and (4), for “delivered” substitute “granted”;
(b) after paragraph (4) insert—
“(4A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by means of an electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (4) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence communicated as described in regulation 3(3A) is treated as granted immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.”;
(c) in paragraph (7) (in both places), for “delivered” substitute “granted”.
(6) In regulation 5 (time at which licences and notices have effect), in paragraph (a), for “delivered” substitute “granted”.”
“(f) after that definition insert—
““temporary foreign vessel licence” means a licence that—
(a) is granted in respect of a foreign fishing boat, and has effect for a period of no more than three weeks.”
“(a) in paragraph (1)—
after “A licence” insert “, other than a temporary foreign vessel licence,”;
omit “Northern Ireland”;
for the words from “the owner or charterer of the boat” to the end substitute “an appropriate recipient”;
(b) in paragraph (2), after “A licence” insert “(other than a temporary foreign vessel licence)”;
(c) in paragraph (3), for the words from “the owner or charterer of the boat” to the end substitute “an appropriate recipient”;
(d) after paragraph (4) insert—
“(4A) In paragraphs (1) to (4), “an appropriate recipient” means—
(a) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a Northern Ireland fishing boat—
(i) the owner or charterer of the fishing boat, or
(ii) a nominee of that owner or charterer;
(b) in relation to a licence or notice relating to a foreign fishing boat, the owner or charterer of the fishing boat.
(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence is to be granted to the owner or charterer of a foreign fishing boat by delivering it to the relevant person by—
transmitting it to the relevant person by means of an electronic communication, and
subsequently publishing it on the website of the Department or of a person granting the licence on its behalf.
(4C) In paragraph (4B), “the relevant person”, in relation to a foreign fishing boat, means—
if the fishing boat is registered in a member State, the European Commission;
if the fishing boat is registered in a country or territory that is not a member State, the authority in that country or territory that is responsible for the regulation of fishing boats.””
“(5) In regulation 4 (time when licences are delivered and notices given), after paragraph (4) insert—
“(4A) In relation to a licence or notice transmitted by means of an electronic communication at any time during January 2021, the reference in paragraph (4) to 24 hours is to be read as a reference to one hour.
(4B) A temporary foreign vessel licence delivered as described in regulation 3(4B) is treated as delivered immediately it is published in accordance with that provision.”
(6) In regulation 5 (time when licences, variations, suspensions or revocations have effect), in paragraph (a), after “3(2)” insert “or (4B)”.”
“Sea Fish Licensing (Wales) Order 2019
22 The Sea Fish Licensing (Wales) Order 2019 (S.I. 2019/507 (W. 117)) (which has not come into force) is revoked.
Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Wales) Regulations 2019
23 The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Wales) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/500 (W. 116)) (which have not come into force) are revoked.
Sea Fish Licensing (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
24 The Sea Fish Licensing (England) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/ 523) (which have not come into force) are revoked.
Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019
25 The Sea Fish Licensing (Foreign Vessels) (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/87) (which has not come into force) is revoked.
Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019
26 The Sea Fishing (Licences and Notices) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/88) (which have not come into force) are revoked.
Fishing Boats Designation (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019
27 The Fishing Boats Designation (EU Exit) (Scotland) Order 2019 (S.S.I.
2019/345) (which has not come into force) is revoked.”
“(1) Regulations made under section 4B of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (regulations supplementary to sections 4 and 4A of that Act) in relation to licences under section 4 of that Act have effect on and after the coming into force of paragraph 6(2) as if they were made under paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 3 to this Act.”
“(c) require the Scottish Ministers, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.
(4A) In sub-paragraph (4)(c) “specified” means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—
(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;
(b) the amount of the financial assistance;
(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.
(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
“(c) require the Welsh Ministers, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.
(4A) In sub-paragraph (4)(c) “specified” means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—
(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;
(b) the amount of the financial assistance;
(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.
(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
“(c) require the Northern Ireland department, or another person, to publish specified information about financial assistance given in accordance with the scheme.
(4A) In sub-paragraph (4)(c) “specified” means specified by the scheme; and information that may be specified under that provision includes information about—
(a) the recipient of the financial assistance;
(b) the amount of the financial assistance;
(c) the purpose for which the financial assistance was given.
(4B) The scheme may not impose a duty to publish information where its publication would (taking the duty into account) contravene the data protection legislation (within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 2018).”
“(3A) Provision which does not fall within sub-paragraph (3)(a), but which would do so but for a requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006, may be included in regulations under paragraph 6 or 8 with the consent of the Secretary of State.”
“CONSERVATION OF SEALS
PART 1
AMENDMENT OF THE CONSERVATION OF SEALS ACT 1970
1 The Conservation of Seals Act 1970 is amended in accordance with paragraphs 2 to 12.
2 For section 1 (prohibited methods of killing seals) substitute—
“1 Prohibition of the killing, injuring or taking of seals
A person commits an offence if the person intentionally or recklessly kills, injures or takes a seal.” 3 Omit section 2 (close seasons for seals).
4 Omit section 3 (orders prohibiting killing seals).
5 In section 4 (apprehension of offenders and powers of search and seizure), in subsection (1), in paragraph (c) for “seal, seal skin, firearm, ammunition or poisonous” substitute “seal, item or”.
6 In section 6 (forfeitures), for the words from “any seal or seal” to the end substitute—
“(a) any seal or seal skin in respect of which the offence was committed;
(b) any item (but not a vehicle or boat) or substance used in connection with the commission of the offence;
(c) any seal, seal skin, poisonous or explosive substance, explosive article, firearm or ammunition, in the person’s possession at the time of the offence.”
7 In section 8 (attempt to commit offence), in subsection (2)—
(a) after “poisonous” insert “or explosive”;
(b) after “substance” insert “, any explosive article”;
(c) omit “the use of which is prohibited by section 1(1)(b) of this Act”.
8 In section 9 (general exceptions)—
(a) in subsection (1)—
(i) for “2 or 3” substitute “1”;
(ii) in paragraph (a), omit “otherwise than by his act”;
(iii) omit paragraphs (b) and (c);
(b) in subsection (2)— (i) omit “, 2 or 3”;
(ii) omit “otherwise than by his act”.
9 In section 10 (power to grant licences)—
(a) in subsection (1), in paragraph (c)—
(i) omit sub-paragraphs (i) and (iii) (but not the “or” after paragraph (iii));
(ii) after sub-paragraph (ii) insert—
“(iia) the protection of animal or human health or public safety,”;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) is to be read as authorising the grant of a licence for the purpose of the protection, promotion or development of commercial fish or aquaculture activities within the meaning of the Fisheries Act 2020 (see section 51 of that Act).”
10 In section 11 (entry upon land)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (b);
(b) in subsection (2), omit paragraph (d);
(c) in subsection (4)—
(i) omit the words from “, or in the” to “28 days’ notice,”;
(ii) omit the words from “; and in the case” to the end;
(d) omit subsection (5).
11 Omit section 14 (orders).
12 In section 15 (interpretation), at the appropriate places insert—
““explosive article” means an article (for example, a bomb or a firework) containing one or more explosive substances;”;
““explosive substance” means a substance or preparation, not including a substance or preparation in a solely gaseous form or in the form of vapour, which is —
(a) capable by chemical reaction in itself of producing gas at such a temperature and pressure and at such a speed as could cause damage to surroundings; or
(b) designed to produce an effect by heat, light, sound, gas or smoke, or a combination of these as a result of a non-detonative, self-sustaining, exothermic chemical reaction;”;
““preparation” means a mixture of two or more substances or a solution of any substance or substances;”.
PART 2
AMENDMENT OF THE WILDLIFE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1985
13 The Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (1985/171 (N.I. 2)) is amended in accordance with paragraphs 14 to 19.
14 In Article 10 (protection of certain wild animals), in paragraph (4A), for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute— “(a) a seal (pinniped), or”.
15 In Article 11 (exceptions to Article 10)—
(a) after paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) Article 5(5) (as it applies to Article 10 by virtue of paragraph (1)) applies in relation to seals (pinnipedia) as if—
(a) in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) the words “otherwise than by his unlawful act” were omitted, and
(b) sub-paragraph (c) were omitted.”;
(b) after paragraph (3) insert—
“(3A) Paragraph (3) applies in relation to seals (pinnipedia) as if
“or to fisheries” were omitted.”
16 In Article 18 (power to grant licences), after paragraph (3) insert—
“(3ZA) But a licence may not be granted under paragraph (3) that permits the killing, injuring or taking of seals (pinnipedia) for the purpose of preventing damage to fisheries.”
17 In Schedule 5 (animals which are protected at all times), in the table, for the entries for “Seal, common” and “Seal, grey” substitute—
“Seal | Pinniped” |
“Seal | Pinniped” |
“Seal | Pinniped”” |
“(10A) An order under this section that contains provision for the charging of fees for permits (including provision changing the level of fees) is subject to the affirmative procedure (see Part 2 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010) (asp 10)).”
“(5) Where in reliance on subsection (4)(a) the Scottish Ministers do not comply with subsection (1) before making an order under section 137A, that order—
(a) comes into force on a date specified in the order, and
(b) remains in force (unless revoked) for such period, not exceeding 12 months, as is specified in the order.
(6) The Scottish Ministers may by further order extend the period for which an order to which subsection (5) applies is in force for a period not exceeding 12 months.”
“(4) An order to which this section applies may be amended or revoked by a further order.”
“Orders for marine conservation: Northern Ireland offshore region
137E Orders relating to exploitation of sea fisheries resources: Northern Ireland offshore region
(1) The Department may make one or more orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Northern Ireland offshore region for the purposes of conserving—
(a) marine flora or fauna,
(b) marine habitats or types of marine habitat, or
(c) features of geological or geomorphological interest.
(2) An order under this section may be made so as to apply to any area in the Northern Ireland offshore region.
(3) An order under this section must specify the flora or fauna, habitat or type of habitat or features for the conservation of which it is made.
(4) The provision that may be made by an order under this section includes, in particular, provision falling within any of the Heads set out in subsections (5) to (7).
(5) Head 1 is provision prohibiting or restricting the exploitation of sea fisheries resources, including—
(a) provision prohibiting or restricting such exploitation in specified areas or during specified periods;
(b) provision limiting the amount of sea fisheries resources a person or vessel may take in a specified period;
(c) provision limiting the amount of time a person or vessel may spend fishing for or taking sea fisheries resources in a specified period.
(6) Head 2 is provision prohibiting or restricting the exploitation of sea fisheries resources without a permit issued by the Department, including—
(a) provision for the charging of fees for permits;
(b) provision enabling conditions to be attached to a permit;
(c) provision enabling the Department to limit the number of permits issued by it.
(7) Head 3 is—
(a) provision prohibiting or restricting the use of vessels of specified descriptions;
(b) provision prohibiting or restricting any method of exploiting sea fisheries resources;
(c) provision prohibiting or restricting the possession, use, retention on board, storage or transportation of specified items, or items of a specified description, that are used in the exploitation of sea fisheries resources;
(d) provision for determining whether such items are items of a specified description.
(8) An order under this section may be made—
(a) subject to specified exceptions or conditions;
(b) so as to cease to have effect after a specified period.
(9) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases, including in particular— (a) different times of the year,
(b) different means or methods of carrying out an activity, and (c) different descriptions of sea fisheries resources.
(10) In this section “specified” means specified in the order.
(11) In this section, and in sections 137F to 137H, “the Department” means the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.
137F Consultation etc regarding orders under section 137E
(1) Before making an order under section 137E the Department must—
(a) consult the Secretary of State,
(b) if the order would or might affect the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the English offshore region, consult the MMO,
(c) if the order would or might affect the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Scottish offshore region, consult the Scottish Ministers,
(d) if the order would or might affect the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Welsh offshore region, consult the Welsh Ministers, and
(e) consult any other person whom they think fit to consult.
(2) The Department must publish notice of the making of an order under section 137E.
(3) The notice under subsection (2) must—
(a) be published in such manner as the Department think is most likely to bring the order to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of it;
(b) give an address at which a copy of the order may be inspected.
(4) Where the Department think that there is an urgent need to make an order under section 137E to protect the Northern Ireland offshore region—
(a) subsection (1) does not apply,
(b) the notice under subsection (2) must also state that any person affected by the making of the order may make representations to the Department.
(5) Where in reliance on subsection (4)(a) the Department does not comply with subsection (1) before making an order under section 137A, that order—
(a) comes into force on a date specified in the order, and
(b) remains in force (unless revoked) for such period, not exceeding 12 months, as is specified in the order.
(6) The Department may by further order extend the period for which an order to which subsection (5) applies is in force for a period not exceeding 6 months.”
137G Interim orders made by the Department
(1) The Department may make one or more orders relating to the exploitation of sea fisheries resources in the Northern Ireland offshore region for the purpose of protecting any feature in any area in that region if the Department thinks—
(a) that the appropriate authority should consider whether to designate the area as an MCZ, and
(b) that there is an urgent need to protect the feature.
(2) An interim order under this section must contain a description of the boundaries of the area to which it applies (which must be no greater than is necessary for the purpose of protecting the feature in question).
(3) Subsections (4) to (10) of section 137E apply to an interim order under this section.
(4) An interim order under this section—
(a) comes into force on a date specified in the order, and
(b) remains in force (unless revoked) for such period, not exceeding 12 months, as is specified in the order.
(5) The Department may by further order extend the period for which the interim order is in force for a period not exceeding 6 months.
(6) The Department must publish notice of the making of an interim order under this section.
(7) The notice under subsection (6) must—
(a) be published in such manner as the Department think is most likely to bring the order to the attention of any persons who are likely to be affected by the making of it;
(b) give an address at which a copy of the order may be inspected;
(c) state that any person affected by the making of the order may make representations to the Department.
(8) The Department must keep under review the need for an interim order under this section to remain in force.
(9) In this section “feature” means any flora, fauna, habitat or feature which could be a protected feature if the area in question were designated as an MCZ.
137H Further provision as to orders made under section 137E or 137G
(1) This section applies to any order made under section 137E or 137G.
(2) The Department must send a copy of any order to which this section applies to the Secretary of State and to any person consulted under section 137F(2).
(3) The Department must—
(a) make a copy of any order to which this section applies available for inspection at such place as the Department thinks fit for that purpose at all reasonable hours without payment;
(b) provide a copy of any such order to any person who requests one.””
“(1A) In the heading, omit “by Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers”.”
“(2B) This section also applies where the Department of Agriculture,
Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has the function of —
(a) deciding whether to make an order under section 137E;
(b) deciding whether to make an order under section 137G.”
“27A In section 189 (power of Welsh Ministers in relation to fisheries in Wales)—
(a) in subsection (1), for “Subject to subsection (2), the” substitute “The”;
(b) omit subsection (2).”
“(15) Where the fisheries exploitation legislation consists of an order made under section 137E or 137G of this Act (orders relating to Northern Ireland offshore region), this section applies as if—
(a) references to a marine enforcement officer included a person appointed as such by the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland,
(b) for the purposes of subsection (3)(a), the relevant enforcement area were Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland inshore region and the Northern Ireland offshore region, and
(c) subsections (3)(c) and (d) and (4) to (6) were omitted.”
“30 (1) Section 316 (regulations and orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)(a)—
(a) for “137” substitute “137G”; (b) after “MCZs” insert “etc”.
(3) In subsection (6), before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) any order under section 137E that contains provision for the charging of fees for permits (including provision changing the levels of fees),”.”
(c) paragraph 15 makes consequential amendments.”
“Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1393/2014
3A (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1393/2014 establishing a discard plan for certain pelagic fisheries in north-western waters is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 1 (subject matter)—
(a) the existing text becomes paragraph 1;
(b) in that paragraph, for the words from “in the north-western” to “that Regulation” substitute “and applies to waters within ICES subarea 5B that are within United Kingdom waters and to waters within ICES subareas 6 and 7 that are not within Union waters”;
(c) after that paragraph insert—
“2 In paragraph 1, “United Kingdom waters” and “Union waters” have the meaning they have in Regulation (EU) No 1380/ 2013.”
(3) In Article 2 (survivability exemption), in paragraph 6 for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”.
(4) In Article 3a (de minimis exemptions in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020)— (a) in the heading, for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”;
(b) in points (a), (b) and (c), for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”.
(5) For Article 5 (entry into force) substitute—
“Article 5
Expiry
This regulation ceases to have effect at the end of 31 December 2021.”
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014
3B (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1395/2014 establishing a discard plan for certain small pelagic fisheries and fisheries for industrial purposes in the North Sea is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 1 (subject matter)—
(a) the existing text becomes paragraph 1;
(b) in that paragraph, for the words from “in the North” to “that Regulation” substitute “and applies to waters within ICES division 2a and subarea 4 that are within United Kingdom waters”;
(c) after that paragraph insert—
“2 In paragraph 1, “United Kingdom waters” has the meaning it has in Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013.”
(3) In Article 3a (de minimis exemption in the years 2018, 2019 and 2020)—
(a) in the heading, for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”; (b) in the body, for “and 2020” substitute “, 2020 and 2021”.
(4) Article 4a (Danish North Sea coast) is revoked.
(5) For Article 5 (application) substitute—
“Article 5
Expiry
This regulation ceases to have effect at the end of 31 December 2021.””
“Regulation (EU) 2017/2403
4A Regulation (EU) 2017/2403 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the sustainable management of external fishing fleets is revoked.”
“Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2238
8A (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2238 specifying details of implementation of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in the North Sea for the period 2020-2021 is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 3 (exemptions for Norway lobster)—
(a) in paragraph 1, omit point (b);
(b) omit paragraph 3.
(3) In Article 6 (exemption for plaice)—
(a) in paragraph 1, omit point (c);
(b) in paragraph 2, in point (b), for “80-99” substitute “80”; (c) omit paragraph 4.
(4) In Article 8 (exemption for turbot), omit paragraph 2.
(5) In Article 10 (de minimis exemptions)—
(a) in point (f) after “6% in 2020” insert “and 2021”;
(b) in each of points (f), (h) and (k) to (n), omit the words from “the de minimis” to the end;
(c) after point (n) insert—
“(o) in fisheries by vessels using bottom trawls (OTB, OTT, TB, TBN) of mesh size 80-99mm in the United Kingdom waters of ICES subarea 4 and ICES Division 2a:
a quantity of Norway lobster below the minimum conservation reference size, which shall not exceed 2% of the total annual catches of that species.”
Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2239
8B (1) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/2239 specifying details of the landing obligation for certain demersal fisheries in North-Western waters for the period 2020-2021 is amended as follows.
(2) In Article 6 (exemption for plaice), omit paragraph (2).
(3) In Article 8 (de minimis exemptions)—
(a) in paragraph 1, in each of points (d) to (k), omit “in 2020”;
(b) omit paragraph 2.
Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123
8C In Council Regulation (EU) 2020/123 fixing for 2020 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, in Article 14 (remedial measures for cod in the North Sea), omit paragraphs 2 to 4.”
“Consequential amendments
15 (1) In the Sea Fishing (EU Recording and Reporting Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2010 (S.S.I. 2010/334) (as amended by the Exit Regulations)—
(a) in article 2, in paragraph (1)—
(i) omit the definition of “Regulation 2017/2403”;
(ii) in the definition of “third country recording and reporting requirement” omit paragraph (ii) (and the “or” before it);
(b) in that article, for paragraph (5) substitute—
“(5) Any expression used, and not defined, in this Order that is used in the Control Regulation or Regulation 404/2011, or that is used in both of those Regulations, has the meaning it has in the Regulation or Regulations in which it is used.”;
(c) in article 6, omit paragraph (2);
(d) in Schedule 2, in the table, omit the entries relating to Regulation 2017/2403.
(2) In the Sea Fishing (EU Control Measures) (Scotland) Order 2015 (S.S.I. 2015/320) (as amended by the Exit Regulations), in article 2(1)—
(a) omit the definition of “Regulation 2017/2403”;
(b) in the definition of “third country control measure”—
(i) omit “Regulation 2017/2403 or”;
(ii) omit paragraph (a).
(3) In this paragraph “the Exit Regulations” means the Fisheries (EU Exit) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.S.I. 2019/24).”
Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be at one in thanking the men and women of our Armed Forces for the vital support they have given during the pandemic. Can the Minister confirm that the Covid support will have no adverse impact on training, standing commitments or our ability to respond to conflicts and threats? Can she also say how many military aid to civil authority requests are expected this winter? With news of a vaccine on the horizon, are the Armed Forces involved in planning its nationwide distribution and use?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Lord very much for his tribute to the Armed Forces, which I am sure is endorsed throughout the Chamber. In 2020, there were 420 MACA requests, 341 of which were Covid-related. The MoD is currently supporting 41. As to future projections, we stand ready to offer support, but are awaiting invitations to provide it. On the important matter of the vaccine, I confirm that the Ministry of Defence has already deployed military personnel to the Vaccine Taskforce, supporting the central organisation and exploring how Defence could bring logistical support to the national rollout of a future vaccine.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I similarly pay tribute to the Armed Forces in this week of remembrance. Could the Minister say what impact work on Covid might have on the other activities of the Armed Forces and whether training is carrying on as normal? Clearly other threats will not decline.
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
In relation to our current obligations, we have conducted prudent planning against a range of potential risks facing the nation over winter. We have a package of 7,500 personnel placed at heightened readiness to enable rapid response to HMG requests at this time of national crisis. Clearly the pandemic has disrupted some activity, but the MoD is endeavouring to ensure that we return to normal, in so far as that is consistent with the safety of our personnel. We ensure that whatever our personnel are asked to do is compliant with Public Health England.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
I declare an interest as a member of the Army Reserve. Living and working in the local community and with a host of civilian skills, reservists are ideally suited to MACA tasks, but are underutilised because there is a perception that, while cheap to hold, they are expensive to use. Can my noble friend look at ways to incentivise the single services to make better use of reserves?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
With their unique skills, the reservists have played a pivotal role in the response to Covid-19. They have been part of that response at every level. At one point, we had 2,300 Army reservists mobilised as part of Operation Rescript and the MoD’s contribution to the Covid-19 response. Currently, 340 reservists are mobilised to that operation and we have 100 additional reservists to support wider defence recovery. I pay tribute to their contribution.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister and other noble Lords for their appreciative comments about the use of the Armed Forces during the pandemic. Historically, deployment of the Armed Forces in support of civil authorities has been found from spare capacity within the Armed Forces. Does the Minister acknowledge that the size of the Armed Forces has been considerably reduced in recent years and, therefore, available spare capacity is also much reduced? Will the noble Baroness indicate whether, in the forthcoming integrated security and defence review, future support to civil authorities will become a formal military task and be properly resourced as such?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Lord, and confirm that the responsibility of the MoD to support MACA requests is taken with the utmost seriousness and, as has been evident from the contribution this year, is responded to with great professionalism and skill. The integrated review is currently on hold and the Government are still to announce when that process, along with the spending review, will be published. I can reassure the noble Lord that the MoD conducted the most extensive research for the input to the review, in the analysis of both what we require now and what we anticipate we will require in the future. Given what we have been through this year, the Government are very sensitive to the significance of the MoD’s capacity to meet MACA requests.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, our Armed Forces are a United Kingdom asset that serve all four nations. Of those 420 requests for military aid to the civil authorities, of which 341 are Covid-related, could the Minister tell noble Lords how many came from England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? In addition, 1,600 MoD medics are currently embedded in the NHS. Are there any plans to extend that embedding of MoD personnel in the NHS?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I will need to offer to write to the noble Baroness with the specific information she requests. I can confirm that, across the United Kingdom, the MoD, through MACA response, has supported all parts of the United Kingdom, including the devolved Administrations.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
Will the Minister confirm that these schemes are of mutual benefit and that the forces get experience of planning, reconnaissance, deployment and evaluation? Will she say what effect this had had on recruitment? How many extra people have been recruited to our forces as a result?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
Yes, the personnel from the MoD participating in MACA responses have had hugely positive emotions in understanding the contribution they are making and seeing at first hand the appreciation of the public for their efforts. On the important issue of recruitment, I am pleased to say to the noble Lord that the intake to the regular Armed Forces in the 12 months to 1 July 2020 was up 12.9% compared with the previous 12 months, which is a very gratifying situation.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest: I have a child in the Armed Forces. Following on from the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, the figure of 1,600 was given by the Minister in the other place—these are the medics from the Armed Forces currently embedded in the NHS. Can my noble friend confirm whether this figure includes fifth-year medical students? Perhaps it is an issue she will write to me on. Are there any plans that these students will be graduated early, as happened last year, so they can start to serve on the front line?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
[Inaudible.] I shall offer to write to the noble Baroness with detail.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB) [V]
In times of nationwide civil emergency, the two most relevant military capabilities are a pool of disciplined manpower and a system of command and control, optimised for turning strategic aspirations into co-ordinated tactical action. A recurring lesson from past emergencies, from foot and mouth to Olympic security, indicates that this latter experience is not well understood by Government. Can the Minister confirm to the House that the military’s expertise in command and control is being properly harnessed?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I would like to reassure the noble and gallant Lord that it is. He will understand, from his own knowledge, both the level and extent to which the MoD has provided advice to the highest levels of government. Much of that advice has been welcomed by government precisely because of the attributes that the noble and gallant Lord identified in relation to the MoD and Armed Forces’ experience of command and delivery.
Lord Balfe (Con)
As someone who has done a considerable amount of research into, and study of, eastern and central Europe, can I counsel the Minister to avoid using the Armed Forces for anything that resembles coercive control?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
I am not quite sure what my noble friend means by that phrase. If he is alluding to the possibility that the military will be asked to step in to enforce law and order, there is absolutely no intention for that to happen.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
Where are the people who are serving in Liverpool based at present? How far do they have to travel each day?
Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]
Approximately 2,000 personnel are currently committed to the mass testing project in Liverpool. As to precisely where they are based, I do not have specific information, but I undertake to write to the noble Lord with that information.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, that brings the questions on that Statement to an end. We will move straight on to the next business.
Supporting Disadvantaged Families
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]
We welcome the contents of this Statement. Any measures that can help to stop children going hungry over the tough months ahead must always be welcomed.
However, before I ask questions, let us look briefly at the context. I must say that I was a wee bit disappointed that the Statement made no reference anywhere to Marcus Rashford, even though everybody knows that this initiative is a response to his campaign for free school meals in the holidays. Can I invite the Minister to go on the record and pay tribute to Mr Rashford, as I do? It is quite an achievement on his part not only to force this Prime Minister to move but also to get the whole country talking about child poverty. Indeed, it is quite chastening for those of us who spend most of our lives talking about the issue, but it is a remarkable achievement. If I am ever lucky enough to meet Marcus Rashford, after congratulating him, I think I might see if I can focus his attention next on the five-week wait or maybe the savings gateway and universal credit.
Although I am thrilled at his success, I wish that the Government had handled this better. There was a deeply depressing debate in the other place where hapless Tory MPs were forced to defend the Government’s stance on this, not just by disputing the Rashford free school meals plan but essentially by claiming that there is not an underlying problem. We need to be very careful how we talk about these matters because, as the national debate raged on, we started to hear parents once again being blamed for their poverty, with the old chestnuts appearing that if you give money or vouchers to poor parents, they will only spend them on drugs. Yet, out of this mess came one of the most heartwarming things I have seen this year, when the backlash against the Government’s position prompted a huge number of hospitality businesses, many of them badly hit by the pandemic, to offer to feed children free of charge during half-term when the Government did not.
Enough of that: I am delighted that the Government have now come round and agreed to take some action. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the House some more details on the package. First, we are told that there will be a new Covid winter grant scheme, which will give £170 million to English local authorities and, unlike previous grants,
“will carry conditions and reporting requirements to ensure that the scheme is focused on providing support with food and utility costs to vulnerable families with children who are affected by the pandemic.”
Are the Government going to define “vulnerable”? Is it about income or is it more than that? Does struggling to make ends meet count as vulnerable? Plenty of people who would not previously have classed themselves as vulnerable are losing their jobs or facing cuts in income as a result of this pandemic. Who is going to be covered by this scheme?
It is good to know that the Government will roll out holiday activities and food programmes across the country from Easter next year. Does that mean that the scheme will be in place for the next Easter holidays, in 2021, or will it kick in after Easter? We are told that the scheme is being extended to “all disadvantaged children”. Can the Minister tell the House what a disadvantaged child is for these purposes? Is it the same as a vulnerable child for the purposes of the Covid winter grant scheme? Are these separate schemes aimed at the same families or are they different schemes aimed at different families, and is there an overlap? Finally, we are told that the value of Healthy Start vouchers will be raised from £3.10 to £4.25 but not until next April. Can the Minister explain why it is not happening straightaway, given the amount of need in the country right now?
There is a much deeper issue here. During the campaign on extending free school meals, I was horrified to hear suggestions that the blame lay with parents for failing to feed their kids properly when the basic underlying problem is that too many parents just do not have enough money to make ends meet. Every week, more people are losing hours or losing jobs and they are finding that, despite years of paying in, our social security system simply does not provide them with enough to live on. However, every time we mention this, Ministers simply repeat that they have given £9 billion et cetera. That is great—I am really glad that they have invested this money—but it is clearly not adequate to the scale of the problem. Food bank use is skyrocketing and people are falling into debt. That highlights that there just is not enough money in the system.
At the start of this crisis, we asked for five urgent steps to be taken. The first was an extension of the £20 increase in universal credit to legacy benefits. I urge the Minister again, as I did this morning, to explain to the House why the Government will not do that—that is, tell us not just that they will not but why. Why is it okay to give the money to universal credit recipients but refuse it to JSA and ESA? Secondly, we asked them to scrap the savings threshold on universal credit so that we were not punishing savers. Thirdly, we asked for an end to the terrible two-child limit. Fourthly, we asked for a suspension of the benefit cap so that everyone can get the extra money that the Government have announced. Fifthly, we asked them to turn the universal credit advance into a grant rather than a loan to address the five-week wait in the short term.
If Ministers had taken those basic steps, we would have fewer parents struggling to feed their children in the first place. I therefore urge the Minister to ask her colleagues to change their minds once more, to implement these five changes and then to take a longer look at why our social security system is failing to stop so many of our fellow citizens falling into poverty. This pandemic has already done enough damage to our children. Let us all work together to do what we can to stop it getting any worse.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
My Lords, we welcome these measures and recognise the Government’s intentions to support disadvantaged families through winter and beyond—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry, but we cannot hear the noble Baroness. Could she try again?
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
Can you hear me? We very much welcome these measures, and I too pay tribute to Marcus Rashford and his campaign.
I would like to understand a little more of the noble Baroness’s clarification of what is meant by “beyond”. I very much hope that there is to be a longer-term strategy on this issue, as criticisms I have heard from local people are that the Government appear to be following a policy of knee-jerk responses and quick fixes, while the public in general would welcome a much longer-term approach, which would give them more confidence. For example, is it the Government’s intention that the temporary measures taken during the pandemic are to be made permanent, such as the extension of the free school meals entitlement to families with no recourse to public funds? Perhaps the noble Baroness could clarify that.
The Statement also said that local authorities have local ties and knowledge, and this is most certainly the case. Local authorities are to receive £160 million, to be added to the £63 million—[Inaudible.]
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry, but we cannot hear the noble Baroness. Can she get closer to the microphone?
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
I am right up against the microphone now. Can you hear me?
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
Local authorities are to receive £160 million, to be added to the previous sum of £63 million which was distributed earlier in the year. This is to be paid as a one-off government grant. I would like to understand more about the basis of these measures. What consultations have taken place with local government and what were their outcomes?
The issue of conditionality was raised. How is that to be achieved and demonstrated? Are there to be target numbers of families or children? Are levels of participation to be measured, or perhaps there are measures of improved well-being that are to be reported upon?
What exactly is the basis of these sums of money? We are told that funding will be dispersed according to an authority’s population, weighted by a function of the English indices of multiple deprivation, so presumably we are looking at a sum per head. Can the noble Baroness say how much per head and for how many people?
Does the noble Baroness feel confident about the number of families that are to be helped, given that local authorities have had financial cuts of £16 million over the last 10 years and that their capacity is significantly reduced? Many important services for disadvantaged families no longer exist in many areas, such as family support schemes and community facilities such as libraries, sports and recreation, and local health promotion, and many of those may be required to implement the scheme. Does the noble Baroness feel that the sums of money here will be enough to achieve the objectives she describes in the Statement?
The noble Baroness talked about the importance of nutritious food. Has any financial assessment been made of the cost of providing this to the numbers involved? If so, it would be good to see it. The Food Foundation has established that, to pay for the Government-recommended “eatwell plates”, people on universal credit would need to spend around two-thirds of their non-housing income on food. It would help to understand the analysis that underpins these measures.
We all welcome the expansion of holiday activities for disadvantaged children. Can the Minister clarify how these children are to be identified? Who is eligible for these provisions? Existing criteria exclude many children, particularly in low-paid working families. We have welcomed the temporary measures that have been introduced during the current crisis. Can the Minister assure the House that these will remain in place?
We welcome the £16 million for charities to help those struggling to afford food, but surely this is no more than a sticking plaster. We must ensure that families’ income is sufficient so that they can afford to provide nutritious food for themselves and their children. Removing the benefit cap and the three-child limit would help. If the Government do not intend to do that, what longer-term policies are being considered to ensure that families and children will no longer have to depend on short-term fixes and will have enough income to provide their own food and care for their families without depending on charities?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, I will respond first to the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, and then cover the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. I am sorry that the audio of the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, was not at all good. If I do not answer all her questions, I will go through Hansard tomorrow and make sure that she receives a written answer.
I am grateful that both noble Baronesses welcomed the Statement. Let me say right at the start that the Government much admire Marcus Rashford’s passion and commitment and are proud to have provided this invaluable support. I note the hopes of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for Marcus Rashford’s next campaign.
She also mentioned the comments about parents who use their benefits for purposes other than we would wish. We do not associate ourselves with those remarks. We are only too aware and appreciative of the difficult circumstances in which some parents find themselves at the moment. We are delighted that the hospitality industry came into its own and are glad that it was in a position to give extra help.
I am well aware that earlier at Questions, the noble Baroness was underwhelmed by my response about legacy benefits. I will try to be a little more helpful. Back in March, when there were no arrangements such as the furlough in place, UC had to take the strain until those schemes came online. The Government were trying to cushion those who had had a fall in income because they were made unemployed, or their earnings dropped, due to Covid-19. They were not trying to provide a general uplift in benefits. Those who were newly signed on to universal credit did so because they had seen a significant drop in their income, whereas those on legacy benefits had not seen the same fall.
Moving on to what we have done, we have announced a £170 million Covid winter grant scheme, to make sure that families get the help they need. We are giving this to councils because they are best placed to understand their communities. They know the most vulnerable children and families who need this money. As the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said, this is being done on a per-head-of-population basis, according to the deprivation indices.
We are also investing £220 million more than existing funding allocated to the programme. This will mean that children eligible for free school meals will have the option to join a holiday time programme that provides healthy food and funds activities during the summer, Christmas and Easter holidays. I am afraid I am not able to comment on more than that timeframe. I will write to the noble Baroness about why the Healthy Start payments will not start until April 2021.
On the holiday activities and food programme, much has been said about the speed at which it has been introduced and whether it was a reaction, but I will say that we have been piloting this initiative and trying to work out how best to deliver it. This was not a knee-jerk response or something we thought we had better get on and do; it was something we piloted and tested. We made sure that, when we announced it, we knew that it would work. Since the summer, 50,000 children have benefited from the holiday activities and food fund, and a further 2,500 additional breakfast clubs have been started.
Will all children in England be eligible for a place on a HAFF programme? The programme will make free places available to children eligible for free school meals in their local authority for a minimum of four hours a day, four days a week, six weeks a year. This will cover four weeks in the summer and a week’s worth of provision in each of the Easter and Christmas holidays. As I have said before, local authorities have the flexibility to decide how to do this and how to use the money.
As I expected and I understand, there has been a call for the £20 uplift to be extended to legacy benefits, and I have been very clear about the Government’ position on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the issues of the savings threshold, the two-child limit, the benefit cap and advances into grants. I have made clear that the Government do not have any plans at the moment to change those things, and, as my Secretary of State said in the other place,
“advances are actual grants to people—they are just the phasing of universal credit payments over the year”—
and they are repayable within a year—
“and soon to be over two years if that is what claimants want.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 642.]
We are listening and extending the time.
Where we have been doing the local pilots, there has been extensive discussion on interfacing with local authorities. I understand that the Government have written to all the chief executives of the local authorities, and, at this stage in the proceedings, the announcement and commitment have gone down very well. I am afraid I cannot tell the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, how much it is per head because it will be up to local authorities to say where the money goes and spend it most effectively.
Understandably, the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the point about local authorities and underfunding. We are giving councils unprecedented support during the pandemic: a package of £6.4 billion so far. We recognise that there will be individual councils with unique circumstances, and we encourage them to approach MHCLG to discuss their future financial position.
Before I close this part of the questioning, I will make the point that Covid has certainly made life very difficult for people—nobody is trying to ignore that—but, underlying this, we believe that parents are responsible for their children. It is not the state’s job to take that responsibility, other than in these very difficult times, where we are trying to do everything we can. One of the areas I have responsibility for is the Child Maintenance Service. You would not believe the extent to which people try to get out of their responsibilities to pay for their children. We are working very hard to get this money back. As it stands, there are 130,000 children who are owed £381.3 million, and I am doing everything I can to get that money to children because it would make a huge difference to their lives.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, naturally, I am extremely pleased the Government are responding to this very real need, even if as something of a reaction to public disquiet. Marcus Rashford is clearly an artist on and off the field.
This money will obviously make a real impact in areas of disadvantage and poverty. However, I am sad to say I must add to them the current plight of freelancers and their families. Despite the Chancellor’s generous support for the arts, it is a fact that this section of society is falling through the support network provided by the Government. I know of people who are seriously worried about how they will feed their families this winter and this Christmas.
In anticipation of the Minister’s response, I put it to her that not only are a huge proportion of freelancers unable to access SEISS according to the Government’s own figures but they are unable to claim universal credit for the following reason. If they have been saving to pay tax on earnings made prior to Covid-19, they could easily have the savings as a couple that exceed the £16,000 threshold—money that is ultimately destined for the Chancellor.
Although I find myself incredulous at my own words that, for example, a highly skilled violinist of many years’ standing in the profession might not be able to feed his family this winter, that is in fact the case. When Keir Starmer in the other place gave the example of Chris, the photographer, to the Prime Minister at PMQs yesterday, Mr Johnson completely dodged the question, saying Chris would be better off once we had dealt with the virus. That is obvious, but I doubt Chris felt this solved his immediate and imminent financial crisis. Can the Minister say whether her department and the Chancellor will look at the predicament of freelancers in our society? Secondly, will they be able to access the support announced in the Statement?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that poignant comment. I understand his concern and distress about this situation. The issue of the support—or otherwise, as he would say—for freelancers rests with the Treasury, but I will go back to the Treasury and get answers to those questions, especially about the savings, where they put money aside to pay their bill. I will talk to those in the department to see if, in those circumstances, people can access universal credit and the help we are announcing today. I hope he will give me time to do that.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, at a time when it is claimed we have more food banks than McDonald’s restaurants in our country, and following the rather disappointing response to the Economic Affairs Committee’s report Universal Credit Isn’t Working, when will the Government end the anguish and uncertainty facing families who stand to lose £1,000 a year unless the standard allowance is made permanent after April? How can it be right to deduct up to a quarter of universal credit payments from families due to historic debt arising from faults in legacy systems, much of which they are completely unaware of? Finally, when will the department make a decision on the benefit cap, which affects 7% of families with children?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will answer again on the £20 uplift. We are in discussion with officials at the Treasury: when a decision has been made, Parliament will be advised. The issue of historic debt is well documented and well discussed. Nothing I can say now will make that situation any different. However, where people are struggling, even when the level has been reduced to the maximum of 25% being taken off, please will they talk to their work coaches, who will turn themselves inside out to help? That is probably not the answer the noble Lord wants—but that is what they are there to do. As things stand, there are no plans to change the benefit cap.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
I warmly welcome so much in the Statement and in the decisions made; I also associate myself with those who ask why it did not all happen a bit more quickly. None the less, this has exposed the underlying fundamental structural issues which mean that we are not tackling child poverty in the round and as a whole. What consideration have Her Majesty’s Government given to creating really long-term solutions by forming a child poverty commission, as proposed by faith leaders in their recent letter to the Prime Minister?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is consistent in the issues that he raises, and I understand that. As for this happening more quickly, as I said, we were piloting and we were in dialogue. We were not sitting around waiting to be kicked into touch. As I have also said before, we have tested to make sure that these things can work. As for the long-term issue of a child poverty commission, I am not aware of any plans, but I will go away and double-check for him. I take this opportunity to thank the Church and all the faith groups who are supporting their communities in such an outstanding way.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for the Government, protecting children is a moral imperative, because children cannot protect themselves. He may not have used those actual words, but they underpin the simple and compelling request from Marcus Rashford; that is why it was so clearly understood by the public and local businesses in their communities. I welcome the Statement as a contribution to preventing children going hungry, but this is a problem growing in prevalence and urgency. The role of local government is important, but may I push the Minister further on the question put by my noble friend Lady Sherlock about how “vulnerable” will be defined? That will be key in capturing the population to be helped and ensuring that some vulnerable families and children are not missed. For example, food aid charities have identified the emergence of the newly hungry—a growing cohort of people previously in jobs, who have been forced to use food banks and claim benefits for the first time during the pandemic. Will the Minister write, giving more detail on how the DWP will define vulnerable families in the Covid winter grant scheme, to ensure and give confidence that that category will include all those who need help?
There is a second example. On 9 November in the other place, the Secretary of State, Dr Coffey, said that
“every child has no need to go hungry in this country”,—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 649.]
and that there would be
“funding available for every child in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/20; col. 637.]
But she did not expressly answer a question posed by Stephen Timms, so I ask the Minister that question again now. Will she confirm that this package of support extends to families who have no recourse to public funds?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Of course we agree completely that children cannot protect themselves, and we must all do our part to protect them. Local government’s role is important, and we urge all partners in the communities that work with their local authorities, and the community groups with which they have relationships, to work together to identify those they know who really need this support. I undertake to write to the noble Baroness, as she requests, about the term “vulnerable”. As for those with no recourse to public funds, local authorities can, and already do, use their judgment to assess what support they may lawfully give to each person on an individual basis, taking into account their needs and circumstances. That includes providing a basic safety net option to individuals regardless of their immigration status, if there is a genuine care need that does not arise solely from destitution—for example, if there are community care needs or serious health problems—and there is a risk to a child’s well-being.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, it is odd when we talk about child poverty as though it has happened with the pandemic. Food poverty during the holidays has been with us for a long time. In that context, it is only fair to ask what the Government’s long-terms plans are. They must have seen this coming for a long time. What are they going to do to make sure that the whole of the school holidays—not just six weeks—are covered? Will they make sure that in future they have a coherent plan to ensure that children get through the whole period with enough nourishment, so that they are not in a state of low nutrition, meaning that they cannot learn for a few weeks when they get back to school? Marcus Rashford did a wonderful job. It is appalling that the Government had to be told by him what to do and that they did not listen to their own Back-Benchers.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
On a long-term plan, the only commitment that I can make today on behalf of the Government is the one in the announcement. That is the straight answer on that point. I note the noble Lord’s observations in the latter part of his contribution and just say that we have listened to Marcus Rashford and others, piloted the initiative, and responded accordingly.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that support with food costs will not be confined to families with school-age children but will extend to those with pre-school children as well?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The £170 million scheme recognises that more people might feel under pressure this winter and will allow local authorities to support a wider group of vulnerable people, including those with children of pre-school age. Precise eligibility for the Covid winter grant scheme will be decided by each local authority. This is not about numbers; it is for local authorities to decide how they can best support those in need. The Healthy Start scheme payments are also set to increase from £3.10 to £4.25 a week from next April.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
The Statement said that the Government want to give disadvantaged families peace of mind. Welcome as this week’s package is, why do the Government continue to refuse to act on calls from children’s and anti-poverty organisations? Their work shows that improvements to social security support for children is essential for their parents’ peace of mind and for tackling child poverty and hunger in both the short and longer term, as called for by the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness is correct in that we want to give people peace of mind, as reflected in the announcement that we have made. The right reverend Prelate made his statement, and all I can say is that our Secretary of State, the department and the Government are working tirelessly around the clock to make sure that there is a package in place that does what it can to support people in these difficult times.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, I would like to associate myself with the comments of others in congratulating Marcus Rashford on persuading the Government to take these rightful actions. As a single father, I am not disadvantaged financially, but I have direct experience with three young boys—two of whom, at different times in the last month, have had to self-isolate at home because of potential contact with coronavirus cases at school—of just how difficult it can be for families in these circumstances.
First, can the Minister assure us that no one will now have to choose between looking after their children when they need looking after and earning an income—that the financial support will always be there for everyone who needs it? Secondly, can the Minister comment on the rollout of computers to schools to make sure that every child at home gets the opportunity for education? It is absolutely clear, from all the evidence presented to the Government, that the coronavirus period has been a catastrophe for many children, particularly those who were already disadvantaged.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I can appreciate the noble Lord’s commitment to his three boys and the difficulties with their care caused by Covid. We have done as much as we possibly can to make sure that childcare stays in place, even paying for places when nurseries have been closed. As for enabling parents to look after their children, and not having to choose between earning money and not going to work, I think most employers have been very considerate about these circumstances and have been as flexible as they can. In relation to computers for schools and the disruption to education, the noble Lord’s point is very well made. I will ask my colleague in the DfE to write to him specifically about computers.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, while welcoming the contents of the Statement, I have to say that I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that there needs to be a child poverty commission. The Statement clearly highlights that there has been such a deficit in welfare and child welfare policy. Will the Minister talk to her Secretary of State to ensure that discussions get under way about an immediate review of welfare policy in light of the pandemic?
Secondly, could she provide an estimate of what amount of money under the Barnett consequentials or Covid winter grant scheme—£16 billion has been allocated to the devolved Administrations—has actually been allocated to Northern Ireland? Will she further ensure that that money is dedicated to disadvantaged families and does not go into the central pot of the Department of Finance?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I will go back and speak to my Secretary of State about the points the noble Baroness raises. I cannot make any commitment further than that. As the noble Baroness says, £16 billion is given to the devolved Administrations to allow them to plan. Last week, in the Chancellor’s Statement, there was a recognition that, through the Barnett formula, every time we do certain different policies, the devolved Administrations want to do additional things. We have a mature relationship with the devolved Administrations. They have been set a guaranteed amount of funding, and I assure the noble Baroness that there is still more room in terms of Barnett consequentials. The Chancellor was right to make the decision he did, and I am glad she welcomes it.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome this Statement and this decision, and congratulate the Government. I urge my noble friend, in line with her responses, including to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, to continue urgently talking to the Treasury about the extra £20 uplift in universal credit being extended, given that the opportunity of work is much more difficult in the current environment. I also encourage the Government to look at the position of children in particular, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Ritchie, have said.
Could my noble friend the Minister please join me in praising the work of others, not just Marcus Rashford—the local organisations and religious groups across the country involved in providing these activities and food for children, who have helped make the pilot scheme such a success?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
At the risk of repeating myself, the issue that the noble Baroness raises about the £20 uplift has been raised many times, and we undertake to come back to Parliament to advise on the outcome of discussions with the Treasury. On praising the work of local organisations, I have already given an absolute endorsement to faith groups—the Church of England, Jewish communities, the Salvation Army—and many other charities that I wish I could mention by name. We have seen some fantastic provision in the last three years and we want to take that learning experience into the future delivery of holiday activities and food programmes.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I of course welcome the positive aspect of the Statement, but it feels to me that the Government have reacted to crisis under pressure from local government, the voluntary sector and dynamic individuals. A new report from the Local Government Association, A Child-centred Recovery, points out that children have been disproportionately impacted by the Covid crisis. The report calls for a
“cross-Whitehall strategy that puts children and young people at the heart of recovery”.
It seems blindingly clear that a cross-departmental strategy for children should be an urgent priority. Will the Minister take this forward?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that there is already a forward-looking approach that is long-term and cross-departmental, with DWP working closely with the DfE and Defra to target support to those in need. The Secretary of State set out in the other place her desire to ensure that every child has the chance to realise their full potential, and the long-term thinking in this support package will help to achieve this far more than piecemeal reform. I ask the noble Baroness to write to me if there are particular things that she would like included; I am quite prepared to make those available to the department.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, clearly the additional funding is welcome, but I note that the Statement suggests that there will be additional reporting requirements and conditions for local authorities. What work have the Government done in talking to local authorities to ensure that such requirements are not overly onerous? It would be something of an own goal to have money being spent that local authorities do not have the time to disburse. In the longer term, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to make child poverty history?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The noble Baroness raises a really important point about reporting. We will need some information back for the sums of money that we will be spending. I sincerely hope that the reporting requirements will not be onerous, but that they will enable us to understand the impact of the spending and the difference it makes, and help us understand what needs to be done next. I really hope that will be case. I can only reiterate that we are working hard as a Government to make sure that children and families have the support they need in these even more difficult times.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn her name, so I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what is happening about the decline in the number of health visitors in respect of the youngest children in disadvantaged families? If the Government, as was said in the Statement, are taking a long-term holistic approach, why has there been no national health inequality strategy since 2010? Is this why life expectancy in England has stalled since 2010—something that has not happened since 1900, according to The Marmot Review 10 Years On?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
There is an exam question to finish this session. I will need to ask my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to provide the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, with the information about health visitors and the other valid points that he raises.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, all speakers who wished to ask questions on the Statement have done so. We will move straight on to the next Statement, but I recommend that we just take a few moments to allow Front-Bench Members and others to find their right places.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, this Statement was made in the Commons on Tuesday and, as we know, events move quickly where the coronavirus pandemic is concerned. Since Tuesday, further details about the welcome breakthrough in the development of a vaccine have been emerging and there is much scope for optimism. Also welcome is that the Government have, at last, agreed to a six-day travel window for students in England next month, after the end of lockdown, so that they can go home before Christmas and undertake periods of isolation, if needed, and be with their families. This requires mass testing on university campuses before students can leave, so can the Minister update the House on the plans and arrangements for this, please?
However, yesterday we also reached the grim milestone of Britain’s Covid-19 death toll passing 50,000—a sobering reminder of the severity of the crisis, as we struggle through the second wave. As Labour’s leader, Keir Starmer, said:
“Behind these numbers is a devastated family, one for every death, and they have to be uppermost in our mind.”
The announcement in Tuesday’s Statement of twice-weekly routine testing for front-line NHS staff is a very important development. It is vital not just for protecting staff, but for infection control in healthcare settings. We have been pressing for a systematic programme for this for months. Can the Minister please update the House on the progress and roll-out timescales to which the Government are now working?
On testing more broadly, the Government have announced plans for the mass distribution of lateral flow tests. I understand that local directors of public health have been asked to develop local strategies, but does the Minister agree that families with a loved one in a care home should be given priority access to these tests, so that they can see, and hold the hand of, that loved one? Will public health teams be put in charge of contract tracing from day one? At a Commons Select Committee this week, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who is in charge of test and trace, finally admitted what we have been saying all along: that people are not self-isolating
“because they find it very difficult … the need to keep earning and … feed your family is … fundamental”.
Does the Minister therefore accept that a better package of financial support is needed to ensure isolation is adhered to? Can the Minister also tell the House if it is the Government’s intention to reduce the isolation period? What assessment has been made of evidence that a negative PCR swab, seven days after exposure, could release someone from quarantine?
The vaccine is a moment of great hope and optimism, in a bleak, dismal year that has shattered so many lives and families. The Government need to continue to be optimistic, but must be cautious to resist the urge to talk up and overpromise, and adopt their usual best-in-the-world rhetoric. As further details about the vaccine emerge, there will be many questions, and I am sure noble Lords will follow these up. We strongly support the priority list drawn up by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, under which care home residents and staff get the vaccine first, followed by the over-80s and other NHS and care staff. There will need to be widespread consultation with key stakeholders on the arrangements, timings, resources and logistics. Given past experience, can the Minister specifically reassure the House that the adult social care sector, and care homes in particular, will be fully involved in planning delivery of and administering the vaccine?
Just as important, how will the disproportionate impact of the virus on minority ethnic communities be taken into account, when drawing up the final priority list arrangements? What is the Government’s working assumption of what proportion of the population needs to be vaccinated to establish herd immunity and bring the R rate below one? Can the Minister outline the latest clinical thinking around vaccination of children?
I understand that each person will require two shots of the vaccine, three weeks apart, and that protection develops a month after the first shot. Details of the Government’s plan for what amounts to the biggest vaccine manufacture, campaign and distribution in history are beginning to emerge. We need to learn lessons from the failures of the rollout of test and trace, and the early procurement of PPE. None of us wants to see booking systems overloaded with people told to travel miles, as we have seen with testing, so when will we see the Government develop that plan and their overall strategy?
Are the Government working with international partners to ensure that there are enough raw materials, enzymes and bioreactors to guarantee the mass manufacturing needed? Will there be the cold chain for transport and storage in various parts of the country for the Pfizer vaccine, which needs to be kept at minus 70 degrees centigrade? Have arrangements begun for procurement of the appropriate storage equipment? Will liquid nitrogen and freezers be provided to health centres, doctors’ practices and care homes? How is the vaccine to be distributed and administered to ensure that it is kept at such low temperatures?
On safety, it is comforting that the Deputy CMO, Jonathan Van-Tam, has assured us that he would urge his elderly mother to be vaccinated and that safety will not be compromised, despite the speed of the programme. The regulator, the MRHA, has rightly promised that there is no chance that it will compromise on standards of safety or effectiveness. How do the Government plan to get that message across to the public?
We know that vaccine hesitancy and denial is a growing problem. Labour has offered to work with the Government on a cross-party basis to build public confidence in the vaccine, promote take-up and dispel anti-vax myths, many of which are not just fiction but malicious. I look forward to a positive response from the Minister.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister. I am going to address testing and tracing. He may not have answers but I should be grateful if he could write to me. There have been more than 10 million downloads of the NHS Covid-19 contact tracing app. There have also been many complaints of Bluetooth draining batteries. I second those. Will he confirm whether there is a solution in the pipeline for that issue? If people do as I do and just switch off Bluetooth, the system will not work. How many of these app users are active? If 10 million people are actively telling the world where they are and are checking in and out of where they have been, that is wonderful. But if they do not do so, it is not terribly helpful.
Critically, how many people have been triggered via the app to isolate? Of those, what proportion have had their isolation checked and by whom? Testing is quick and easy but the delay in response time is unhelpful. Swab processing time is not reducing due to the increase in the number of swabs, and labs are taking longer. Is there yet sufficient capacity, and how many staff are being trained weekly to take on the extra capacity? Can the Minister indicate the cost of taking a swab and getting the results back to the individual? Finally, will he confirm when he expects to move to lateral flow tests, which are much quicker and would transform the lives of the staff of care homes, their residents and visiting families?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the thoughtful questions of the noble Baronesses. I shall try to answer them as completely as I can but will write on any that I have omitted. As regards the questions about students, the programme of works with universities is extremely ambitious. I pay tribute to vice-chancellors and university administrations for working extremely closely with the Government, with the test and trace service and the DfE to mobilising the necessary arrangements in order to achieve the return home for Christmas.
This will include a large amount of mass testing on university campuses and in digs. There have already been successful pilots at Durham and De Montfort, using a variety of testing techniques and formats. Some tests have been done using telemedicine, some using traditional clipboard and picnic table techniques. There is further testing piloting to be done, but the indications are that this is proving an extremely successful model. It means that students can look forward to returning home for Christmas, confident that those who have the disease have been screened, and families can look forward to seeing students safely again.
On the testing of NHS workers, I agree with the noble Baroness that it is a priority. We are moving quickly on this. The purchase of tens of millions of lateral flow tests is a complete game-changer, and we remain committed to providing testing for the 1.3 million NHS workers. We aim to use lateral flow tests for some of these tests. NHS workers are themselves clinically trained, and it is appropriate for them to be able to use these tests. Therefore, we believe we can change the course of staff testing in the NHS environment using the new technology and a new approach to testing. I am extremely grateful to NHS colleagues for their participation in this important initiative.
Turning to DPHs, the noble Baroness is right that this is an important breakthrough. Again, the rollout of the lateral flow tests is important in that. She asked me about care homes, and she could have equally asked me about schools. I can deliver the same message on both: we have been sensitive to the appeals by DPHs for autonomy—for them to be able to make their own decisions, use their local intelligence and use their insight. That is why we have been reluctant to give any firm guidance on how they could or should use those tests. It is entirely up to DPHs to use the tests in the way they choose. But it is our expectation that some of those tests will be used in care homes, though there are other provisions for care home testing, and some will be used in schools, as well as for outbreak management and community testing.
The period for isolation is a subject under constant and rolling review by the CMO’s office and the policy team at DPH. I wish I could provide some kind of breakthrough—that the virus had in some way changed and was no longer infectious in people after a week or eight or nine days—but I am afraid I cannot provide that information. The frustrating thing about this virus is that it sits in the back of the throat or nose and remains infectious for an unfeasibly long time. That is why we are cautious about making dramatic changes in the isolation protocols.
What rapid testing provides is the opportunity to do frequent testing. The noble Baroness asked me about seven-day PCR tests; more likely and efficacious would be regular testing, every day or every other day, using the lateral flow tests, to do some form of test and release. We believe that avenue is more likely, and the CMO’s office is looking closely at that. It is entirely up to that office to make announcements on that score.
On adult social care, I reassure the noble Baroness that adult and child social care colleagues are fully involved in the preparations for a vaccine. She is right that social care provides its own set of challenges for the administration of the vaccine, but those are exactly the people we need to target with the vaccine. That is why they, particularly the elderly, are at the highest level of the JCVI’s prioritisation list. We are putting all our efforts into making sure that the vaccine delivery works for them.
The noble Baroness asked about ethnic minorities. May I put the question slightly differently? A number of difficult-to-reach groups have seen a high infection rate. It is a priority for us to make sure that the message on the vaccine breaks through any cultural, linguistic, demographic or other social barriers to get through to those groups who need it. They are not groups defined by race or the colour of their skin but by their proximity or otherwise to the normal course of government. We have learned through Covid that these groups are incredibly important from a public health point of view. From a values point of view, we owe it to them to do our best to reach them and we are putting the resources in place to do that. As for children, we have no current plans to vaccinate them. In terms of international partners, we are very focused on ensuring that all the intellectual property and manufacturing resources that we can possibly effect are put to work to get the vaccine into the arms of those around the world.
On cold storage, I reassure the noble Baroness that we have been on this for months. We have been aware of the demanding storage need of the Pfizer vaccine for a substantial amount of time and cold storage arrangements have been put in place. It is not necessary for that cold storage to be literally at the end of every street because the travel time for the vaccine is reasonably flexible. We have in place exactly what we need, not only for the Pfizer vaccine but for the Oxford vaccine and the others in the pipeline. JVT and Dr June Raine at the MHRA were crystal clear when they said that safety will not be compromised. I endorse their comments.
I will say a few words about our approach to managing messages to those who might feel anxious about the vaccine. This is not a moment for rebuttal or for attacking those who have questions about the vaccine, whatever those questions are and however far-fetched they might be. Our approach is to take all questions at face value, tackle them sincerely and approach them in an open-hearted way. By being defensive we play into the hands of those who have bad intentions, and by being aggressive we only amplify those causing trouble. Instead, we want to have an open dialogue with those who have concerns to emphasise the safety of the vaccine and, more generally, the normality of taking vaccines. It is with that kind of approach that we hope to deal with those who have concerns about taking vaccines.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked a number of questions about the app. I cannot give her precise numbers on absolutely everything she asked but I can reassure her on a couple of things. There have been 20 million downloads, not 10 million. Take-up of the app has been enormous and, week on week, we see a huge number of check-ins on the venue-based element of the app, which is a huge part of its effectiveness. It helps us enormously with contact tracing. As for Bluetooth and the battery, I am disappointed to hear that the noble Baroness has had trouble with her phone. On the whole, that is not the feedback we have had from users and the recent update has emphasised the low-energy aspects of the Bluetooth protocol that the app uses. We think it will improve the performance of the app and lessen its drain on the battery.
The noble Baroness asked about tests; I will answer broadly. The innovation that we have seen in diagnostics for Covid has been incredible. It has included far-fetched—to me at least—technologies such as mass spectrometry. Some innovations have used the plastic lateral flows, which, although low-tech in their appearance, use extremely advanced technologies and chemicals to achieve accuracy, speed and cost performance. Some, such as LAMP, have taken old technologies and repurposed them for a new use. It has been extremely exciting to see. It is my aspiration that we will see an inflection point in diagnostics in the UK. This will aid an overall strategic step towards early intervention and put diagnostics at the heart of our medical science. It has already played an important part for a long time, but this will put it centre stage. I pay tribute to the work of Professor Mike Richards, whose review of the future vision for diagnostics in the NHS provides us with a target to aim for as we expand and invest in our diagnostics around Covid.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we come to the 30 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister referred to several areas where the lateral flow test will be deployed. The early reports from Liverpool’s mass screening using the test suggests that it performs well, with higher specificity and sensitivity, meaning that there is a negligible number of false positives and false negatives. That being so—and accepting that the vaccine will change the whole scene when it is available—apart from the areas that he has already mentioned, can he confirm what I have just said and give us the latest figures from Liverpool? Can he go on to say what plans the Government are making for the deployment of this test in other public areas to open up the economy?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his characteristically detailed and forensic question. The lateral flow test, as I am sure he knows, has the terrific advantage of giving very few false positives, but we do not pretend that it gives a clinical-level analysis of all the negatives. We therefore do not use it in a clinical setting as a symptomatic test; we use it as a screening test for asymptomatic cases. That is why it has been so valuable in a mass testing environment such as Liverpool. We can back up the tests of those who are positive with a double test, either with another lateral flow test or with a PCR test, to ensure that we do not create a problem with too many false positives. We are working on the protocols now to figure out exactly what kind of rate of second testing we need to get a fair analysis.
The noble Lord is entirely right that the vaccine will be a game-changer, but not everyone will take it immediately and we are not sure how long each vaccine will last for, so there will be a role for testing even after the vaccine has been deployed. In the meantime, testing is very much focused on social care, clinical workers, schools and universities. Those are the four areas where we are focused at the moment, but we hope it can be used further to enable the opening of the economy, as he alluded to.
Baroness Noakes (Con) [V]
My Lords, there have been estimates that hospital-acquired Covid infections are as high as one-quarter of all hospitalised Covid patients, which seems pretty shameful and is likely to be a major contributor to the Covid death statistics. What do the Government currently estimate the impact of hospital-acquired Covid infections to be, and what action are they taking to deal with it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is entirely right; in any epidemic, nosocomial infection is one of the greatest challenges faced. If you want to find a recent infection of Covid, the best place to find it is where there is someone already with the disease, because that is the way that epidemics work. Hospitals necessarily have a high concentration of those with the disease. It is true that during the early months of the epidemic, when there were challenges with PPE and when practices within hospitals were not as disciplined as we would have liked, nosocomial infection, as it often is in epidemics around the world and throughout history, was a big challenge in hospital care and social care. That has been extremely well documented. However, I pay tribute to colleagues in the NHS who have come a very long way in the administration of PPE, confinement practices and infection control. The nosocomial infection that we are seeing is at dramatically lower rates than it was in the past, and that is due to the hard work and science of those in the healthcare sector.
Lord Wills (Lab) [V]
The Minister will be aware that during the first lockdown the utilisation of beds in the private sector, under its partnership agreement with the NHS, was 20%. What reassurance can the Minister give that there will not be a similar underutilisation of capacity for testing in the independent sector in the weeks and months ahead?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that I entirely understood the question. In terms of the private beds that we intended to use, that capacity was extremely valuable as a fallback during the first wave, but I am pleased to say that it was not needed. There is some testing in the private sector, but we are not leaning on that at the moment. The testing that is done by the Government is through test and trace, and we are committed to using as much of that capacity as is needed.
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
The Statement says nothing about antibody testing. On 6 October, the noble Lord announced the £75 million single-source purchase of antibody test kits from Abingdon Health. Official correspondence, dated 1 October, reveals that the department had a report by Public Health England that shows that those antibody tests were not accurate enough for their intended use and that the department would delay publication of the report until after the Government announced that they had purchased them. Why was that, Minister?
Lord Bethell (Con)
If the noble Lord would not mind, could he repeat the question, because I could not hear the words, I am afraid?
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
The Statement says nothing about antibody testing. On 6 October, the noble Lord announced the £75 million single-source purchase of antibody test kits from Abingdon Health. Official correspondence, dated 1 October, reveals that the department had a report by Public Health England that shows that those antibody tests were not accurate enough for their intended use and that the department would delay publication of the report until after the Government had announced that they had been purchased. Why was that, Minister?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am afraid I am not familiar with the report to which the noble Lord refers. I am glad to undertake to write with an answer to that question.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is very good news that there is now a potential vaccine that shows prospects of good efficacy. The Health Minister showed MPs in the other place that mass rollout of the vaccine would be ready to start from as early as the beginning of December, and we have placed an order for 40 million jabs. Given that the vaccine is still not approved as 100% safe or approved by the authorities, can the Minister give more information on the reality of how long it is likely to be before a safe rollout takes place?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I cannot offer a firm schedule or confirmed dates for the rollout because they depend on the independent judgment of the MHRA, the CMO and the JCVI. These important decisions are out of our grasp, but it is clear that the progress made by Pfizer, AstraZeneca and other companies in the vaccine’s pipeline has been dramatically quicker than had initially been expected. We are making preparations to have the NHS ready for the beginning of December in case a vaccine is available by then.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this just highlighted the key role of GPs in any vaccine rollout, but in parts of the country there is a dire shortage of GPs with, on occasion, surgeries being run by nurse practitioners and other specialist nurses to great effect. Will the Minister check that, in the absence of GPs, nurse practitioners will have, first, full authority to activate any initial planning; secondly, empowerment to undertake the necessary continuing administration for the vaccination rollout; and thirdly, current authorisation to prescribe and vaccinate applicable in any national rollout?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his championing of nurse practitioners, because we are going to rely on all qualified healthcare workers to administer an injection to support this huge project—one of the largest of its kind in recent national history. I also emphasise the role of pharmacists who will, where appropriate, deliver the vaccine as well. We need a massive, mass-scale effort to deliver this vaccine. We will be empowering all those qualified to deliver the injection to do so and we are extremely grateful to them, including nurse practitioners, for their help in this matter.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, President-elect Biden has shown refreshing leadership by setting up a panel of scientific experts to deal with Covid-19. Why, then, do the Government think that a venture capitalist married to a government Minister is best placed to chair the Vaccine Taskforce rather than an expert in vaccines?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The role of Kate Bingham, the head of the Vaccine Taskforce, has been to acquire vaccines—and that is what she has done. She has served the nation brilliantly by acquiring six of the vaccines on four of the platforms. We should be extremely grateful for the work that she has done. It was not remunerated, and it was extremely effective. To knock those who have contributed voluntarily to our fight against Covid is not appropriate at this stage.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, notwithstanding the Minister’s positive and sensitive remarks this evening, can it be confirmed that, despite SAGE advice and planning, a national mass Covid testing programme has been ruled out by No. 10 this week? If that is the case, who mandated the decision and what was the rationale for doing so?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Viscount is better advised than me. As far as I understand, mass testing remains a central part of our battle against Covid and we remain committed to that programme.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, there is growing concern that the unique Pfizer vaccine, with an mRNA genetic molecule that cellular machinery reads in order to build proteins, could be incompatible with the World Anti-Doping Code for all sports men and women, including Premier League footballers and Olympic athletes. Since the World Anti-Doping Agency already bans the use of agents designed to impact genome sequences if they have the potential to enhance sport performance or provide unfair advantage, and pursuant to my noble friend’s very helpful answer yesterday, will the Government undertake to work with the World Anti-Doping Agency and offer comprehensive advice to the sporting world before any vaccine programme begins?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for flagging up this important concern, which I acknowledge is a serious worry for those in the athletic and sporting arena. Colleagues at DCMS are aware of this concern. It is extremely early days and we do not know what the impact of the vaccine will be on the kind of protocols analysed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, but we have sought advice from the WPA on this matter and I will be happy to convey it as soon as it arrives.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this week’s news about the vaccine has been a great uplift at a very grim time. However, rolling it out will prove a massive logistical challenge, as I think the Minister accepts, at the same time as we are trying to repair the gaps and strengthen our test and trace systems, and trying not to damage the rest of the services provided by the NHS. Does this not all require a massive upscaling of the command and control capabilities of the Government? What steps are they planning to put in place to manage this phase of the crisis more successfully than they have managed it so far?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s sentiment that the vaccine is an uplift and a source of optimism, but I hope that he will not mind if I also use this opportunity to say that the British public—all of us—must stick with the protocols that are in place at the moment. It is not early enough for us to depart from social distancing and the current regulations around the lockdown. However, his point is extremely well made. We are determined to use the respite of the current lockdown to fill the gaps, to improve performance where it is needed, to address acknowledged weaknesses in test and trace, particularly in the tracing area, and to improve our performance thoroughly. However, I do not necessarily acknowledge the need for an upscale in the command and control elements. Certainly for the administration of the vaccine, we will be working through the existing NHS infrastructure, putting GPs’ surgeries and pharmacies at the centre of delivery. Test and trace is run through existing ministerial structures, with accountability to Parliament, and we intend to keep it that way.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the Statement is very positive about the quickie lateral flow tests. It refers to the pilots in Stoke-on-Trent and Liverpool and the fact that mass testing will be carried out in 67 other authorities. However, the list does not appear to include Lancashire, which I thought was part of that testing. Can the Minister confirm that Lancashire is part of it, even though it has been missed off the list, and is it the whole of Lancashire or just some of the 12 districts in Lancashire? The Statement also refers to the Government’s strategy of suppressing the virus and supporting education, the economy and the NHS until a vaccine is available. That is fine but, once again, it does not home in on the people who are really suffering—close family and friends, and particularly old and vulnerable people. A recent report—released this week, I think—from the Red Cross, called Lonely and Left Behind, really shows up the misery and mental disarray that a lot of these people are in. Some have been locking themselves down and have been frightened to go out since the early spring. Does the Minister understand that, if a system of quickie testing of this kind and then vaccination are to be brought in, these people have to be treated as an absolute top priority, and that the first thing the Government have to do is to give them the confidence to take part in it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that the 67 DPHs who are taking the tests in the first round are those who stepped forward. I believe that they include DPHs in Lancashire, but I shall be happy to confirm that. Regarding the Lonely and Left Behind report, the noble Lord put it extremely well. Of course those are the people who have been extremely hard hit by the pandemic. I hope he will acknowledge that we have put those who are older and vulnerable at the top of the prioritisation list—there has been no ambiguity about that. They will be vaccinated first and will therefore be freed from lockdown. When the vaccination is available, it will be a massive priority to get our society open again and to get the love, tenderness and support to the people whom he described—all things that are needed in order for them to have happy and fulfilled lives.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, why has my noble friend not answered my Written Questions on the following: on false-positive tests, which were due on 28 September; on the legality of using the Public Health Act for lockdown, which was due on 14 October; and, finally, on why those Questions have not been answered, which is also overdue?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I can only apologise to my noble friend for the slowness in replying to his Questions. It is not a reasonable excuse, but the Department of Health and Social Care has been overwhelmed by the pandemic. A large amount of our correspondence is behind schedule. I have worked hard to try to catch up on that, but I apologise to him sincerely for the delay. When I get back to the department tomorrow morning, I will chase it up and get him replies to his perfectly reasonable Questions.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
In the fourth paragraph of the Statement, the Secretary of State boasts that over 10 million people were tested at least once through NHS Test and Trace. The figure for the latest week, published by the Minister’s department today, is 10,800,031—a rise of 613,000 last week, or 87,600 a day. The week before, it was 88,200 a day, and the week before that it was 95,153 a day. Why are we going backwards in testing people at least once through NHS Test and Trace?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the capacity that we have in track and trace is growing dramatically; the number of tests we have taken is going up. It is true that testing demand does fluctuate. There was a moment when universities had a very large outbreak and there was a huge amount of demand from universities, and there may well be other reasons why testing demand goes up in the future. But I reassure the noble Lord that the capacity, speed and accuracy of testing in this country are making huge progress on a day-by-day basis, and I pay tribute to those involved in the project.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD) [V]
My Lords, a key factor in controlling Covid-19, with or without a vaccine, is test, trace and isolation, and I fully support that. Yet the recent survey indicated that some 20% of those asked to isolate actually failed to do so, rendering the system far less effective than it should be. What is the reasoning behind the reluctance of the Government to move from PCR to lateral flow testing for the test and trace programme, following the extensive clinical evaluations by PHE and Oxford University, which found 99.6% accuracy, including on the key criterion for track and trace of detecting asymptomatic carriers? Surely, accurate 48-hour testing would enable virus-free contacts to return to normal activity quickly, rather than sitting at home for 14 days.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right on two things, and wrong on another. He is entirely right that isolation is absolutely key—without isolation, there is no point in testing or tracing. It is true that not everyone who is asked to isolate does isolate, but we have a programme in place to try to encourage, inform and inspire people to isolate. He is entirely right that lateral flow tests offer huge advantages, in terms of the speed at which they can be used, their cost and their flexibility. But we have bought tens of millions, maybe even hundreds of millions, of these tests in recent weeks. We are deploying them in mass testing, and we have completely followed the advice and inspiration of the noble Lord in this matter in a massive way.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, Sir John Bell, the Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University, has said that these inexpensive, easy-to-use lateral flow antigen tests, when used systematically, could reduce transmission by 90%. Could the Minister confirm that the trials are already showing that these tests are picking up 75% of positive cases and 95% in the most infectious individuals? If that is the case, when can we have these millions of tests that Ministers have spoken about deployed, not only in the NHS, care homes, schools and universities but at airports, factories, offices, workplaces, theatres and even sports grounds, so that we can get our economy back firing on all cylinders very soon?
Lord Bethell (Con)
As ever, I am inspired by the noble Lord’s passion for this subject. He has totally won the argument in this matter, because we are putting into the field millions of tests, as he recommended and continues to champion. The pilot in Liverpool is extremely exciting, and the tests themselves are proving both easy to administer and accurate in their diagnosis. We are working on ways of using these tests in a mass testing capacity. Universities and social care are two user cases that we have prioritised, and we are looking at using the lessons of Liverpool in other areas. In all matters, we continue to be inspired by the noble Lord.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join with others in welcoming the news regarding a possible vaccine and shall look forward to hearing more in the coming weeks. At last, we have some light at the end of a very dark tunnel. With lockdown 2 expiring on 2 December, it is critical that businesses are able to make plans now for post the release date, especially with Christmas looming so close. Can my noble friend the Minister give an indication as to what the plans are for after this date? We understand that tiers will be reintroduced. Will those tiers stick to the same measures we had before in each tier? How will different tiering be determined and, most importantly, at what point will businesses be advised?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend is right that the advice to business is extremely important, and we are ambitious to try to unlock the economy to enable people to return to as normal a life as they possibly can and to prepare the country for Christmas. However, it is too early to tell exactly what the state of the pandemic will be on 2 December. There is a review of the tiering system, and we will learn the lessons of the last round. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that he is committed to returning to a regional tiering system, but the exact dimensions and specifications of that system are under review, and communication to business of how, and to which regions, it will apply will be forthcoming once the analysis of the contagion has been completed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
I declare my interest as a member of the GMC board. I return to the Statement made by the Secretary of State, in which he said, referring to NHS staff:
“The deployment of the vaccine will involve working long days and weekends, and that comes on top of all the NHS has already done”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/20; cols. 746.]
The noble Lord will be aware that the GMC granted temporary registration to around 27,000 doctors in order to help out with the pandemic crisis. My question is: has the department considered using these doctors, not many of whom have actually been used by the NHS so far, for the vaccine programme? Will he look into that?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very good point. We pay tribute to all those who stepped forward, whether they were young doctors at the end of their training or older doctors who were returning to the profession. It was a really important and touching moment when those doctors stepped forward. He is right that not all of them were needed or used during the pandemic. My understanding, from the deployment team, is that they are looking at all avenues to have the largest army of people possible in order to use the vaccine. I am not exactly sure of the exact status of the 27,000 doctors he alluded to, but I would be glad to write to him with details.
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
My Lords, according to local media, on Tuesday the city of Leicester—I live in Leicestershire—recorded the highest number of infections since the beginning of the pandemic. Leicester has been locked down since June, so could my noble friend confirm that this is the case, and, if it is, could he say whether this has happened because we do not know very much about the virus, whether it is the case that lockdowns do not work—as some people say—or is he going to blame the good people of Leicester for not abiding by the regulations?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I greatly thank the people of Leicester for their patience with the lockdown and with the very large number of measures that have been put in place there. The noble Lord is aware that some communities live and work very close to each other, and the transmission of the disease is affected by a very large number of factors. I cannot explain to him exactly why the infection rates are so high in Leicester today, but I absolutely applaud all those who have been working hard in that city to keep the epidemic at bay.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, following on from the last question, recent evidence shows that the north of England has been affected hardest by Covid-19 in terms of infections and deaths, caused mainly in hospitality settings. Compliant citizens are upset by the minority who flout the law. When the lockdown ends on 2 December, restrictions such as wearing masks and distancing will be only as effective as the public’s compliance. As the police cannot be in every pub, shop or restaurant, is it not time for the enforcement of such measures to be done by the venue itself, with the ultimate sanction of immediate closure by the police or local authority for wilful non-compliance?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is completely reasonable in his concerns but that is not the approach we are taking at the moment. Actually, public support for the lockdown measures—the wearing of masks, social distancing and restrictions on travel—has been amazing. Lockdown has been largely by consent and extremely well supported by the public in their behaviour. We are extremely proud that in Britain we do not need the Army on the street with their guns or the police fining people on the street, as they do in other countries. I pay tribute to the British public for the way in which they have gone along with those measures. The noble Lord makes the point that some people have been in breach of the rules and there have been prosecutions and fines. However, they have been minimal and have had their effect. We will continue to operate at the kind of level at which we have been operating to date.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of my interest in the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. Will he update the House on where we are with the vaccination programme for the over-50s? What use will be made of dispensing doctors in rural areas to dispense the Covid-19 vaccine? I hope he will rely on them fully because they have the network to provide it in much the same way as the noble Lord, Clark, explained.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend will be aware of the prioritisation list published by the JVCI. I am afraid that the over-50s, of which I am a member, are not highest on the list, but they are at least halfway down. Prioritisation starts with the over-80s and works down from there. I completely endorse my noble friend’s comments on dispensing doctors. We will be relying on all parts of the healthcare ecology to deliver the vaccine. It will be a massive national project. Getting to hard-to-reach rural communities is incredibly important, particularly people in those communities who are older and perhaps do not travel. Dispensing doctors pay a pivotal role in that, and I pay tribute to their contribution to the vaccine.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allotted for Back-Bench questions has now elapsed.