House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
We can assess the strength of the Union every day, as we see the number of people vaccinated across the country continue to rise, as we see the number of jobs we have protected and as we see our vital, ambitious plans to rebuild our economy. I am surprised the hon. Gentleman is asking about recent assessments, because the one thing we learned this week is that his boss, Nicola Sturgeon, has made no recent assessment of her plan to rip Scotland out of the United Kingdom and the damage that would cause.
Stuart C. McDonald [V]
If the Secretary of State is so confident in the Union, why is he stopping the Prime Minister coming to Scotland to campaign for it? Have the dubious donations for renovations made that impossible? The contracts for contacts? The disgraceful comments about bodies piling high? Or is it simply that the Prime Minister represents a fundamental problem for Scotland being in the Union, with year after year of Prime Ministers, parties and policies that Scotland would not vote for in a million years?
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) [V]
As of yesterday, 61.3% of Scots aged 16 or over have received at least one dose of covid vaccine, compared with just 24.3% of people aged 18 or over who have received a vaccine in the European Union. Does the Secretary of State agree that the outstanding efforts of our NHS staff, our British armed forces and our vaccination volunteers have been possible here in Scotland only because of the success of the UK vaccination programme, and that Nicola Sturgeon’s claims that, somehow, an independent Scotland within the EU would have done it differently are complete rubbish?
Mr Jack
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Just once, on something as important as live-saving vaccines, it would be nice to see the First Minister congratulate the Prime Minister and the United Kingdom Government on our highly successful UK-wide vaccine procurement programme.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, I hope you will allow me to pay tribute to everyone who is commemorating on International Workers’ Memorial Day today, and also to wish the Secretary of State a very happy Ed Balls Day, which is also today.
On “The Andrew Marr Show” on Sunday, the First Minister admitted that there has been no analysis done on the impact of separation on incomes—that is wages, livelihoods and, of course, pensions. It follows a long list during this election campaign where the SNP has avoided answering questions on currency, EU accession, jobs, deficit, debt, public spending, the parallels with Brexit and, of course, the spectacle of senior SNP MSPs saying last week that a border with England would be “desirable” because it would create jobs—a rare honest admission about a border with our largest trading partner. For two days in a row, respected think-tanks have warned that leaving the UK and giving up our share of UK resources means supercharged austerity.
Surely one of the strongest positive cases for the Union is the reality of separation. If proponents of separation continue to refuse to answer critical questions that fundamentally impact on people’s livelihoods, incomes and futures, what can be done to inject some much-needed honesty, integrity and truth into this debate, for the benefit of all Scots?
Mr Jack
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that independence would have a whole series of negative consequences for the people of Scotland, not just on their pensions and benefits but on currency, border issues and armed services. The list is endless. There has been no assessment of those things, as I said earlier.
This is the time when we should be coming together for covid recovery and to rebuild our economy, not even considering an irresponsible independence referendum. I would very much welcome it if the Labour party, and the other political parties, showed a willingness to come together to work on how we can strengthen our Union.
Ian Murray
Anas Sarwar has said throughout this campaign that we need to unite the country to deal with this global pandemic.
Talking of honesty, integrity and truth, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister for his “let the bodies pile high” comment, when so many have lost loved ones due to covid? There have been more than 800 deaths in my city of Edinburgh alone. While he is apologising, perhaps he can tell us, if the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, who funded the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat. Does he think the endemic sleaze in his Government, with continual questions about the personal conduct and integrity of the PM, strengthens or weakens the Union?
Mr Jack
What I would say on the bodies remark is that in every conversation I have had with the Prime Minister in the past year his desire, at all levels, has been to save lives and protect the NHS; we have had many conversations, in Cabinet Committees, in Cabinet and in private, and I have no recollection of him being anything other than totally focused on saving lives and protecting the NHS. He has been entirely focused on this pandemic all the way through. He has not been distracted, as others have, for example, the nationalists, with Nicola Sturgeon admitting that she took her eye off the ball. He has not taken his eye off the ball. He has been focused on the pandemic. He has tackled vaccines and the programme, and he now wants to lead our economic recovery. Those are the things we should hold him to account for; those are the things that strengthen the United Kingdom.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) [V]
There has been much reckless chat from Scottish National party politicians about creating a hard border between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. My constituents in the Scottish Borders want to see the threat of a border—and the threat of another referendum—removed. Does the Minister agree that the voters of Scotland have an opportunity to remove that threat next week in the Scottish elections by depriving the SNP of a majority and that the best way of doing that is by voting Scottish Conservative?
Mr Jack
You will not be surprised to hear, Mr Speaker, that I do agree with my hon. Friend. I note with astonishment the comments of the South Scotland MSP Emma Harper that a border would be a good way of creating jobs, despite the fact that 60% of our trade is with the rest of the UK. All I would say is that if the SNP thinks that a border is such a good idea for jobs, I am surprised it does not want to go the whole hog and propose building a wall.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]
Particularly as we rebuild after covid, we have an opportunity and a need to make radically different economic choices. After a week of troublesome allegations about the Government and the Prime Minister, it should be no surprise that many in Scotland want to take a different, independent path to that of this Government. If that request is reflected in the upcoming Scottish Government elections and a majority of pro-independence MSPs are elected, will the Minister and his Government respect that as a mandate for a second independence referendum?
Mr Jack
First, let us not take the outcome of the election for granted at this stage. Let us recognise that the focus for Scotland must be on pandemic recovery. We have saved lives through the vaccine procurement, and it is now time to save livelihoods and to rebuild as one United Kingdom.
Mhairi Black
I did not hear an answer to my question there. The leader of the Scottish Conservatives was asked multiple times on recent media, “What would be the democratic path for Scotland to an independence referendum?” He could not answer the question, so can the Minister tell us what the path is?
Mr Jack
I say to the hon. Lady that in 2014 there was a referendum; it had been many years since the question had been asked, and that was with the consent of both Scotland’s Governments and all the main political parties. I am glad to say that in Scotland people shared my opinion in 2014 and consented to continue being members of the UK.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
There is only one sure-fire way for the Union to be strengthened in the next week and that is to get the Prime Minister to Scotland and on the campaign trail. The Secretary of State surely knows that there will be throngs of happy Scots rejoicing in the Prime Minister’s sleaze-free presence, helping the Electoral Commission with its inquiries and sharing anecdotes about bodies piled high on the streets—what could possibly go wrong for the Scottish Tories? Can the Secretary of State and I start working on the itinerary? Surely Scotland deserves to see its Prime Minister before he inevitably has to resign.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
The UK Government’s approach to welfare is to recognise the value and importance of work, make work pay and support people into work, while giving extra help to the most vulnerable in society. On that basis, we consider that a universal basic income is fundamentally the wrong approach.
David Linden
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I know that he is committed to devolution and the respect agenda and would want to take very seriously the outcome of the election result in Scotland. Given that all the main parties in Scotland—representing 80% of Scottish voters—except the Conservatives have indicated support for trialling the concept of UBI, does the Minister accept that if indeed those parties are elected in the next Parliament, there will be a mandate and going ahead with trials would just be a matter of respecting devolution?
Iain Stewart
I make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, if he looks around the world at where UBI has been trialled—in Finland and Canada, for example—it has not been a success. Indeed, the Finance Minister in Finland has scrapped it and is instead looking at something along the lines of our universal credit system. Secondly, the Scottish Government already have substantial powers over welfare.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
Although I share the determination of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for a universal basic income as the way ahead and his disappointment that it is not being trialled in Scotland, does the Minister share my disappointment that the SNP Government at Holyrood were not able to get their processes in shape in time to adopt the powers over welfare in the Scotland Act 2016 that might have given them more influence over the situation?
Iain Stewart
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady’s point that the Scottish Government still have much to do to unlock the full potential of the powers devolved to them in the Scotland Act 2016. We are committed to working closely with them to allow them to implement those powers. It strikes me that the separatists are always quick to demand more powers or more money to shift the blame away from their failures in office on delivering on the issues that matter to the people of Scotland.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Duguid)
I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues, as well as industry stakeholders, on the opportunities that COP26 offers across Scotland. The COP26 devolved Administration ministerial group brings together the COP26 President, territorial Secretaries of State and devolved Administration Ministers to support the delivery of an inclusive and welcoming COP26 summit that is representative of the whole United Kingdom.
John Howell [V]
Last year, the SNP Government missed their own legal emissions targets, with source emissions in Scotland actually increasing by 1.5% in 2017-18. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we approach the crucial COP26 summit in Glasgow later this year, the Scottish people deserve a Government who are 100% focused on a green recovery, not on another divisive independence referendum?
David Duguid
I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that it is not for me to answer for the failings of the Scottish Government. However, I assure my hon. Friend that the UK Government are absolutely focused on achieving a green recovery, as set out by the Prime Minister in his 10-point plan last year. This Government are also focused on safeguarding the Union, and I agree with my hon. Friend that a divisive referendum on Scotland’s separation from the UK at this time would be an irresponsible distraction from the necessary work required towards that green recovery.
Alexander Stafford
I welcome the ambitious new target that the Government set last week to cut the UK’s carbon emissions by 78% by 2035. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the run-up to the crucial COP26 summit later this year, it is more important than ever for all parts of the UK to work together so that we can meet that target and build back better and greener from the pandemic?
David Duguid
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Our proposed world-leading target marks a decisive step towards net zero by 2050 and would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2035, compared with 1990 levels. Through this year’s COP26 summit, we will urge countries and companies around the world to join us in delivering net zero globally. We continue to work together throughout all parts of the UK to achieve our net zero ambitions and a green recovery from the covid-19 pandemic.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister should be embarrassed that renewables generators in Scotland face the highest locational grid charges in the whole of Europe. Ahead of COP26, we need to see a route to market for pumped-storage hydro and for wave and tidal, the go-ahead given for Acorn carbon capture and storage and a contract for difference for hydrogen. What capability does the Scottish Office, working with Cabinet colleagues, have to get those matters resolved?
David Duguid
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I share his enthusiasm for all things related to energy renewables, but he will know as well as I do that, by law, transmission charging is a matter for Ofgem as the independent regulator. I imagine that he will also be aware that Ofgem is currently considering some aspects of transmission charging arrangements through its access and forward-looking charges review.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) [V]
The SNP Scottish Government have committed to doubling their climate change justice fund if re-elected next week. This £21 million fund is used to help combat the effects of climate change in the global south while we tackle carbon emissions at home. In the year of COP26, will the UK Government follow Scotland’s lead and commit to a comparable climate justice fund to help those affected by climate change?
David Duguid
Not only will we commit to a comparable financial commitment, but the recent spending review committed to spending £12 billion on green measures to support the 10-point plan and boost the UK’s global leadership on green infrastructure and technologies, not just ahead of COP26 this year, but beyond as well.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
The United Kingdom is and will remain a research superpower, with research and development spending at the highest level for four decades. The Government have committed to investing nearly £15 billion in R&D in 2021-22, much of which will be used to fund the work being led by our world-class universities.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
Both Aberdeen and St Andrews universities stand to lose £2.5 million each as a result of official development assistance cuts. Among the ongoing projects at risk at Aberdeen is a £1.8 million research initiative into the spread of infectious diseases between rodents and humans. Given that we have recently been reminded of the importance of long-term, well-funded research in responding to a global crisis, what steps are being taken to ensure that these cuts do not impair Scotland’s ability to respond to future crises?
Iain Stewart
The first point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that I am always willing to discuss individual programmes with specific universities and I have done that through the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) in the case of St Andrews. The second point is that all the universities that he has listed have benefited from significant investments either directly through UK Research and Innovation or through our city and regional growth deal programmes, looking at R&D initiatives such as clean energy and sustainable farming.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is strange, because Universities Scotland says that the ODA funding cut is unprecedented and egregious, yet the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that it is okay because the universities get funding from other sources. Universities Scotland says that it amounts to a 70% cut in overseas funding for the development of projects across universities in Scotland. Can the Minister explain how these cuts are reconciled with the Conservative Government’s idea of their post-Brexit ambition to build a global Britain?
Iain Stewart
As I said in response to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I am more than happy to discuss individual programmes with the universities concerned, but if we look at R&D investment from this Government in the round, it is significantly up, and Scottish universities are punching above their weight in securing a share of that.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
The defence industry in Scotland is strong, thanks to sustained UK Government spending. My Department has a close, positive relationship with the industry and the UK armed forces in Scotland, including on the implementation of the recent integrated review: defence Command Paper and the defence and security industrial strategy.
Mark Menzies [V]
Shared expertise and infrastructure are key to supporting jobs across our United Kingdom, such as at Warton in my constituency and those north of the border at the BAE Systems site at Clyde. What estimates does my right hon. Friend make of the positive impact the UK Government’s defence manufacturing has on job opportunities for the people of Scotland?
Mr Jack
The Royal Navy shipbuilding programme will provide a pipeline of work and sustain valuable jobs and skills for shipyards around the United Kingdom, including those in Scotland, in Rosyth and the Clyde, which are currently constructing the new frigate fleets. The Ministry of Defence has spent £2.7 billion with Scottish industry in 2019 and 2020 alone, and that has supported 12,400 jobs.
Antony Higginbotham
The integrated review published last month made it clear that our strongest asset is the capabilities, expertise and skills we have across the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the same expertise and skills, shared across the country, that has enabled us to spend billions of pounds over the next decade on shipbuilding in Scotland?
Mr Jack
Yes; I wholeheartedly agree. We saw a fine example of Scotland’s contribution to the UK’s defences this week with the deployment of our new aircraft carrier strike group, which was built in yards around the United Kingdom, but was constructed in Scotland. Her Majesty’s Ship Queen Elizabeth will fly the flag for global Britain right around the world.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
Last month’s Budget provides continued UK-wide support and security to manage the ongoing impacts of covid-19. One in three jobs in Scotland has been supported by the UK Government’s employment support package; Scottish businesses have benefited from more than £3.4 billion of loans and support; and we have provided a much needed boost to the Scottish tourism and hospitality sector with our UK-wide extension of the VAT reduction.
Sally-Ann Hart [V]
Scotland’s Auditor General recently said that the Scottish Government had received an extra £9.7 billion from the UK Government during 2020-21 to tackle covid, yet it only made £7 billion-worth of spending announcements in response to the pandemic up to the end of 2020. The Auditor General said that that left £2.7 billion unallocated. Does my hon. Friend agree that this highlights the need for transparency and scrutiny of Scottish Government spending, as people in Scotland have a right to know how much money is being spent to help Scotland to deal with the pandemic?
Iain Stewart
My hon. Friend is right to draw the House’s attention to this alarming finding. People in Scotland want to know that the money that this Government have provided is reaching them and their businesses, and it is of great concern that Audit Scotland has identified this shortfall. I absolutely agree that there must be maximum transparency on this matter.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I regularly discuss with my Cabinet colleagues opportunities for Scotland arising from the signing of trade deals. This Government have already struck deals with 67 countries around the world worth £218 billion a year, including with Canada, Japan and Singapore—with many more to come. This will create new markets for Scotland’s exporters, including our world-leading food and drink sector.
Robin Millar
A new free trade agreement with Australia is now in sight for the UK. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a tremendous opportunity for exporters of agricultural products, and food and drink producers, across Scotland and Wales?
Mr Jack
My hon. Friend is right about that and he is right to welcome the breakthroughs over the past few days with the Australian Government. Businesses in Scotland exported goods worth over £352 million to Australia in 2019, and reducing tariff barriers for our world-class food and drink industry could bolster Scotch whisky exports to Australia. As the Secretary of State for International Trade made clear at the weekend, this deal will be based on fair competition, maintaining our high standards and providing excellent, exciting opportunities for British products.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)
The UK Government work with the Scottish Government on a daily basis on a range of constitutional matters, including delivering on our devolution commitments through the Scotland Act order programme. I would have thought that a more interesting question would have been to ask what discussions his new party has had with the First Minister on an unnecessary and divisive further referendum on separation.
Neale Hanvey [V]
When Scotland opens negotiations for independence following the election of a supermajority on 6 May, will those talks be led by the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Union—should, of course, he still be in post by that time?
Iain Stewart
The hon. Gentleman is being rather presumptuous about the outcome of the elections next week, so let us wait and see what the people of Scotland decide. I would have thought they would be more interested in keeping the protections of the pandemic in place, helping businesses to recover and helping children to catch up on the education that they have missed over the past year.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I know that the thoughts of Members across the House are with the people of India. We are supporting India with vital medical equipment and we will continue to work closely with the Indian authorities to determine what further help they may need.
I also welcome last week’s Court of Appeal decision to overturn the convictions of 39 former sub-postmasters in the Horizon dispute—an appalling injustice. Sir Wyn Williams is leading an ongoing independent inquiry that will report this summer.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Mr Speaker
Have you got the answer, Prime Minister? Tell us more about PMQs. I am sure the Prime Minister knows the answer. [Interruption.] We will try to come back to that question, and I will go to the Leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the humanitarian disaster we are witnessing in India. I know the UK has already committed some support, but given the scale and gravity of the disaster, I hope the Foreign Secretary will set out today what more the UK will do to help the Indian people in their hour of need.
I also join the Prime Minister in his remarks about the Post Office case—an ongoing injustice. Of course, today is International Workers Memorial Day. This year, after all the sacrifices our frontline workers have made during the pandemic, it is even more poignant than usual. I join in solidarity with all those mourning loved ones today.
It was reported this week, including in the Daily Mail and by the BBC and ITV, backed up by numerous sources, that at the end of October the Prime Minister said he would rather have “bodies pile high” than implement another lockdown. Can the Prime Minister tell the House categorically, yes or no: did he make those remarks or remarks to that effect?
The Prime Minister
No, Mr Speaker. The right hon. And learned Gentleman is a lawyer, I am given to understand, and I think that if he is going to repeat allegations like that, he should come to this House and substantiate those allegations and say where he heard them and who exactly is supposed to have said those things. What I certainly can tell him—he asks about the October decisions—is that they were very bitter, very difficult decisions, as they would be for any Prime Minister, because no one wants to put this country into a lockdown, with all the consequences that means for loss of education, the damage to people’s life chances, and the huge medical backlog that it entails. But it was thanks to that lockdown—the tough decision that we took—and thanks to the heroic efforts of the British people that we have got through to this stage in the pandemic where we find ourselves rolling out our vaccine, where we have done 50% of the population and 25% of the adult population have now had two doses. Lockdowns are miserable. Lockdowns are appalling things to have to do. But I have to say that I believe that we had absolutely no choice.
Keir Starmer
Well, somebody here is not telling the truth. The House will have heard the Prime Minister’s answer, and I remind him that the ministerial code says:
“Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation”.
I will leave it there for now. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!] There will be further on this, believe you me. Who initially —and “initially” is the key word here—paid for the redecoration of his Downing Street flat?
The Prime Minister
When it comes to misleading Parliament, the right hon. and learned Gentleman may recollect that it was only a few weeks ago that he said that he did not oppose this country leaving the European Medicines Agency—a fact that he was then forced to retract—and that leaving the European Medicines Agency was absolutely invaluable for our vaccine roll-out. Actually, it was just last week that he said that James Dyson was a personal friend of mine—a fact that James Dyson has corrected in the newspaper this morning. As for the latest stuff that he is bringing up, he should know that I paid for Downing Street refurbishment personally. Any further declaration that I have to make—if any—I will be advised upon by Lord Geidt.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about housing costs. The people of this country can make their own decision in just eight days’ time, because on average, Labour councils charge you £93 more in band D than Conservative councils, and Liberal Democrat councils charge you £120 more. That, I think, is the issue upon which the British people would like him to focus.
Keir Starmer
Normally when people do not want to incriminate themselves, they go, “No comment.” Let us explore this a bit further. Let me ask it a different way. This is the initial invoice, Prime Minister. Either the taxpayer paid the initial invoice, or it was the Conservative party, or it was a private donor, or it was the Prime Minister. I am making it easy for the Prime Minister—it is now multiple choice. There are only four options. It should be easier than finding the chatty rat. I ask him again: who paid the initial invoice—the initial invoice, Prime Minister—for the redecoration of the Prime Minister’s flat?
The Prime Minister
I have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman the answer, and the answer is that I have covered the costs. Of course, the Electoral Commission is investigating this, and I can tell him that have I conformed in full with the code of conduct and the ministerial code, and officials have been advising me throughout this whole thing. But I think people will find it absolutely bizarre that he is focusing on this issue, when what people want to know is what plans a Labour Government might have to improve the lives of people in this country.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about housing again. I would rather not spend taxpayers’ money like the last Labour Government, who spent £500,000 of taxpayers’ money on the Downing Street flat. [Interruption.] Yes they did, tarting it up. I would much rather help people get on the property ladder, and it is this Conservative Government who have built 244,000 homes in the last year, which is a record over 30 years. This is a Government who get on with delivering on the people’s priorities, while he continually raises issues that most people would find irrelevant to their concerns.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister talks of priorities. What is he spending his time doing? This is a Prime Minister who, during the pandemic, was nipping out of meetings to choose wallpaper at £840 a roll. Just last week, he spent his time phoning journalists to moan about his old friend Dominic Cummings. He is telling the civil service to find out who paid for the redecoration of his flat—the Cabinet Secretary has been asked to investigate who paid for the refurbishment of the flat. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister just tell him? That would be the end of the investigation.
It has been widely reported that Lord Brownlow, who just happens to have been given a peerage by the Conservative party, was asked to donate £58,000 to help pay for the cost of this refurbishment. Can the Prime Minister, if he is so keen to answer, confirm: did Lord Brownlow make that payment for that purpose?
The Prime Minister
I think I have answered this question several times now, and the answer is that I have covered the costs. I have met the requirements that I have been obliged to meet in full. When it comes to the taxpayer and the costs of No. 10 Downing Street, it was under the previous Labour Government that I think Tony Blair racked up a bill of £350,000. I think what the people of this country want to see is minimising taxpayer expense. They want to see a Government who are focused on their needs and delivering more homes for the people of this country and cutting council tax, which is what we are doing. It is on that basis that I think people are going to judge our parties on 6 May.
Keir Starmer
Answer the question! That is what the public scream at their televisions every PMQs: “Answer the question!” The Prime Minister has not answered the question. He knows he has not answered the question. He never answers the question.
The Prime Minister will be aware that he is required to declare any benefits that relate to his political activities, including loans or credit arrangements, within 28 days—[Interruption.] Twenty-eight days, Prime Minister, yes. He will also know that any donation must be recorded in the register of Ministers’ interests, and that under the law any donation of over £500 to a political party must be registered and declared, so the rules are very clear. The Electoral Commission now thinks that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence or offences may have occurred. That is incredibly serious.
Can the Prime Minister tell the House: does he believe that any rules or laws have been broken in relation to the refurbishment of the Prime Minister’s flat?
The Prime Minister
No, I don’t. What I believe has been strained to breaking point is the credulity of the public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has half an hour every week to put serious and sensible questions to me about the state of the pandemic, about the vaccine roll-out, about what we are doing to support our NHS, about what we are doing to fight crime, about what we are doing to bounce back from this pandemic, about the economic recovery, about jobs for the people of this country, and he goes on and on about wallpaper when, as I have told him umpteen times now, I paid for it.
Keir Starmer
Can I remind the Prime Minister of the Nolan principles, which are meant to govern the behaviour of those in public office? They are these: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Instead, what do we get from this Prime Minister and this Conservative Government? Dodgy contracts, jobs for their mates and cash for access. And who is at the heart of it? The Prime Minister. Major Sleaze, sitting there.
Meanwhile—the Prime Minister talks about priorities—crime is going up, NHS waiting lists are at record levels and millions of people are worried about their jobs, including at Liberty Steel. Do not the British people deserve a Prime Minister they can trust, not a Government who are mired in sleaze, cronyism and scandal?
The Prime Minister
Last week, the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to this Chamber and he attacked me for talking to James Dyson about ventilators, when we are now sending ventilators to help the people of India, and the following day—the following day—Labour Front Benchers said that any Prime Minister in my position would have done exactly the same thing. It was only a few months ago that they were actually attacking Kate Bingham, saying she was a crony when she helped to set up the vaccine taskforce that delivered millions of vaccines for the people of this country and is helping us to get out of the pandemic.
This is a Government who are getting on with delivering on the people’s priorities. We are rolling out many more nurses, with 10,000 more nurses in the NHS now than there were this time last year, and 8,771 more police officers on our streets now than they were when I was elected, with tougher sentences for serious sexual and violent criminals, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed. And, by the way, I forgot to mention it but last night our friends in the European Union voted to approve our Brexit deal, which he opposed. That enables us not just to take back control of our borders, but to deliver free—[Interruption.] It does, which he fervently opposed, enabling us, among other things, to deal with such threats as the European super league. It enables us to deliver freeports in places like Teesside. Above all, taking back control of our country has allowed us to deliver the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, as he well knows, which would not have been possible if we had stayed in the European Medicines Agency, which he voted for.
Week after week, the people of this country can see the difference between a Labour party that twists and turns with the wind and thinks of nothing except playing political games, whereas this party gets on with delivering on the people’s priorities, and I hope the people will vote Conservative on 6 May. [Interruption.]
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend should thank everybody involved, and it has been a fantastic national effort, led by the NHS—led overwhelmingly by GPs, but also by many others, including local council officers and officials and the Army, and of course huge numbers of volunteers in her constituency and elsewhere, and I thank Kirsty Griffiths, Guy Hollis and Paul Bass very much for everything they have done.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the humanitarian crisis in India and the injustice in the Horizon issue at the Post Office?
Over 127,000 people have died from covid in the United Kingdom. People have lost their mothers and fathers, their grandparents and even their children. NHS staff have given their all, fighting to keep people alive. That is why so many people find the Prime Minister’s remark that he would rather let the bodies pile high in their thousands than go into lockdown utterly, utterly sickening. The BBC and ITV have multiple sources confirming that this is what the Prime Minister said. People are willing to go under oath confirming that the Prime Minister said these exact words—under oath, Mr Speaker. Parliamentary rules stop me saying that the Prime Minister has repeatedly lied to the public over the last week, but may I ask the question: are you a liar, Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I leave it to you to judge whether the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks were in order, but what I will say to him—
Mr Speaker
Order. Unfortunately, they were in order, but were not savoury and not what we would expect.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful, Mr Speaker, but what I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that if he is going to relay that kind of quotation, it is up to him in a place like Parliament to produce the author—the person who claims to have heard it— because I cannot find them. He says that they are willing to go on oath; perhaps they are sitting somewhere in this building; I rather doubt it, because I did not say those words.
What I do believe is that a lockdown is a miserable, miserable thing, and I did everything I could to try to protect the British public throughout the pandemic—to protect them from lockdowns, but also to protect them from disease. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the wretched toll that covid has brought, and I know the whole House grieves for every family that has lost a loved one. It has been a horrendous time, but it is thanks to that lockdown combined with the vaccine roll-out that we are making the progress we are, and I may say that we are making progress across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Ian Blackford [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and of course it is the Prime Minister’s behaviour which is not in order. This is a Prime Minister who is up to his neck in a swamp of Tory sleaze. We have seen contracts for cronies, texts for tax breaks and cash for curtains. The Prime Minister has dodged these questions all week, and he has dodged them again today, but these questions simply are not going to go away. When exactly was money funnelled through Tory HQ into his personal bank account, when did he pay back this money, was it an interest-free loan, and who are the donor or donors who originally funded it? Is the Prime Minister aware that if he continues to fail to answer these questions, the Electoral Commission has the powers to prosecute him? Will the Prime Minister publish these details today, or is he going to wait until the police come knocking at his door?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, I look forward to what the Electoral Commission has to say, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, for the rest of it, he is talking complete nonsense. The only thing I will say is that it is thanks to our investment in policing that we are going to have 20,000 more officers on the streets of our country, which is fantastic, and we will be making sure that that gets through to Scotland as well. What we want to see is a Scottish nationalist Government stopping obsessing about breaking up our country, which is all they can think and talk about, and instead talking about tackling crime and using that investment to fight crime, which is what I think the people of Scotland want to see.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am lost in admiration for what Andy Street is doing. He is a fantastic Mayor of the West Midlands and he has a fantastic vision for transport, jobs, growth and recovery. I hope everybody votes for Andy Street on 6 May.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr, Llefarydd. I think it is worth repeating the ministerial code’s seven guiding principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The Prime Minister has spent the week ticking them off his “don’t do” list. At the same time, he tries to play down allegations that he said “let the bodies pile high”. Given that the sole judge on questions relating to the conduct of Ministers and the conduct of the Prime Minister is the Prime Minister himself, what happens when a Prime Minister goes rogue?
The Prime Minister
The people of this country have the chance to make up their own minds on 6 May. When they look at what is happening in Wales, they have a chance to make a choice between, I am afraid, a continually failing Welsh Labour Government or a Welsh Conservative Administration in Cardiff who I believe have a fantastic vision: 65,000 high-skilled, high-paid jobs; finally addressing the problems of the A55; 5,000 more teachers; getting 3,000 more nurses into the Welsh NHS; and solving the problems of the M4, which I have spoken about so movingly many times in this Chamber. I hope that people will avoid voting for Plaid Cymru and that they will vote for Welsh Conservatives on 6 May in Wales.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expertise in this matter and thank him for what he has just said, because he is totally right. What happened to those Post Office workers—the postmasters and sub-postmasters—was appalling. It was one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in our history, and we are indeed looking at the issues involved. The former High Court judge Sir Wyn Williams will be making recommendations about what further actions—what further apologies—we need to make.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong in what he says about tests, but he is right about one thing, which is that Wales has made an amazing contribution to our national fightback—our UK fightback—against covid. It was incredible again to go to the Wockhardt factory in Wrexham. It is Wockhardt, working together with Oxford Biomedica, that has enabled us to roll out the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine that has made such a difference. I want to say a massive thank you, again, to those Welsh scientists and all those people working in that factory, because they have helped to save countless lives across the UK.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I would be honoured to take up my hon. Friend’s invitation as soon as I can. In terms of female representation in that sector, she will know that Alison Atkinson became the chief executive officer and managing director of AWE in May 2020, and there are huge numbers of opportunities for women to join our armed services, thanks above all to the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The third runway at Heathrow, as the hon. Lady knows, is a private sector venture, and it is up to them to produce the capital to do it. I do not see any immediate sign of that particular project coming off. I think what we should look at instead, and what we are looking at, is the prospect of jet-zero aviation and flying without emissions, or with far lower carbon emissions. It is in that area that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Transport are working together with manufacturers so that this country leads in guilt-free flying.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition’s PPS, the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), is shaking her head, because surely she would agree with that. We want to work together across the whole of the UK, and I pay tribute, as I have just said, to the incredible work of the Wockhardt factory in Wales, but there is also the Valneva factory in Scotland, and the whole of the United Kingdom coming together, represented by our armed services and, above all, by our NHS helping to deliver that vaccine roll-out to protect the country and take it forward.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I tell you what, Mr Speaker, I think it is because people are absolutely determined to find anything they can hang on to talk about, except the vaccine roll-out, except our plans to unite and level up across the country, except our plans to fight crime and give people the opportunity to buy their own homes; because they do not want to discuss those issues, because they cannot win on those issues, because they have absolutely nothing to say, and that is what has become clear over the last year.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. [Interruption.] Hang on. He is right to want to thank all the staff of Doncaster Royal Infirmary for what they did for the emergency services in dealing with the incident last night, and I am glad to take the opportunity to do that. I am also glad to take the opportunity to support him in his campaign for James Hart. I do hope that the people of Doncaster will go out to vote and support him on 6 May.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I promised to publish the account of my dealings with James Dyson, which is exactly what I have done. I cannot believe that the Opposition do not learn their lesson. They attacked the Government last week for having any kind of discussions with a potential British ventilator maker, and the following day they did a U-turn and said that any Prime Minister would do it. They have now done a W-turn, and they are trying to bash me again. Which is it? Do they believe the Government should be supporting British manufacturing in delivering ventilators—yes or no? That is the question for Labour.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. No matter how many pints I joined him in lifting in the pubs of Bosworth, it could not do as much for the economy of Bosworth as what we are already doing with the £56 million welcome back fund, which is probably even more welcome than my presence in Bosworth, I venture to suggest—that is hotly contested, perhaps. We have extended the cut in VAT for tourism and hospitality to 5% right the way through until the end of September.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I think that what people think is that the Labour party is losing all the arguments across British politics, that it has nothing to say, and that it has no plan for our future and no vision for our country. People see a Conservative Government who are getting on with uniting and levelling up, with the most ambitious agenda any Government have had for generations, and I think that is what they are listening to.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for all the wonderful work that he does for his constituency. My message would be, yes, I hope that the people of Nottinghamshire will get out and vote Conservative. It is we who share their priorities on crime, on the NHS, on investment in infrastructure and on levelling up across our country, so I hope they will vote Conservative on 6 May.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I first was made aware of the plan for a European super league on, I think, the Sunday night, and we acted decisively using the arsenal of legislative freedoms that we now have thanks to leaving the European Union, which the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) opposed, of course. We acted decisively to make clear that the UK Government took a dim view of this matter. [Interruption.] And the same goes for my chief of staff.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
My constituency of Stroud recently won the title of best place to live. There is much to visit there, including an historic lamp standard that was erected to celebrate Queen Victoria’s diamond jubilee. Next year, our own Queen will mark 70 years since her accession to the throne. Will the Prime Minister join me in supporting the gift being proposed by Parliament to mark Her Majesty’s platinum jubilee?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that wonderful proposal, and I certainly encourage all colleagues to support and contribute to her project.
Andrea Jenkyns [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Next week, we will elect our first Mayor of West Yorkshire.
Does the Prime Minister agree that for far too long Labour has taken our northern heartlands for granted? On Thursday 6 May, we have the opportunity to elect patriotic, hard-working northerners such as Matt Robinson, Ben Houchen, and Jill Mortimer in Hartlepool. They will be strong voices and champions for infrastructure, housing and jobs. We must seize the chance to build back better after the pandemic, and only the Conservatives will deliver on that. [Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
Well, Mr Speaker, they don’t like that sort of thing, do they? They don’t like focusing on the issues that actually matter to the British people and the people of West Yorkshire.
I thank my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. I hope that on 6 May the people will get out and vote for a party that believes in supporting our NHS; that believes in fighting crime, not being soft on crime; and that will bring jobs and regeneration across the country. I hope that they will vote Conservative on 6 May.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for a few minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business.
Petition
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Rother Valley calling for a powerful bid to be placed by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to secure a grant from the levelling-up fund. My petition, both online and on paper, has received strong local support, with over 1,800 constituents signing it. The people of Rother Valley are calling for our high streets to be transformed. I believe it is high time the local authority delivers on this priority.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley,
Declares that a strong bid for the Levelling Up Fund must be placed on behalf of the Rother Valley constituency; further that high streets in Rother Valley should form a central aspect of the bid placed; and further that proposals put forward by Dinnington Town Council and Dinnington Community Land Trust should be prioritised.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to ensure that high streets in the Rother Valley constituency can be rejuvenated via the Levelling Up Fund.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002662]
Government Support for India
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs if he will make a statement on the support the Government are providing to the Indian Government.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The heartbreaking scenes in India in recent days have shocked us all. The pandemic has brought horrific human suffering, and we send our solidarity and condolences to the Indian people at this difficult time. As the Prime Minister has said, we stand side by side with India as a friend and partner in the fight against covid-19.
The Foreign Secretary spoke with his counterpart, Minister for External Affairs Jaishankar, on 26 April. He emphasised the UK’s commitment to provide urgent medical equipment to support our Indian friends at this difficult time. Ministers and officials are in close contact with their counterparts in the Indian Government to follow up on that commitment. The Government of India told us that oxygen has been a particular challenge, so we have moved quickly to provide a package of urgent medical equipment to address that need. The first shipment, of 200 ventilators and 95 oxygen concentrators, arrived in India in the early hours yesterday, and is already being distributed to Indian hospitals. A further 400 oxygen concentrators will follow today and tomorrow. This equipment will boost oxygen supplies in India’s hospitals, which remain under severe pressure, so there is no doubt that the support provided by the United Kingdom will save lives.
I am pleased that other countries are also responding to India’s needs. The pandemic has shown the importance of international action. No one is safe until everyone is safe, so we will keep working closely with the Indian Government to help them to meet the huge challenge they face, and we will continue to show our solidarity with the Indian people.
This response is just a part of the UK’s wider international effort to tackle the pandemic. The United Kingdom has committed up to £1.3 billion of official development assistance funding to address the health, economic and humanitarian impacts of covid-19. We have been at the forefront of efforts to get vaccines to developing countries—we are one of the largest donors to the COVAX advanced market commitment, created to do just that. Our commitment of £548 million will support the distribution of 1.3 billion doses of vaccines to up to 92 low and middle-income countries; this includes India.
Despite the urgency of the current situation in India, this remains an important year in the UK-India relationship. India is a key partner for the UK and the Prime Minister had planned to visit India this week. Regretfully, he had to postpone due to the covid-19 outbreak. He now has plans to speak to Prime Minister Modi via video link in the coming period to take forward key deliverables across trade, defence, climate change, health and migration. We also look forward to the Prime Minister meeting Prime Minister Modi as the UK hosts the G7 summit in June and to welcoming India’s guest participation in the G7 foreign and development ministerial meeting next week. Subject to the covid-19 situation in India, there may also be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to visit in person later in the year.
We stand with the Indian people in this time of need, taking our lead from what the Indian Government advise us is most useful. We face this pandemic together and the UK will continue to support global efforts to overcome the grave challenges that we all face today.
Lisa Nandy
The domestic tragedy engulfing India is now of such a scale that it constitutes a global emergency. India is now afflicted with at least 40% of all new cases in the world. More than 2 million have been confirmed in the last week alone and the peak of this crisis may yet be weeks away. This surely ought to be a priority for the Foreign Secretary, who I expected to have made a statement to this House as the scale of the crisis became clear over the last 10 days.
For more than 1 million Britons with loved ones in India, this is a moment of fear and anxiety. The ties between our countries are woven into the fabric of this nation—something that, through my own heritage, I am personally and acutely aware of. Many Britons of Indian origin will have gone to work today in our NHS and in our care homes, helping to carry us through this crisis, while desperately worried about loved ones in India. We can and must do more.
Can I hear from the Minister today a clear plan to ramp up the delivery of vital equipment? I welcome the 600 pieces of equipment that we have shipped so far, but he will know through his discussions, as I do, that India is still badly short of oxygen cylinders, concentrators, ventilators and therapeutic drugs, especially remdesivir. He must co-ordinate with our global partners. I spoke to the EU ambassador this morning to discuss how we can avoid duplication and get help quickly to where it is most needed. Has the UK been part of discussions at the UN and with the World Health Organisation? The Minister needs a plan for increasing the production and manufacturing capacity for vaccines and to overcome barriers to expanding supply. I was surprised not to hear a commitment to make good on the Health Secretary’s promise to throw open our unique expertise to the world. We are world leaders in genomic sequencing and epidemiology. Tracking mutations and variants would be a major contribution not just to India, but to the world.
It is now almost a year to the day when the UK, steeped in our own crisis, woefully unprepared for the pandemic, was forced to ask the world for help. It was India who stepped forward and approved the export of 3 million packets of paracetamol in an act of solidarity and friendship. There are millions of people in India, around the world and here in the UK for whom this is really a test of the bond between our two nations. I heard what the Minister said. I thank him for his warm words, but words are not enough. Now is the time to step forward with a real plan of action to tackle this domestic tragedy and this global emergency.
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. The Foreign Secretary may very well have answered this question today, but he is in Geneva speaking to the UN, so he is out of the country.
The hon. Lady makes some good points, particularly on the co-operation we saw from the Indian people and the Indian Government specifically around drugs last year. We are very thankful for the support we had in that regard. She references words, not deeds. I think what we have seen over the weekend is deeds, not words. We were the first country to deliver support to the Indian people. In fact, it is absolutely the case—this has been described by the BBC, no less—that the UK has been commended for the speed of its initial package. The BBC described it as
“the first international shipment aimed at stemming a devastating Covid-19 surge.”
I am not entirely sure how much quicker we could have been. We have been working on this late last week and over the weekend. I would like to thank staff across our networks and in the Department of Health and Social Care for all the work they have done in putting together this package. Instead of talking, we were shipping and delivering these vital pieces of equipment there, and there is more equipment and support to come. We are continuing to speak with the Indian Government on what they require, and we will respond to what their requirements are in very short order.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) [V]
Yesterday, I had the great privilege of speaking to my Indian opposite number, who expressed great gratitude for the UK’s contribution to support the Indian people, and I was very pleased that he said so. However, India is not the only country with which we have a living bridge and a common feeling. We need to make sure that we are prepared to support other countries in the Commonwealth, not just for their benefit, but for ours. Can the Minister assure me that we are ready, that we have the ODA budget available and that we are prepared to act should such a pool of infection arise in any other country, particularly one with which we share such a close link?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, for that question. Of course, we are speaking with our international partners on a regular basis. This is a situation where no one is safe until everybody is safe. We are working collaboratively and a good example of that is vaccines. We are one of the biggest contributors to the vaccine programme, the COVAX programme, which has been set up particularly to support countries in this regard. We will continue to do whatever we need to do to support our international partners. What we had to do, because of the pressing emergency in India, which is one of our closest allies, was react quickly and get the equipment into the planes and on to the ground, and that is exactly what we have done.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
The scenes we have all seen emerging from India are truly tragic and our hearts go out to all those who are suffering. There is nothing more tragic than seeing people dying on pavements outside already overstretched and under-resourced hospitals that are full of covid patients, and dead loved ones being lined up for cremation. Sadly, we must recognise that the scenes in India will not be the last of the devastation of covid that we see, and the UK must step up its efforts, not just in India, but across the world.
It is welcome that the UK has been able to offer some support to India, but what assistance is being provided on vaccines to prevent further covid waves across the country? Furthermore, will the UK Government support a waiver to overcome intellectual property barriers, so that developing countries have much-needed access to vaccines and we do not see what is happening in India replicated elsewhere? Finally, given the need for a fully resourced global vaccine roll-out, will the Government finally listen to the experts and retreat from the proposed cut to the UK’s life-saving aid at this critical time?
Nigel Adams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. It is clear that we have been at the forefront of efforts to get vaccines to developing countries— I cannot think of many countries that have done more. I have mentioned the advance market commitment via COVAX. That was created to deliver exactly that. We will be supporting the distribution of 1.3 billion doses of vaccines to up to 92 low-income and middle-income countries—that includes India. Obviously, we will need to complete our own roll-out and we will be looking at what we do if there are any surplus doses available. We will keep that under constant review. But I am proud of our commitments: the £548 million, and leading last year’s international funding conference on vaccines to help protect those who need our assistance.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
As it is in the UK, the impact of covid in India is a human tragedy. I heard from a family friend in Delhi who says that people are terrified, frantically looking for beds and oxygen, with disgraceful profiteering ramping up prices and making support unaffordable for the poor. As we have heard, nearly half of all global covid cases are now in India, and nowhere in the world is safe until we are all safe, so it is absolutely right that the UK has provided ventilators and oxygen, but there are also issues with vaccination logistics and therapeutic supplies. Can I ask what the Minister knows about how Kashmiris in Indian-administered Kashmir are faring, given that there has been no opportunity for an independent visit to the region by parliamentarians or journalists since the revocation of articles 370 and 35A nearly two years ago?
Nigel Adams
I am not the Minister responsible for those particular countries, but we have regular dialogue. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad, the Minister responsible for that region, speaks regularly with representatives from Pakistan and India, and I am happy to ask him to give the hon. Lady an update.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
Many of us have constituents who are deeply worried about loved ones in India. Please will my hon. Friend reassure them that the Foreign Secretary will continue to engage with the Indian Government on the practical help that is needed and how we can provide it?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: in the past few days, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with Foreign Minister Jaishankar on exactly that issue. We are responding to the Indian Government’s requests and listening to what they are telling us. We were the first country to respond and to get wheels on the ground and deliver equipment. A huge emergency is affecting India and we have responded. We will continue to speak to the Indian Government and see what further assistance we can deliver to them.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Given the exceptional budgetary challenges that face the Treasury, the overwhelming majority of my constituents support the decision to temporarily reduce the foreign aid budget. Of course, we will still be spending more money on international aid than nearly every other nation on earth, allowing us to support nations in their hour of need. Nine airline containers full of life-saving equipment have already been shipped out to India. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will continue to engage with the Indian Government to provide any further assistance as required?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to point out the support that we have already delivered to our Indian friends. Our teams worked round the clock and over the weekend to ensure that that first shipment of 200 ventilators and 95 oxygen concentrators arrived in India yesterday morning. As I said, we were the first to deliver support to India. Given the rapidly changing situation on the ground, we are working closely with our counterparts to ensure that we are co-ordinated, and we are in close contact with the Indian Government in respect of anything else that they need.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) [V]
What is happening in India is an absolute tragedy, but it is also a stark warning that this virus thrives when we relax—after all, many in India thought that they had beaten the virus. Every time a surge happens, the virus mutates faster, and with every mutation our collective fight goes back a step. There is only one way to beat this virus, and that is to work together in lockstep, across the global community, to keep cases low, minimise the risk of new variants and vaccinate. Will the Minister now commit not only to increasing the money that the UK gives to COVAX—as much as that is, we need to do more—but to starting to share vaccine doses through COVAX now, today?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is right to ask about vaccine doses, but right now we are moving through the UK prioritisation list—that is what the country would expect us to do, I think—for our domestic roll-out and we do not currently have surplus doses. We do, though, keep the situation under constant review. Of course, I recognise that with this pandemic no one is safe until we are all safe; that is why I am proud that, despite the challenging financial pressures that the pandemic has brought, the United Kingdom has donated more than half a billion pounds to COVAX. We led the international vaccine funding conference last year, and in every conversation that my colleagues and I, as a Foreign Minister, have, we are encouraging our counterparts around the globe to do the same and to contribute to COVAX.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) [V]
As someone who has family in India, it breaks my heart to see what is happening there. Some of the most worrying stories coming out of India have been reports of a lack of available oxygen for patients in need. Can my hon. Friend confirm that a key portion of the equipment that our Government are delivering is made up of the oxygen concentrators and ventilators that are so desperately needed?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend speaks from the heart. As I have said, I want to thank the teams in the FCDO around the globe for working on this. We have been the first to respond. We are providing the life-saving medical equipment that he refers to, which includes 495 oxygen concentrators and 200 ventilators. That equipment is based on the most acute need, which has been communicated to us by the Indian Government. I understand why people are so passionate about this, and this simply will help to save the lives of the most vulnerable in India.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Given that the population of India is 1.3 billion and the country is currently recording more than 320,000 new covid infections every day, does the Minister agree with a senior Indian health official who described the support that has been received so far as a “drop in the ocean”?
Nigel Adams
We have been first out of the blocks. We have provided from surplus stocks the ventilators and the oxygen concentrators. Of course, it is a huge country, which is why we continue to liaise with the Indian Government to see what further we can do. We are going to be doing more in terms of equipment, but we have responded quicker than anybody else. We have planes on the ground delivering equipment. There are more planes going out there today and tomorrow with more equipment, and we will continue to work with the Indian Government, listen to their requests and respond.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Our special relationship with India is a bond of kinship and affinity rooted in the living bridge that is the Indian diaspora. As we now seek a transformative post-Brexit UK-India relationship, it is only right that the Government are taking the initial steps to assist India at this unprecedented time. It has been heartening to see 1 billion shoulders to the wheel, be it the Oxygen Express run by the railways or the Indian air force flying back empty oxygen tanks for Indian industry to refill, which has risen to the desperate need. France and Germany have managed to rapidly assist India significantly with the supply of cryogenic oxygen tanks, which can store and transport a much bigger quantity of liquid oxygen. Can my hon. Friend say what steps our Government have taken or are taking to assist similarly, befitting our vision for the UK-India relationship that we seek to build?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am not particularly aware of the arrangement that France and Germany have and whether that is a commercial arrangement that the Indian Government have entered into, but it is certainly something we can look into. We have been working incredibly closely with our technical experts in the Department of Health and Social Care on how to respond to the most urgent needs, while ensuring that the equipment sent can be used and will make a difference. Donating oxygen cylinders, as some people have called for, has been rejected, as compatibility issues would prevent them from being refilled within India. We are taking the lead from the Indian Government on what their most urgent priorities are, so that we can ensure that whatever support we provide matches their requests.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The Minister keeps repeating that no one is safe until everyone is safe, but the reality is that 80% of all covid vaccines have been delivered in just 10 wealthy countries, and COVAX is struggling to obtain vaccines. Unless there is greater international solidarity, other healthcare systems like India’s will collapse, and vaccine-resistant variants will inevitably threaten those who live here. Does the Minister not accept that the UK needs to play its part by lifting the ban on exporting vaccines, sharing covid technology with others and increasing, rather than slashing, overseas aid?
Nigel Adams
I cannot think of many countries that are doing more than the United Kingdom on vaccines for the international community. It was absolutely right that we moved through the United Kingdom’s vaccine priority list for our own roll-out, and, as I have said in answer to a previous question, there are currently no surplus doses. I am proud of the fact that we are one of the biggest donors to COVAX. COVAX will be supporting the distribution of 1.3 billion vaccines across 92 countries that need that support, which includes India.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I express strong solidarity with my hon. Friend in his words of sympathy with our Indian friends? Would it be possible for Indian citizens, who are living here in the United Kingdom, to travel to India should they so wish, so that they can help their grieving relatives or provide other support? It would surely be unreasonable to prevent people leaving our country who wish to go and help in these circumstances.
Nigel Adams
Of course, I absolutely get the point that my hon. Friend has made. People will be incredibly worried. I have friends with Indian heritage and they are at their wit’s end about what is happening in India. As for travelling to India, he will be aware that we did add India to our red list. That was to ensure that we protect against variants and other developing variants. The situation in India has deteriorated. Currently, travel abroad is against the law and, until that situation changes, people in the UK need to be mindful of the travel advice.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
I have spoken to people at Newcastle’s Hindu temple who have emphasised just how distressing these desperate scenes from India are for those with friends and family living there and, indeed, for all of us. We have known of the concerns for some time now. That is why the Prime Minister cancelled his visit. Given our special links to India, what conversations has the Minister had with counterparts in the United States and the European Union to ensure that international assistance is co-ordinated and effective?
Nigel Adams
That is a very good question. We are regularly in contact with our counterparts, co-ordinating support. That is why COVAX was set up in the first place for vaccines. I understand that the EU is in the process of co-ordinating support for this emergency. I am not entirely sure when its shipments will arrive, but it is certainly on the case, as is the United States, but rest assured we do speak to our international partners when an emergency such as this flares up.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I think that everyone in the country has been distressed by the images of the reports they have seen in India. I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement about the equipment that we have provided and the speed at which we have done so. Obviously, India is a vastly different size to the UK, but if it is wanted, will we also provide logistical advice from the NHS, the Army and our scientists on the things they have learned about how to best control the spread of this virus and get vaccinations to people as quickly as possible?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We stand ready to provide support in whatever form it comes. That is why we are talking to the Indian Government, asking them what support they require. We need to do that not only to understand what they require, but to ensure that what they require and what we supply are in lockstep. Given this spread of the pandemic, we are working closely not only with our Indian counterparts, but with other countries to ensure that we can co-ordinate and support those with the most urgent need.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
I commend the support that the Government are providing promptly to the Indian people during this devastating covid surge, and my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected. Realistically, in order to tackle this issue, do we not need to start providing licences particularly for those countries on the subcontinent, where in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh there are almost 2 billion people who could be dealt with by giving them the ability to produce vaccines themselves and therefore better look after themselves and help to reduce the effects of covid very quickly? Will the Minister look at supporting the people of Kashmir, who have been under lockdown because of the situation in India for the past 18 months, so that they receive their fair proportion of the aid and the vaccines that we are supporting them with?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We are providing support to the Indian Government, but it is for the Indian Government to decide and not for us to dictate where that support goes or how it is rolled out. Of course, as he will know, India is one of the largest manufacturers of vaccine, and those supplies are under pressure, as they are with all manufacturers. However, we will continue liaising with the Indian Government to find out what they require, and if we can match their demands we will supply it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on their offer of help and the provision that has been made to the Indian Government. He will know that at a time of humanitarian crisis, the people of this country are incredibly generous. Members of the Indian diaspora, in particular, are conducting fundraising events via temples and other religious places across the country this weekend, including the world-famous Neasden temple, where people are doing a sponsored static bike ride of 7,600 km—the distance between London and New Delhi. What advice is being given to those religious organisations who are raising money to make sure the money gets to the right place at the right time to assist in alleviating the suffering going on in India?
Nigel Adams
There are many champions of constituents of Indian heritage in this House, none more so than my hon. Friend. I am being made aware of some incredible fundraising efforts across the country where there are large Indian diasporas, with people raising money through various means. That is really heartwarming to see. It is absolutely the case that that needs to be delivered in the most efficient way. I will find out through what mechanism the advice is being filtered down to those communities. He raises a brilliant point, as ever, and I will make sure that by the end of today he is able to have some information to take to his communities to ensure that they are doing the right thing. I am sure that everybody is doing the right thing; we just have to make sure that it is delivered in the correct way.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Only last week I stood here and questioned this Tory Government’s obscene betrayal of those in need by cutting the foreign aid budget. This week we have perhaps seen the direct consequences of such decisions. I am sure that, along with every Member, they agree with me that the scenes from India are nothing short of devastating and we cannot stand idly by while oxygen becomes a premium and not an easily obtainable necessity. Given the severity of the situation, will the Minister now go on record to say that the UK Government will undertake any and every possible measure of support for India and her people, including the potential distribution of vaccines when we are in a position to do so?
Nigel Adams
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments, apart from his first sentence, which was a mild dig. We will continue to support India. We were the first country to do so when this crisis flared up. We were not talking about it; we were actually getting on with it and doing it, delivering ventilators and oxygen concentrators: there are more in the air now and they are going to land today and tomorrow. So we are continuing to do that work. In terms of vaccines, it would be great if he could point me to who is doing more, as I said, in terms of putting more money into COVAX that is going to help 1.3 billion people. The priority, obviously, is the domestic roll-out of the vaccines that we have, and once we have a clear idea of surplus, we will be in a position to support other countries.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
So many of my fellow Wulfrunians have friends, family and other loved ones in India. I thank the Government for their swift response to this heartbreaking situation. What discussions is my hon. Friend having with our international partners, so that we can encourage them to send similar assistance and ensure that the global effort is as effective as possible?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. All hon. and right hon. Members today are speaking up passionately for their constituents in their particular areas. Co-operation on an international level is absolutely at the heart of responding to this pandemic. It is a pandemic that obviously does not recognise borders, so we have been speaking directly with the Indian Government to understand what they need. As I said, we are in regular contact with a range of international partners to ensure that we support, co-ordinate and do everything we can to respond to the needs of India at this difficult time.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) [V]
The images from India are horrifying—from people gasping for air and dying—[Inaudible]—with hospitals overrun, to seas of blazing makeshift pyres. This is a human catastrophe for India, and, with a virus that does not respect borders, none of us is safe until we are all safe. Vaccine supply is artificially limited by patents, leading to the global vaccine apartheid. At the Word Trade Organisation, India and South Africa have proposed a temporary waiver to vaccine patents, allowing production—[Inaudible]—expand. Public money funded these vaccines, so will the Government put public health before the profits of big pharma and support a waiver of the vaccine patents?
Nigel Adams
The audio was a bit in and out there, but I think I got the gist of the hon. Lady’s question. As I have said several times in my response, we are doing an immense amount. We are at the forefront of efforts to ensure that vaccines are getting to the most vulnerable countries—to developing countries—as well as being, I think, the second or third largest donor to the COVAX programme. I gently remind the hon. Lady that that support will assist 1.3 billion people in low and middle-income countries across the globe, including India, where we have seen such horrific scenes; our hearts are with them.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated more than ever before the absolute need for strong and reliable partners, especially in the interconnected world in which we all live? Will he confirm that the Prime Minister will, in fact, be visiting India as soon as the country recovers from this dreadful outbreak?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend raises a good point. The irony is that the Prime Minister would have been in India had it not been for this latest outbreak. I know that he will be speaking to Prime Minister Modi shortly via video link. We want to ensure that we continue that co-operation on trade, defence, climate change and health, which is absolutely key. We want to finalise a 2030 road map for future India-UK relations that will provide a strategic basis for our relationship in the coming years. We look forward to the Prime Minister meeting Prime Minister Modi as soon as practically possible. Depending on how the pandemic goes in India, there may be an opportunity for the Prime Minister to visit in person later this year.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) [V]
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for securing this urgent question. I have family in India and, like others, I have found the news from the country quite distressing. Do the Government believe that people in low and middle-income countries should have fair and timely access to life-saving covid vaccines and drugs? If so, are the Government willing to reverse their position on opposing the proposal from India and South Africa of a patent waiver in relation to covid vaccines, medicines and medical equipment at the World Trade Organisation?
Nigel Adams
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we agree that low and middle-income countries should have equitable access to vaccines. That is why we are putting over half a billion pounds of UK taxpayers’ money into the COVAX arrangement, and also 1.3 billion people in those countries will be assisted by the vaccines that will be provided.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Over the years, quite a few people—including, I must admit, myself —have questioned aspects of international aid and its efficiency, but I wonder if the Minister will acknowledge that public opinion is changing in the middle of a global pandemic, with international aid being seen not just as a moral duty—we are part of one humanity. If health systems around the world collapse, sooner or later it will come back to bite us. In that respect, can the Minister give a categorical assurance that the recent overseas aid budget cuts will not have affected in any way our ability to help the world’s poorest countries deal with this global pandemic?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The total amount that FCDO will spend on global health is £1.3 billion and this will be focused on the UK’s position at the forefront of the international response to covid, not just through our commitments with COVAX and the vaccines I have been talking about, but also through the Gavi alliance and the World Health Organisation. Our investment and expertise will be brought to bear on issues where we can make the most difference and achieve maximum impact and value for money.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
As many hon. Members have said, the images from India are both difficult to watch and painful for many of our constituents with family there. In light of what is happening, how much of the 1.3 billion that is going into covid relief worldwide is going to India? Might that be reviewed in light of what is happening across the world, with a view to upgrading it?
Nigel Adams
I think the hon. Lady was referring to the 1.3 billion vaccine doses; perhaps she can nod if that is the case.
Nigel Adams
Of course, we have made our commitment and our financial commitment to COVAX. It will decide where the vaccines to 92 low and middle-income countries will go; that decision will be taken not by the UK but strategically by COVAX through the advanced market commitment it is operating. However, we have committed the money; we are paying the money and we should be proud of the support that the United Kingdom is giving for international vaccines.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) [V]
Like the 1.5 million other members of the British Indian diaspora, I have been watching with my heart in my mouth, worried for friends and families in India, over the last few weeks. May I ask the Minister to join me in putting on record our thanks to all the officials, Government Ministers and private-sector businesses that have been involved in our work not only in COVAX—I think we were the largest donor up until December last year—but with AstraZeneca, which is doing crucial work in providing vaccines to the world’s poorest, and for our deliveries of oxygen as well?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for her thanks in this regard. An extraordinary amount of work has been done, and not just by Government; she was right to mention the private sector, which has stepped up in this pandemic. There has been an incredible international, joined-up effort under extreme circumstances, but I want to commend the work both of the FCDO and across Government in ensuring that the initial shipment got out to India with great speed. We were the first to deliver equipment and there will be more to come. I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend’s thanks are amplified to the relevant parties.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
At a time when India is registering the highest ever recorded cases globally of covid, we must help the Indian people in their hour of need. I have close family there and many of my Slough constituents are extremely anxious about their loved ones, terrified after seeing apocalyptic scenes of people dying on the streets for want of oxygen, a collapsing health system, and crematoriums and cemeteries being overwhelmed, with thousands of people dying every day. I am sure the Minister will join me in commending the incredible work of volunteers, including British-based charities, but, given our close historical ties, will he ensure that the UK is the No. 1 aid donor, especially of medical expertise and equipment, including ventilators and oxygen concentrators?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Member makes a good point. We are indeed committed to supporting the Government of India—as I have said on a number of occasions here, we were first out of the blocks—and I know international partners will be doing the same. There are close historical ties and family ties with India across the House, and we will ensure that we are at the forefront of that support. We are doing it, there is more to come, and there will be more information when we have concluded our conversations with the Indian Government on what will supply. The hon. Member can rest assured, and the House can rest assured, that the United Kingdom Government are doing their bit to support the Indian people.
Mr Speaker
I am suspending the House for two minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.
Environment (Regulation)
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Environment (Regulation) Bill 2019-21 View all Environment (Regulation) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent regulatory body to monitor and enforce the compliance of public bodies with climate and environmental requirements and targets; to make provision for associated sanctions; to require the regulatory body to assess the environmental effects of potential trade agreements; to make provision about environmental standards, including in relation to animal welfare; and for connected purposes.
I am introducing the Bill because the UK is without meaningful environmental regulation and without any kind of independent environmental regulator. Having left the EU and having promised four years ago to introduce legislation to provide the UK with its own independent regulator, the Government continue to fail to meet that promise. Unregulated and unpoliced, our standards of biodiversity, air quality and animal welfare need to be protected or the Government will allow them to be eroded.
Politicians on all sides have a habit of saying that British farming is the best in the world. That claim happens to be true, but I fear that the Conservative Government do not understand why it is true. We can protect British farming only if we understand it. I am compelled to introduce the Bill, because the Government do not seem to understand it and do not seem to get it.
British farming is the best in the world, mainly for two fundamental reasons: standards and culture: standards, because we have led the development of the world’s most ambitious and comprehensive system of agricultural and environmental regulation alongside our partners on the continent; and culture, because the unit of farming in Britain is the family farm, which has underpinned our reputation for unrivalled care and compassion for livestock, and for a ratio of humans to animals that allows the welfare of those animals to be a priority. Furthermore, the culture of Britain’s family farms is one in which they are not just proud to produce our food but proud to be the stewards of our countryside and environment, to be on the frontline of the fight against climate change and the fight to restore nature. If we lose our world-class regulation and have no effective regulator, and if we allow family farms to be undercut and go to the wall, we fatally undermine British farming and all that is good about it. It is not acceptable for the Government to promise regulation and a regulator, and continually to break that promise, while our farmers are put under increasing pressure and our environment is put at increased risk.
That is why, along with my Liberal Democrat and Alliance colleagues, I am pushing the Bill. There is an urgent need for safeguards to be put in place. We need a regulator that is well resourced, has comprehensive and strong powers, and is completely independent of Government so that it can set and enforce regulation without fear or favour, and have the strength to hold public authorities at all levels to account. We need much more than a body that just points out where the Government are failing. We need an office that can force the Government to comply; an office that can prosecute, and can levy fines and other sanctions to prevent abuse; a watchdog whose bite is as great as its bark. Without powerful, independent regulation or a regulator, we will begin to see more complexities in bureaucracy as food producers seek to comply with traditional, high-quality British standards but simultaneously have to operate with lower production costs as they battle to avoid being undercut by cheap imports.
A huge fear for consumers and farmers alike is that the Government will allow lower quality, cheaper imports into the UK as they seek deals with other countries to provide some compensation for the loss of nearby European markets: countries that do not take care of their animals like we do, which lack animal welfare protections and do not produce food in ways that reduce carbon emissions or take care of the natural environment. Those countries allow their producers to have lower input costs due to those lower standards. Is it right that the UK should have to see an increase in products on our supermarket shelves that have come from inhumane or environmentally irresponsible production methods? Is it right that farmers should be undercut and ruined by those cheaper and morally inferior products? The answer to those questions is absolutely no, yet the Government’s continued failure to step back and allow themselves to be regulated mean that we have no means to ensure that new trade deals do not open the door to food produced in ways that damage the environment, harm animals and put UK farmers out of business.
There is a real fear that the Government will do such deals—perhaps by accident, but quite probably by design. After all, the farming Minister wrote to Conservative MPs a few months ago telling them that if we required imports to meet the same animal welfare and environmental standards as British farmers it would make it very difficult to secure trade deals. In other words, “Please do not tie our hands, because we can only get these trade deals if you allow us to throw British farmers under the bus.” That is why my proposal for a new, powerful and independent regulator is vital to protect British standards and British farmers.
Without a regulator, we will allow the Conservative Government to continue their path of inaction on the natural environment. We see a lack of natural flood protection; loss of British biodiversity at an ever increasing rate; and the tragic, premature deaths of thousands of people every year due to air pollution. In the past five years, this Government have been told by multiple court systems that they need to do much more to tackle the toxic levels of air pollution in this country. Their 2017 national action plan on air pollution was deemed unlawful by the UK High Court, as it was simply not strong enough to enforce change among local authorities. This year, in a case started before we left the EU, the European Court of Justice found this Government to have “systematically and persistently” breached air pollution limits. Without an independent regulator with the teeth to hold our Government to account, they will be even less accountable for their failures to tackle these ecological and human crises. The lack of action from the Conservatives should not be left to the court systems to sort out. It should be dealt with directly by an independent body, just as the Government have promised.
Our lack of environmental protections extend beyond air quality and into the quality of nature in the UK. We are already living in the most nature-depleted country on the planet. Only 14% of our waterways are in good condition, and more than 40% of native species are in decline. This is an embarrassment for us all. We are in the run-up to COP26, and at the moment our likely message to other countries will have to be, “Do as we say but not as we do.” We cannot set a good example when the Government are threatening the livelihoods of farmers across the UK with a lack of regulation on animal welfare and other standards.
The Government are compounding that error by their stubborn and penny-pinching approach to the transition from the basic farm payment scheme to the new environmental land management scheme. The Government insist on forcing many family farms to accept a 50% cut in their income, with no immediate replacement. This plan will inevitably put hundreds of family farms out of business. This matters because without farmers we have no partners to deliver natural flood prevention schemes, to enhance biodiversity and carbon sequestration, and to maintain the stunning landscapes that underpin the tourism economy in places such as the lakes and the dales. This stubborn penny-pinching goes hand in hand with the Government’s failure to ensure a powerful independent regulator. Both those failures seem certain to contribute to undermining British farming and our natural environment, unless we act.
Today, I am giving Parliament the opportunity to act. This Bill aims to unite town and country in favour of a new deal for our environment that values British farmers and enshrines British values. How can we say that we are proud of our animal welfare standards, our environmental protections, and the quality of British farming if we then are happy to sell them out to the highest bidder with the lowest regulation? We need an environmental regulator, as the Government have promised. Given that the Government have failed to deliver that promise, I stand here to deliver it for them. For the good of our farmers and our environment, there is no more time to lose.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tim Farron, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Wendy Chamberlain, Daisy Cooper, Ed Davey, Stephen Farry, Wera Hobhouse, Christine Jardine, Layla Moran, Sarah Olney, Jamie Stone and Munira Wilson present the Bill.
Tim Farron accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 297).
Fire Safety Bill
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 322 / Noes: 256 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.
As I have said on a number of occasions at this Dispatch Box, I want to express my sincere thanks once again to all right hon. and hon. Members for engaging in this important debate. I would like to repeat the message given by my noble Friend the building safety Minister in paying tribute to the fire and rescue services across our country, because in recent days we have seen large fires in Greater Manchester and Shropshire, and they have been dealt with in an exemplary and professional manner. This is a reminder of why we want to get this Bill on to the statute book—to help fire and rescue services do their job to ensure that buildings are properly and thoroughly assessed.
All of us in this House and in the other place agree in the strongest terms that residents have the right to be and to feel safe in their homes. This Government remain steadfast in our commitment to delivering the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report’s recommendations. The Fire Safety Bill is an important first step in our legislative programme delivering these recommendations. I cannot stress enough, as I have reiterated on a number of occasions throughout the passage of this Bill, the vital importance of this legislation and the ramifications if it fails as a result of outstanding remediation amendments, and that is why I move that this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.
Without the Fire Safety Bill, legal ambiguity around the fire safety order will continue. Moreover, the updating of fire risk assessments to cover structure, external walls and flat entrance doors will be ignored by a number of negligent building owners, and fire and rescue services will lack the legal certainty to support enforcement decisions. That is a matter that I know will be in the minds of Members today, as it should also be in the minds of Members of the other place.
A number of Members across the House have said to me, “Well, why not simply redraft the Bill?” That might be easier to do with other legislation that already has careful cross-referencing to other Acts and already has detailed secondary legislation to revise regulations, but not so with this small but none the less important Bill. Redrafting it, even if the amendments were not defective, so that it carefully navigates the intricate web of contract law and does not fall foul of such Acts beloved of Members of this House, including many Opposition Members, such as the Human Rights Act 1998, will take considerable time, and we do not have that time.
Following our announcement in February, I am pleased to say that hundreds of thousands of leaseholders will be protected from the cost of replacing unsafe cladding on their homes as part of our five-point plan to end the cladding scandal once and for all, improve the saleability of properties and restore confidence in the housing market. The measures that we announced in February—including our work with the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors to reduce the need for EWS1 forms; our work with developers to put more of their own money on the table, additional to our tax and levy plans; and our work with lenders to buy into our package of measures to ensure sensible and proportionate value is re-ascribed to homes valued at zero—will allow hundreds of thousands of homes to be sold, bought or remortgaged once again. That will provide certainty to residents and lenders, boost the housing market and reinstate the value of properties. All the amendments we have received, debated and already disposed of would simply reignite uncertainty in the market and risk lenders once again turning to leaseholders saying, “Computer says no: we can’t value your property”.
I find it somewhat ironic that Members are flagging these issues in the context of trying to impede the progress of the Bill, as having an up-to-date fire and risk assessment that considers the external wall system of a building should enable an insurer to take an informed and proportionate approach to risk that considers not only the material and construction of the building but the way in which it is managed.
Christopher Pincher
I will, of course, give way to the Father of the House, as I was unable to do so yesterday due to time constraints.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am grateful to the Minister, and he knows I am trying to play the ball and not the person. The question is not the small amounts but the large amounts. It is estimated that the cost of remediation may go up to £15 billion. The Government are providing £5 billion, which leaves £10 billion that may fall on the shoulders of leaseholders. We are moving from a situation that might be ironic for some, to one that is irenic for more. The point of the amendment is that it needs to be met by Government, and it needs to be met in good time, or else many people will not be able to meet the demand to pay for the cost of remediation, and forfeiture will follow. That will happen in a shorter timescale than the one talked about by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox).
Christopher Pincher
I certainly accept my hon. Friend’s assurance that he is playing the issue, as he always does, and not the man. As he rightly says, we propose to spend £5.1 billion of public money on remediating the tallest buildings, as directed by the Hackitt report and its recommendations.
We have also said that as a result of our tax on the development industry, which the Chancellor will consult on imminently, we will raise a further £2 billion. We have also said that we will introduce a tall buildings levy. Developers themselves are placing more money on the table. Taylor Wimpey has now placed a further £125 million on the table for remediation, and Persimmon £75 million. The amounts are building up. We have also suggested a very advantageous financing scheme for those buildings below 18 metres that may require some remediation.
I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not be paying for every cost associated with the provisions of the Fire Safety Bill, but that is the risk, because the scope of the amendments that have been tabled is far too broad to provide a sensible solution. Lords amendment 4L is also unclear on who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory scheme is in place to pay the costs. That would result in all types of remediation being delayed—a really unsatisfactory outcome for leaseholders. Leaseholders also will not thank us for voting through an amendment that will generate lots of litigation that they may need to pay for.
The amendment would prevent the passing on of remediation costs, but it does not define what those costs are. That is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay. There is a lack of clarity on the definition of remedial work and what may be attributable to the provisions in this Bill, in other Acts or in none. How would Members suggest that we disaggregate the legislation under which works are carried out and the definition to differentiate between remediation, maintenance or improvement? It is a recipe for litigation and a recipe for delay.
In effect, it may not be possible to relieve leaseholders and tenants from all costs for remedial works attributable to the Bill without breaching subsidy control rules—a form of state aid. Further detailed consideration would be needed about that, too. Practically speaking, drafting legislation is, as many Members will know, a complex matter that cannot be dealt with in the timeframe proposed by the amendment, and to provide an arbitrary deadline is neither helpful nor practical.
There is a common theme uniting these points. The amendments will not work. They will not help leaseholders. They are not detailed enough for a complex and intricate problem of this nature. We have seen the key elements of this amendment time and again, and this House has voted them down time and again. Yet time and again, peers and the Opposition—unintentionally, I trust—seem set on reinjecting uncertainty into the market, which cannot help leaseholders. I respectfully ask the House to reject this amendment, so that we return a further clear and consistent message to the other place.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Minister has made a lengthy speech on this occasion, perhaps trying to ensure that others have less time to speak. I am glad that he took an intervention from the Father of the House on this occasion—he did not do so yesterday—but unfortunately he did not answer the main point, and therefore we must conclude that the Government are content for the £10 billion of additional cost to be shouldered by leaseholders.
We find ourselves in an extraordinary position. We voted on this only yesterday, and in that debate every single speaker—the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem contributors—pleaded with the Government to support leaseholders. No one spoke in the Government’s favour, and the Government’s majority was halved in the vote. At what point does the Minister question the sense of his approach? At what point does he turn around and think, “Well, all these people who have spoken are sensible and well meaning; perhaps they have a point”? At what point does he consider that he might actually agree with us?
I suspect that the Minister has had those thoughts, and I suspect that he even agrees with us. He knows that the Bank of England is worried about a crash caused directly by the crisis. He knows that hundreds of thousands of people are suffering. But he also knows that his Chancellor and his Prime Minister do not care enough to act. They have other priorities—to their property and development donors. Fourteen separate companies and individuals with links to construction companies using potentially lethal aluminium composite material cladding on buildings have donated nearly £4 million to the Conservatives since 2006. The Prime Minister must have his new curtains, so they turn away from the screams for help from the people hit with extraordinary bills of £40,000, £50,000, £60,000, and the Minister has to bunker down, hold his nose and hold the line. I almost feel sorry for him.
Let me touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Minister yesterday and today for not accepting these amendments. The argument that they would further delay the implementation of the Grenfell recommendations does not wash and is frankly insulting to the Grenfell survivors. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) read out Grenfell United’s condemnation of the use and abuse of the tragedy to put the blame on leaseholders. It said that the Government’s excuse that amendments to protect leaseholders would delay Grenfell recommendations is “deeply upsetting”, “wrong”,
“and shows they’d rather protect the corporates responsible from paying for the mess they created.”
That argument against delaying the Bill was put to us time and again when we were trying to make amendments to implement the Grenfell inquiry recommendations. On Report, the Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said that accepting our amendment to implement the Grenfell inquiry phase 1 recommendations would “create uncertainty”. The Minister for Crime and Policing, the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), later said:
“It is not helpful, I have to say, for the House to keep returning to this issue.”—[Official Report, 24 February 2021; Vol. 689, c. 950.]
He added that it causes “confusion”. However, after continually voting against our amendments, the Government eventually gave in and made the concession in the other place. It was possible then, even after months of their saying it was not, and it is possible now.
The Housing Minister has the audacity to imply that the supposed delays from new amendments would mean that people were less safe, as if people are not already unsafe living in buildings riddled with fire safety issues. Has he forgotten that hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country are already stuck in unsafe buildings? I say to him again today: if the Government have not managed to work out how to pursue the money from those responsible, why do they not do what is right and stop leaseholders footing the bill now? Labour’s amendment would buy the Government time. It would protect leaseholders while the Government came up with a longer-term plan.
As Lord Kennedy of Southwark said yesterday in the other place, it is unusual to be here again so soon, but this is an unprecedented crisis and the Government should be taking unprecedented measures to sort it out. The Government know that hundreds of thousands of people are being forced to pay to fix fire safety issues that were not their fault. The Government should pay and then go after the building companies and developers who are responsible. Most MPs agree: 95% of all MPs, and 92% of Tory MPs, said that the developers who built the flats should pay to make them safe.
The tragedy is that we know that, at some point, the Government are going to have to act to fix this problem. We know that they cannot leave leaseholders to foot a £10 billion bill. Yet yesterday, many Conservative Members voted against an amendment that would have protected leaseholders. What will they do today? Will they keep voting against their conscience, against their opinions, against the will of their constituents, or will they do the right thing and vote to protect leaseholders?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have a very short time for this debate, so I am afraid that we have to have a limit of three minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
First, I have agreed with pretty much everything that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) has said in these debates over the last few weeks, but I disagree fundamentally with her bringing into it this political trope that the reason the Government will not act is that they are all in the pocket of the developers. That does not help this debate, it does not help us move it forward, and it does not help the leaseholders to keep putting in their minds that there is some sort of conspiracy. I agree with the hon. Lady on almost everything, but certainly not on that.
In yesterday’s debate, the Minister said—this was repeated just a few moments ago from the Dispatch Box—that
“all of us in this House agree that residents deserve to be safe, and to feel safe, in their homes.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 264.]
He is correct. We all agree on that. I think we all agree —at least, the Government, from the Prime Minister down have repeatedly said they agree—that leaseholders should not have to pay for historical fire defects.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
The Minister knows that this problem is not going to go away. Whether it is the Fire Safety Bill today or in the Building Safety Bill, we will keep returning to this. He knows that because what has been done so far is insufficient. He knows it because, as things stand, the length of time it is likely to take to sort this out will be too long for many leaseholders to be able to continue to bear the costs that they are paying at the moment and to contemplate the future costs that hang over them. And the Government know it because, as they said right at the beginning of this crisis—we intend to hold them to this promise—it is not right that leaseholders should be asked to bear the costs of something they were not responsible for.
I really do not understand the Minister’s argument. The uncertainty is not caused by our voting for the Lords amendments; it is the unresolved problem that is causing huge uncertainty. As for his point about drafting complexity, he should give a commitment to go away and draft something and bring it back in the Building Safety Bill, because either his view is that it is complex and no one has drafted anything suitable yet—so go away and draft it—or it is simply a way of trying to resist the idea that leaseholders should not have to pay.
In the meantime, I have a practical suggestion to make. All those involved, including MPs, spend a lot of time going back and forth about practical problems in respect of blocks, difficulties, delays, a lack of communication and so forth. I have had to use parliamentary questions to try to find out what has been happening in respect of applications to the building safety fund for particular blocks in my constituency. I have to say, the replies I have received have been distinctly unhelpful.
A very large range of people is involved: leaseholders of course, freeholders, the fire service, managing agents, building companies, developers, chartered surveyors, local authorities, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, and the Minister’s Department. I know that Ministers and officials meet individual groups and organisations regularly, but I think there would be great merit in bringing together representatives of all these groups to establish what we can call a contact group or an action group, so that the Minister and his officials can sit around a table on a regular basis to share information about what is happening and to progress-chase, iron out problems, test out ideas and find answers to the problems for which there is as yet no plan, but which my constituents in Leeds have to live with each and every day and which weigh so heavily upon them, their lives and their sense of whether there is a future that they can look forward to, because, as things stand, there is not one. I really hope that Ministers will take up the idea and finally acknowledge that only a comprehensive plan is going to bring this nightmare to an end.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Again, we all want the same thing. We want the protection of leaseholders from bills that they cannot afford and should not have been given; we want the protection of taxpayers from a burden that they should not have to carry; and we want the application of the “polluter pays” principle, so that the developers, insurers and builders who are responsible for the problems in the first place are the ones who have to pay the costs of remediation. All of that has become perfectly clear during our various debates on the matter.
I welcome what my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) said yesterday and today about establishing a study on the ground—similar, in some ways, to that which the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) just mentioned—that would make it possible to talk to real people about real bills, and about why the huge sum of taxpayers’ money that has been set aside is not getting through to them. What rate-limiting steps, and what problems with bureaucracy and the timescales that have been set, make it impossible for that money to get to the people who need it? I very much welcome that idea. I hope that the timescale will be short and the Minister will be able to share the lessons learned with all Members.
Today, the Minister has edged us towards the necessary compromise. If we are willing to make it clear in the Queen’s Speech that leasehold reform will deal with forfeiture, that will remove one of the biggest fears. As the Father of the House said, what about the potential for forfeiture to occur during the time before the passing of that legislation? That does need to be dealt with. If I may say so, my hon. Friend the Minister was clearer about that today than he was yesterday, and that is hugely to be welcomed. I have always thought that the idea that we could not say what would be in the Queen’s Speech sat a bit oddly with the fact that we can read what will be in the Budget three days before it actually happens.
I also welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister said about the scope of the Building Safety Bill and the ability to set out in it the concept of apportionment, which will be a major element. I hope that if we can take these concepts forward in the other place, we might reach a solution to this problem. It seems to me that the building blocks of a solution are there.
As my hon. Friend and Members from all parts of the House have said, we all want certainty, so that lenders can lend, property values can stabilise and homeowners—the very people my party wants to encourage—can sleep soundly in their beds once again, as they have a right to do.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I, too, rise to support the Lords amendment. The amendment is simple; it protects leaseholders and prevents them from being charged crippling, life-changingly colossal bills to make safe properties that are unsafe only because of the actions of developers and a lack of Government regulation.
Here we are: the Government have played to the final whistle, and they are down by the corner flag keeping ball and feigning cramp in the hope that the final whistle will go and we will all move on. Let me be clear. I assure the Minister—and, more importantly, I encourage anxious and distressed leaseholders—that we will not give up. We will not troop off the field, not to play again, once the 90 minutes are up. We will come back next Session and fight the corner of leaseholders who currently face bills that they can never, ever hope to be able to afford, and that are not theirs to pay in the first place.
As has been mentioned, the Government’s stance on this issue sets out starkly whose side they are on. They are on the side of the wealthy developers, some of whom fund their party. They are on the side of negligent officials who allowed this to happen. They are not on the side of those who are working hard to afford a roof above their heads. This is a Britain, it would appear, where innocent householders have to pay to remove dangerous cladding while somebody else pays for the Prime Minister’s new curtains. We believe in a better Britain where there is justice, not crushing, undeserved debt. If we do not win today, then, for the sake of leaseholders across this country, we will be back.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
So, here we are again debating the Fire Safety Bill and the Lords amendments to it. The key issue here is not whether we enshrine in law the requirements on fire safety but who ends up paying for them. The reality is, as the Father of the House mentioned, that the £5.1 billion offered by the Government thus far will be insufficient to cover the remediation and fire safety costs identified not only in tall buildings but in lower buildings as well. The key issue, then, is that it is going to take some five years for the work to be carried out, and that leaseholders are receiving bills now of £50,000 or more in order for the work to be carried out. They can ill afford it.
The Government are committed to producing the Building Safety Bill, but we know that it will be announced in the Queen’s Speech and that it will probably take 18 months to two years before it is live and operational. Leaseholders do not have the luxury of that time. They are being charged the money right now. We still do not know the details of the forced loan scheme that the Government are offering for leaseholders in buildings below six storeys. We have been asking to scrutinise it, so we can see whether it is fit for purpose or whether it will even work.
I have had the honour and privilege of serving on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for the past 11 years. We are publishing a report on cladding and the other issues tomorrow. Obviously I am not allowed to pre-disclose the details, but it is fair to say that we are critical of the way in which the Government are approaching this necessary means. I urge the Minister for Housing, who is a good friend for whom I have every respect, to let us have some commitments from the Front Bench in his answer to this debate, and to tell us what he will do to ensure that leaseholders are prevented from having to bear these unnecessary and unacceptable costs. Let us also have some commitments on when we will see the proposed forced loan scheme. Let us have some commitments on when we can expect to see the Building Safety Bill brought into operation, and some overall commitment to ensure that people living in unmortgageable, unsaleable flats are given appropriate comfort, because, frankly, without that, we will have to support the Lords amendment to ensure that the Government come back with these proposals early in the new Session.
Let us make sure that we send the message to leaseholders out there: you should not have to pay a penny piece to rectify the problems that are not your fault in the first place. I shall be supporting the Lords amendment once again today.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) [V]
This Bill has been passing backwards and forwards between the Lords and Commons because the Government will not do the right thing and protect leaseholders from the ruinous costs of replacing cladding and remediating internal fire safety defects during construction. By refusing to do so, the Government are making liars out of all the successive Ministers—and, indeed, a Prime Minister—who have told this House that leaseholders should not pay for building defects for which they are not responsible.
Today I want to focus on the impact of the EWS1 regulations and the callous way in which another operator, FirstPort, is treating vulnerable residents in Blackberry Court in my constituency. FirstPort has written to the 27 leaseholders in Blackberry Court, which is a two-storey block of flats, to advise them that the fire safety work will cost more than £20,000. It has not provided a breakdown of costs or issued a section 20 notice, as it is legally obliged to do for any work costing more than £250 per leaseholder. What is most disturbing, however, is that FirstPort has been demanding access to the roof void through the only loft hatch, which is located in the bedroom of my constituent, who is an elderly lady of 94 years of age. FirstPort would brook no objection to this until I intervened to forestall this intrusion and asked it to create new access to the roof void from the common parts of the building. But the fact that it had not yet been able to access the void to survey it means that it must already have been aware that there was no compartmentation in the roof space. Indeed, I have discovered that Blackberry Court, which was built in 2007, never got a completion certificate, despite being covered by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. That prompts the question of why the company had not acted on this fire safety defect before. Some may suspect that the properties were unsaleable and devalued—unless the work was done—because of the EWS1 form. The Government did change the requirements on the form, but the Minister knows that the banks and the mortgage lenders have not changed their stance, nor have the insurers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman considerable leeway, but he has far exceeded the time allocated, so we must now go to Sir Robert Neill.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) [V]
I shall be supporting Lords amendment 4L today with some regret, because I wish the Government had moved to resolve this issue since we last debated it yesterday; it is disappointing that they have not done so. I support the amendment on the basis that I want the Fire Safety Bill to proceed; I want it to be successful. The truth is that, while the fundamental elements of the Bill are worthy, it none the less has, at present, the effect of causing collateral damage to innocent leaseholders. That flies in the face of undertakings that the Government themselves have regularly given. Despite the huge sums of money that has been put in, as is already apparent, it is not enough.
In the meantime, we need to have a scheme that protects leaseholders, and it is the absence of a provision in the Bill to do that which is the problem. If Lords amendment 4L is not satisfactory to the Government, then there is still time for them to produce their own. I very much hoped that the Government would have acted on the proposals in the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) yesterday. That still offers a way forward, but absent that, at least the current amendment from the Lords gives the means of protection in the interim.
At the present time, leaseholders in blocks, such as Northpoint in my constituency, have properties that are unmortgageable. They cannot move. They cannot raise any more money on them. They have already expended tens of thousands of pounds in costs relating to waking watch and greatly increased insurance claims. That is not satisfactory.
We need a provision that bridges the gap in getting those responsible to pay. None of us who supports this amendment wants the taxpayer to be picking up a blank cheque. We want those who are responsible, who were at fault, ultimately to pick up the tab, but it will take some time to pin the financial responsibility on those people. In the interim, we must have a means of protecting the innocent leaseholders. That bridging arrangement is something that only the Government are able to do. I would have hoped that accepting that, together with commitments to move swiftly in legislation in this Queen’s Speech, was not an unreasonable thing to do.
Having served as a Minister myself, I do not buy the proposition that it is beyond the resources of Government to swiftly produce legislation that remedies the alleged defect that the Minister sees in the current amendment and sets the Bill in good order. There is still time to do that. I beseech the Minister to reflect on this and to come back with the Government’s own proposals in the other House before the end of this Session.
Robustness is a virtue, but when it turns into obduracy it ceases to be a virtue. I do not want the Government to get themselves into that situation. There is still time, and this amendment buys them time to resolve that satisfactorily. I urge the Minister profoundly to listen to this.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). I agree wholeheartedly with what he said, and indeed with the comments made from the Front Bench by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and by many other Members across the House. I also support the Lords amendment, not least because of the suffering undergone by my constituents in Cardiff South and Penarth and by many others across the UK.
The Minister talked about uncertainty, but as many Members have pointed out, uncertainty is being caused by the Government’s failure to engage with reasonable proposals made from all parts of the House to provide certainty for the very leaseholders who have been affected.
The Minister’s arguments simply do not wash. Our leaseholders have been dealing with this matter for years—the anxiety, the stress and the financial pressure, not least during the covid pandemic over the past year. That has been intolerable for some of them, and I have met constituents who were crying and in a terrible state because of the situation they have been left in. I simply cannot understand the Government’s continued resistance, not least given the cross-party pressure and support.
I thank the Welsh Government—Housing Minister Julie James, my colleague Vaughan Gething and so many others—for meeting with leaseholders in my constituency. They have put pressure on developers and made a commitment to £32 million in the recent budget, and have already committed £10 million. They have an active programme on leasehold reform and, crucially, are making it clear, which the Government here seem unwilling to do, that leaseholders should not have to foot the bill for fixing these fire safety and building safety defects.
We all want the developers to pay and we all want the resources to come through, but the reality is that we all have to stand up and say clearly, once and for all, that leaseholders should not be the ones paying for the remediation. This is not their fault. I will continue to work closely on the issue with my constituency colleague Vaughan Gething, our local councillors, and a range of residents and leaseholder organisations. We are not going away. Some of the stories of how people have been affected have been told passionately today on BBC Wales—the suffering, the anxiety, the pressures.
I am yet to receive adequate response from the UK Government, who have left the Welsh Government and Welsh leaseholders in the dark on the way forward. There is no need for that unless there is something to hide. As the Minister knows, Welsh Government officials have worked constructively with his Department on the passage of the Bill, and are working on a range of issues relating to the building safety Bill, yet it took the Housing Secretary more than a month to respond to the Welsh Housing Minister on the crucial, very reasonable questions she was asking in an offer of co-operation.
I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State for Wales, the Minister and others, yet the letter that came back from the Housing Secretary over a month later said he is
“not able to confirm the details and timing of budgetary allocations to Wales”,
although he says the Barnett formula will
“apply to that funding in the usual way”.
Why can he not give a clear and unequivocal answer about the money that will be available to Wales, and how the Government will work with Welsh officials on the proposed new tax and the new building levy so that we can finally provide some assurance to leaseholders in my constituency and, crucially, across the country?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and all the Members who have spoken since the Minister sat down.
Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have said in the House and in the other place on many occasions that leaseholders would not have to pay for fire safety failures not of their making, so why do the Government still disagree with the Lords amendment? The Minister said yesterday and just now that the Government do not have time to draft appropriate amendments to the Bill in the way we seek, yet they have had seven months since Second Reading and five months since Third Reading—plenty of time to try to sort this out.
The safety scandal exposed by the Grenfell Tower fire affects up to 1.3 million flats. Current leaseholders cannot sell, and potential leaseholders cannot get new mortgages until they can prove the homes are safe. Insurance is impossible to come by. Worse, residents of those flats live with the fear of being trapped by a fire in their home. Leaseholders live with the fear of unaffordable costs for the remediation being imposed on them.
The human cost is incalculable. In my constituency alone, at the Paragon estate, built by Berkeley, about 70 homeowners, along with hundreds of assured tenants and students, were evacuated with a week’s notice and cannot return. A fire raged up the cladding of Sperry House in the middle of the Great West Quarter estate built by Barratt Homes. Leaseholders in at least 25 blocks in my constituency that were built by volume house developers face unknown costs, including for waking watch, for the replacement of flammable cladding and wooden balconies and, most expensive of all, to address the lack of fire breaks or proper compartmentalisation.
The building safety fund does not even cover the cost of cladding remediation throughout the country, let alone any of the other failures in these buildings, and it provides loans only for sub-18-metre blocks. Nor does it support housing associations with the cost of rectifying the safety failures that affect the social rented flats for which they have found themselves responsible through planning gain, so they are having to take the repair costs from the funds meant for the building of new social rented housing.
Unamended, the Bill will mean that leaseholders will be forced to pay. They should not have to pay—they did not design or build their flats and they do not own the building their flat is built in. This Parliament, with the support of this Government, could take the burden from leaseholders now, but instead we are told that we have to wait for a different Bill, the content of which is unspecified, as is its timetable. That is unacceptable.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
We have heard a lot recently about the Prime Minister’s honesty and integrity. It is important to our democracy that people can trust the word of their leaders, but this debate highlights that issue yet again. As I reminded the House yesterday, on 3 February the Prime Minister told us that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2021; Vol. 688, c. 945.]
It was a clear statement of policy—an unambiguous pledge to those who face ruin as a result of fire defects that are the responsibility of developers. Yet the Prime Minister has consistently whipped his Members to oppose amendments to the Bill that would honour his pledge.
I have listened carefully to the justifications from Ministers for opposing the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) and by the Bishop of St Albans, and we heard them again yesterday. The Minister described the amendments as “laudable in their intentions” but
“unworkable and an inappropriate means to resolve a problem as highly complex as this.”—[Official Report, 27 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 264-265.]
His ministerial colleague in the other place, the Minister for Building Safety and Communities, said that it was
“the Government’s view that the Bill is not the right legislation in which to deal with remediation costs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 April 2021; Vol. 811, c. 2207.]
So, they are not the right amendments and it is not the right legislation.
Surely the Government should embrace the new Lords amendment, because it gives them the opportunity to draft their own proposals in separate legislation and to honour the Prime Minister’s promise to leaseholders. The Minister claimed today that it will take time; the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) rightly pointed out that they have had time. It has been five months since the hon. Gentleman tabled his amendment and three months since the Prime Minister’s promise: if the Minister genuinely felt that the objectives were laudable, he has had time to come up with his own proposals. Those in the Metis building, Wicker Riverside, Daisy Spring Works and other buildings throughout my constituency deserve nothing less, because they face bills of up to £50,000 each to fix the mistakes of others. Unlike the Prime Minister, they do not have access to private donors. They face bankruptcy and ruin, trapped in homes that are unsafe and unsaleable, facing unbearable pressure and unimaginable mental strain.
We have to recognise our responsibility. The leaseholders have been let down by not just the developers but a flawed system of building inspections. They are—as I know Ministers recognise—the victims of comprehensive regulatory failure. The Government have to step in, urgently fix the faults and then recover the funds from those responsible—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Again, I have allowed considerable leeway, but the hon. Gentleman has had his time. I do not understand: when people are speaking from home, can they not see the time limit? I think that might well be the case, so perhaps someone will send a message back. Here in the Chamber we can see the time limit and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I allowed him to exceed it.
I had put on a tight time limit because I had anticipated some vigorous debate and interventions; there has not been a single intervention, which leaves plenty of time for the Minister to respond to the debate.
Christopher Pincher
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that opportunity. I am sorry that I have, unfortunately, interposed on the time that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) might otherwise have supposed to be his own; he was making a careful and passionate speech, as have the other nine right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken from the Back Benches today. I am grateful for their insight and considered contributions. I remind them and both Houses that the Government understand the aims that underpin the objectives that have been sent to us over the last several weeks by the House of Lords.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be within the Standing Orders of this House for the Government, if they chose to, to propose a carry-over motion, so that the Bill would not be lost as this Session comes to an end and the Government could then improve the amendment, which keeps coming back, quite rightly, from the House of Lords?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As ever, his experience shows in the idea that has occurred to him. I do not know whether that idea has occurred to the Government. I do not know whether, if it has occurred to the Government, they have decided to pursue it or not. Actually, I do know that: if the idea has occurred to the Government, they have decided not to pursue it. Therefore, it is not a matter for me to decide what ought to happen, nor a matter for the Chair. It is up to the Government to decide how they take this matter past this rather difficult and unusual point, where the other place has sent a Bill back on several occasions. I expect that, like me, the hon. Gentleman eagerly anticipates the outcome of this Division and then we shall see what will happen next.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4L.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As a point of clarification on the point of order raised just before the Division by the Father of the House—he will appreciate that I have now had the opportunity to consider his point more carefully—a Bill cannot, in fact, be carried over after it has been considered by the other place. I hope that that sets the mind of the Father of the House at rest about what the Government can and cannot properly do at this particular moment.
Motion made and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their Amendment 4L.
That Christopher Pincher, Tom Pursglove, Scott Mann and Chris Elmore be members of the Committee.
That Christopher Pincher be the Chair of the Committee.
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Alan Mak.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.
Madam Deputy Speaker
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet not in the Reasons Room, but in Committee Room 12.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Further to a point raised at Scottish questions today, the Auditor General in Scotland has suggested that, of £9.7 billion allocated by UK taxpayers through the UK Treasury, only £7 billion had been spent on covid-related measures by the Scottish Government by the end of 2020. This is not discretionary spending that can be diverted to other causes, such as setting money aside for a referendum, but is specifically allocated to ensure that all parts of the UK are equally able to deal with the consequences of the pandemic. Given the nature and origin of this funding, can you give me any guidance as to which Committees of the House of Commons would be the most appropriate place to investigate where this money has gone?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. If he were seeking to further the exchanges that took place during Scottish questions, his point would not, strictly speaking, be a point of order for the Chair, but I appreciate that he is asking a serious question about a serious matter. I can point him in the direction of the Public Accounts Committee, which is concerned with the regularity of spending; the Scottish Affairs Committee, which deals with non-devolved Scottish matters; and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is concerned with the operation of the devolution settlement. In pursuing the question that he raised, he might wish to take the matter up with the Chairman of one or other—or, indeed, all—of those three Select Committees.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
On a point of order, I am grateful for your clarification of the situation on the Fire Safety Bill, which is what I suspected it might be. It is obvious that the House of Commons has the opportunity of a carry-over motion only when dealing with business that is in front of it, and the other place has procedures that are similar but not exactly the same. There seems to be no precedent for what happens to a Bill that has been in both Houses, and that may be something that could properly be considered by the Speakers or the Procedure Committees of each House. In this particular case, as a carry-over motion is not possible, were the House of Lords to go on sending back helpful amendments and this Bill were to fail, if it were re-presented with the problem of the future burdens for leaseholders solved, it could pass both Houses within a day.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Father of the House raises a most interesting point. He is right in saying that if the Bill were now to fail, a similar Bill with similar purposes could be brought forward by the Government in the next Session of Parliament. As to whether it could pass quickly through both Houses, or either House, is, as ever, a matter for Members of this House and, indeed, of the other place. If Members choose to make very short contributions and allow a Bill to pass through quickly, and if the Government choose to put all stages of a Bill in one day before this House and, indeed, the other place, the House of Commons as a whole and the Government could make those decisions, and it is not for me to anticipate what might happen. I thank the Father of the House for his second interesting point of order.
I am obliged to suspend the House for three minutes to allow arrangements to be made for the next item of business.
Capital Gains Tax
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Double Taxation Relief (Sweden) Order 2021, which was laid before this House on 15 March.
Jesse Norman
Both orders insert important provisions recommended by the OECD’s and G20’s base erosion and profit shifting project—BEPS—into existing double taxation agreements. For those Members who may, surprisingly, be unfamiliar with the BEPS project, it was an international effort to equip countries with the right domestic and international regulations to tackle tax avoidance. The BEPS provisions ensure that double taxation agreements fulfil their main purpose of facilitating global trade and investment. In addition, the provisions simultaneously limit the opportunity for the agreements to be used for tax evasion or avoidance.
Usually improvements to our bilateral double taxation agreements recommended by the BEPS project are made under a treaty commonly referred to as the multilateral instrument, which makes it possible to modify double taxation agreements in line with BEPS project provisions without the need for bilateral renegotiation. However, the domestic legal systems of both Germany and Sweden mean that it is much simpler for these countries to modify their double taxation agreements through amending protocols rather than through a multilateral treaty. As a result, the UK Government have agreed with both Germany and Sweden to implement these modifications through the protocols attached to these orders. These changes included introducing minimum standards to prevent avoidance through the abuse of tax treaties and improving the resolution of disputes.
The protocols with both Germany and Sweden give effect to the minimum standard on preventing treaty abuse. This is achieved by inserting a general anti-treaty abuse rule known as the principal purpose test into the double taxation agreement. Both protocols also changed the preamble of each double taxation agreement, which sets out its overriding purpose in order to clarify that the parties do not intend for the agreement to be used to avoid tax. The orders also make changes to the articles in both double taxation agreements that govern how disputes are avoided and resolved. These amendments ensure that the articles are in line with the minimum standard on improving dispute resolution. However, the Germany protocol implements a rule to prevent the artificial fragmentation of activities that might result in an overseas business avoiding a taxable presence. Sweden is not in favour of this provision, which is why it is absent from that protocol.
These orders make good on the Government’s international commitments to tackle tax avoidance and evasion and to improve dispute resolution. They strengthen the integrity of the UK’s network of double taxation agreements, which plays such an important part in facilitating the cross-border trade and investment that benefits all our nations. I commend the orders to the House.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition to the motion concerning these two statutory instruments.
The two orders bring into effect arrangements between the United Kingdom and Germany and Sweden, respectively, as set out in the bilateral protocol signed earlier this year. Both protocols amend existing arrangements between the two relevant Governments for the avoidance of double taxation and the prevention of fiscal evasion with regard to taxes on income and capital gains. We will not oppose the Government on this motion. The protocols that the motion seeks to bring in would give effect to certain provisions recommended by the base erosion and profit shifting, or BEPS, project to protect tax treaties against avoidance activities. As the Minister will know, we welcome any provisions to combat tax avoidance and evasion. However, I would appreciate his addressing in his response some important questions and concerns about how the changes are being introduced and their wider context.
First, the total parliamentary scrutiny of these changes comprises the current debate, which has three speakers and is unlikely to last more than half an hour. This differs greatly from the standard practice in other countries. In the United States, for instance, tax treaties must be considered by a fully staffed congressional committee. That raises an important question about transparency and accountability as we find parliamentary scrutiny lacking. Perhaps, however, we should not be surprised by this Government seeking to avoid scrutiny. Just last week, the Government voted down a Labour amendment to scrutinise the impact of their policies on tax avoidance and evasion. That sense of a lack of transparency is compounded by the fact that the explanatory notes on the orders simply paraphrase the treaty changes in largely technical language and, therefore, do little to elucidate the matter for a wider audience.
Inaccessible explanations are an obstacle to full, open accountability. The explanatory notes explain that the protocols will have
“no, or no significant, impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies.”
Will the Minister explain what that implies about the revenue implications of the protocols being enacted?
Finally, as these orders relate to international tax avoidance and evasion, will the Minister further clarify, for the avoidance of any doubt, whether the Chancellor backs plans for a global minimum corporate tax rate, as proposed by the US President. The Financial Secretary may recall that I asked him this question in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill last week. He said that the Government
“welcome the renewed commitment that the US Administration have made in this area”.—[Official Report, 20 April 2021; Vol. 692, c. 914.]
That was not quite a yes to a global minimum corporate tax rate, so again I put a very simple question to the Minister: does the Chancellor back the plans proposed by the US President?
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This is the first time I have stood to speak in the House since January 2020. During the past year and a bit, like so many of our constituents, I have been battling with the black dog of depression. I know that so many people have, and I crave your indulgence for a small moment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Please, if you know somebody who has not been themselves recently, reach out to them, ask them if they are okay, let them know it is okay not to be okay. Offer them help but, most importantly, let them know that you are there when they are ready to talk, or if they are ready to talk. It is hugely important that all our constituents understand they are not battling this alone. There are so many of us.
I have a few questions on these two orders, and I am delighted that somebody else, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), has criticisms of the explanatory notes. I have got on my high horse about this. Do not worry, I could talk for 30 minutes—we could be here for far longer than that—but I promise I will not.
The explanatory notes are generally not very good. They do not give us enough information, and the specific issue of significant impact is a concern. The rules on explanatory notes in the “Ministerial Code” state what “no significant impact” means, but I would consider these orders to have a significant impact. The definition in the “Ministerial Code” needs to be broadened and, in general, explanatory notes for all Bills need to be better at explaining. We also need more impact assessments to be provided with Bills, because we need to know the impact on the public sector and the private sector, and on charitable organisations. The definition needs to be much wider than if a measure meets a certain threshold of millions.
The SNP supports these orders, and we look forward to the UK working more closely with other EU partners, including, in the future, an independent Scotland. On the tax evasion issues that may occur as a result, the UK, even though it has the treaty general anti-avoidance rules, still does not have a comprehensive general anti-avoidance rule for taxation. The SNP has stood on that platform, talking about it on a huge number of occasions, and it is unfortunate that the Government have not yet been willing to come forward with comprehensive regulation, particularly when HMRC is saying there was a tax gap in 2018-19 of £35 billion, which is 5.6% of the total tax liability. We need to have that rule.
The shadow Minister spoke about minimum corporate tax levels and the Biden plan. It is important that the UK Government, instead of attempting to water down these proposals, stand with them, support the need for a minimum corporate tax level and, for once, stand to strengthen international tax law rather than to weaken it. The UK Government have not, in many recent years, taken the lead on this. If we are to be this wonderful, independent nation that the Conservatives suggest that we are, it is right that we should take the lead on tax measures and say absolutely that we support the minimum corporate tax level and that we are backing it to ensure a better, more level playing field internationally.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am sure the whole House will have heard what the hon. Lady said. She is courageous to give her advice here in the Chamber, and people would do well to listen to her advice. We are glad to see her back.
Jesse Norman
I very much thank the two hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. May I start, Madam Deputy Speaker, by associating myself very much with the remarks that you made to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)? I think it is absolutely in order and right for her to bring this very important issue back to the House. To do so in such a personal way only gives it additional force. I doubt that there is a Member of this House whose own life has not been affected in one way or another by the concerns that she describes—the black dog of depression or whatever it may be—either personally or among their family or friends. The diversity of opinion in this House is something we all welcome, but so too should there be diversity in our recognition of other people and their feelings and suffering, so I very much thank her for that.
The hon. Lady raised a question that the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) also raised about explanatory notes. Both Members will have seen that, actually, both these measures have quite full explanatory memorandums associated with them. Of course, there is always a balance to be struck between the depth and detail into which an explanatory memorandum goes and the desire not to provide so much detail that it becomes illegible or incomprehensible to a normal reader. I think the point is constantly right to be borne in mind that we should be as clear and explicit as possible on these matters. The point is very well made. It is a point that we have pushed very hard, and certainly I and colleagues have pushed very hard with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the work that it does more widely on guidance. In this case, because these measures sit alongside a host of other instruments, including the multilateral instrument, which was debated in the House, it is certainly true that there is a degree of scrutiny and awareness—or there could be a degree of scrutiny and awareness—associated with them.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North also mentioned the question of a general anti-avoidance rule. I am sure she knows that it has been an important feature of our approach to double taxation agreements that we have included a principal purpose test in tax treaties, either through bilateral negotiation or through the multilateral instrument. That itself is a very important, wide anti-abuse measure, developed through the BEPS project, which protects a treaty against the abuse of its provisions. We are deploying it widely across double taxation agreements, and it has much of the force of the measure that she describes.
The hon. Member for Ealing North raised the wider question of scrutiny. If I may say so, the argument would have more force if any other Opposition Members had chosen to speak in this debate and to exercise that scrutiny. I think that in general, these matters, for the reasons I have described, are tolerably well understood. We have a multilateral instrument, the measures follow a common format, and opportunity is given to Members across the House, including from the Opposition parties, to offer scrutiny. They can choose to exercise that or not.
In relation to revenue, the hon. Gentleman will see that the explanatory notes say that there are no new tax burdens imposed by these measures. In a way, that is as it should be, because their purpose is to secure and safeguard trade and to prevent abuse; they are not, in and of themselves, tax revenue-raising measures.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about the global minimum tax rate and whether I would expand on my remarks in Committee of the whole House. I am not going to do that, because I do not think it is appropriate for Ministers to comment on tax policy in flight, as it were. We have said we very much welcome the proactive stance that the Biden Administration are taking towards this issue. We have been a very strong advocate for these wider measures—the two pillars, pillar one and pillar two—in the OECD and the G20. I know the Chancellor feels strongly about the importance of our leadership of the G7 as a way of consolidating this progress in tax.
Jesse Norman
I am just winding up. If the hon. Lady does not mind, I will finish up. We will therefore continue to press forward on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Capital Gains Tax
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will very briefly suspend the House, for two minutes, in order that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Insolvency
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 375), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 March, be approved.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, as we discuss this important extension on the Floor of the House. It is now more than a year since the emergence of covid-19, and the Government have consistently taken the swift action needed to save lives and mitigate damage to the economy. The Government’s successful roll-out of the vaccine programme and the implementation of the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown are both reasons for cautious optimism that we will soon enjoy a return to normality. To date, in excess of 33 million people have had a vaccination, and the British public have risen to the challenge of suppressing the spread of the virus by sticking to the rules, getting tested when necessary and following the guidance on hands, face, space and letting fresh air in.
We are not out of the woods yet, however, and the emergence of new strains of the virus means that this is not the time to become complacent. Social distancing measures introduced to limit the spread of the virus and help to save lives continue to have an effect on business, and the Government recognise that. Although most businesses have been able to reopen, many continue to face uncertainty and financial difficulties. Therefore, an extension is needed to the duration of the temporary insolvency measures currently in place for the protection they provide.
These regulations extend until 30 June the suspension of serving statutory demands and the restriction of filing petitions to wind up companies; the small supplier exemption and termination clause provisions; and the suspension of wrongful trading liability. In addition, the modifications to the moratorium provisions and the temporary moratorium rules are extended until 30 September 2021.
I hope the House will agree that these regulations are necessary, but I assure Members that we will keep them under constant review. I commend these regulations to the House.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Well, here we are again. The Minister and his officials, who have heard me make the same speech numerous times, are in for a little treat today, because I am going to detour slightly from my usual remarks, which have centred a bit around “I told you so” on extending these provisions. Today I also want to touch on some of the wider insolvency framework issues that I think are pertinent now.
I welcome the Government’s extending the safety net for businesses in distress because of the pandemic. As I said when we supported the emergency legislation last year, we welcome any measures that support businesses that close to keep us safe. We argued then that the protections in the 2020 Act should be extended over a longer period of time. I think this is now the third time—possibly the fourth time—that we have come together to extend them, on each occasion, unfortunately, causing real uncertainty and worry for businesses in the run-up to each previous expiry date.
As the economy reopens and restrictions ease, it is right that these measures are kept under review. Through the crisis, we have called on Ministers to ensure that economic support matches the public health measures in place. While we have seen welcome support for workers through the furlough, there have still been gaps in Government support that they have repeatedly failed to address. There is a cash crisis facing firms with high ongoing overheads but still no income coming in and those excluded from all Government support, and little or no help for those sectors still closed and likely to be closed or uncertain for some time, such as travel, large events and weddings, and the visitor economy.
As I have said before, we are very concerned about the levels of debt facing businesses, whether that is through the loans they have taken, the VAT they have deferred or the rent holiday they have had, but soon have to start repaying. These measures are welcome in staving off creditors, but they just kick the can down the road, and do little to change the fundamentals facing so many firms of large covid debt and low or no takings while the fight against covid continues. The bombshell that businesses face remains real, and that is why Labour has argued for a student loan-style scheme, in which covid debt can be repaid as businesses grow, so that we do not see waves of insolvencies. There is nothing in the provisions today to deal with those fundamentals.
Turning to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act provisions in general, it is clear that some of the issues we have warned about are coming home to roost, particularly when we look at the impact of Greensill Capital’s administration on the Gupta Family Group and Liberty Steel. The Government have consistently ducked the need for wider reform of our insolvency laws, particularly in providing greater protection and support for key industries and their workers. We argued for and sought to amend the legislation to this effect, and it is not too late for the Government to act.
It is clear from reports that the gulls are circling, and regardless of whatever judgment people make about GFG, the Liberty Steel plants are a critical asset to our economic and national security, and employ thousands of highly skilled workers directly and through the supply chain. The company must be given time to refinance, but if that is not successful, then the Government must keep every option open and have a plan for all eventualities to save the UK steelmaking capacity and its supply chain. However, our insolvency laws mean that there is no safe place to refinance or protect this company’s assets until it might be too late, all the while leaving the company searching for refinancing while trying to retain the confidence of suppliers and customers, who risk the most should it fail.
In the US, they have chapter 11 to shepherd important industries facing distress. There, the authorities are able to wrap their arms around strategically important companies to allow them time to resolve difficulties, refinance or restructure. The chapter 11 process, should we have that here, would have created a better context for the refinancing of Liberty Steel, without the spotlight and falling confidence. We argued for its inclusion in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. Ministers could have brought forward changes on that today, but unfortunately they seem content to let the company fail first. We know that this has a high cost for the suppliers as well.
Even without changes to the insolvency laws, if there is a political will, there could be a way. Ministers should not be bystanders. They should intervene early, before liquidation if necessary, and that would mean that workers would not lose their accrued services benefit as well as protecting the supply chain. When the Minister gets to his feet, I hope that he will reflect on the wider point about how we can protect nationally important businesses in future and assure us that his Government will do whatever it takes to save Liberty Steel from insolvency.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
First, I commend the Government on the UK Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 and for putting in place, at such speed, both temporary and permanent measures at such a deeply troubling time for businesses. My hon. Friend the Minister will be pleased, as I am, and possibly a bit surprised, as I am, to see that statistics from the Insolvency Service show that the number of registered company insolvencies in March 2021 was 20% lower than in the same month in 2020 and 37% lower than in March 2019. I certainly know of many businesses in my constituency that have survived the pandemic thanks only to the extraordinary measures put in place by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury to help them get through.
In the call for evidence that is outstanding on the performance of CIGA, it will be interesting to see whether feedback from businesses suggests that they needed the temporary measures or the financial support, or both, and to what extent. Certainly, the evidence points to the fact that schemes such as bounce back loans, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme and furloughing have done a critical job in protecting lives and livelihoods. There may be the need in the future for further flexibility and, I point out to the Minister, interest on coronavirus business interruption loans and potentially more support for weddings and events organisations may well be needed in future to protect them.
I briefly wanted to mention the bigger picture. The Minister will be only too aware that insolvency legislation is not like the proverbial London bus—we do not have none coming along for years and then lots all at once—so I worry that while there have been some good, permanent changes to the insolvency rules brought in with CIGA, there are nevertheless some areas, particularly of corporate governance, where, during my time in BEIS, I was keen to see real reform. I hope that the audit reform work that is under way and the forthcoming employment rights Bill might offer vehicles for wider corporate governance changes. In particular, I would be keen to have an update from the Minister on what is still being done at BEIS to consider some specific issues, such as the roles and responsibilities of directors, the speed of insolvency evaluations post-fact and consideration of the responsibilities of board directors. We have seen some major corporate failures in recent years, including companies such as BHS, Carillion and Thomas Cook, and very legitimate questions have been asked about the performance of the directors of those businesses, whose failures have had such a disastrous impact on lives and livelihoods.
There is also the very real question of whether companies should do more through new statutory responsibilities to protect employees’ pensions, to ensure diversity of the workforce and, of course, importantly, to address their carbon footprint. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that these issues remain very live in his Department, and I would be keen to know, specifically, if he can point me to forthcoming opportunities to press these matters further.
In conclusion, I encourage all those who have an interest in the broader issue of corporate governance to take part in the current call for evidence on insolvency rules. It is a great opportunity for business owners and industry professionals to give their feedback on these two important areas. I hope that the imperative of putting in place excellent temporary measures to help businesses survive during the pandemic does not get in the way of consideration of the bigger picture of good corporate governance.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). To pick up her comments, it is incredibly important that we look at the future of corporate governance and audit. We must make sure that the report is looked at carefully so that decisions are made to ensure not just that investors can scrutinise those organisations but that consumers can do so and work out whether or not they want to be involved in them on the basis of their annual report and audit. People would get a better idea of the risk they would be under if those processes were more open and transparent. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by the right hon. Lady.
On the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, there is an extension for some of its provisions to the end of June this year, and an extension to September for other provisions. I am concerned that there have been so many extensions—30 June is very soon—that the Government will end up having to come back with another extension. Even if the pathway that has been laid out by the Prime Minister comes to fruition, and even if we end up with pretty much everything going back to normal in some ways by the end of June—I doubt that we will, by the way—it will not be a five-minute job for businesses to recover. They will not be back on their feet immediately; they will not suddenly make up the money that they have spent, or pay back the loans that they have had to take out during this period. They will not even be able to take back all their employees full time if social distancing continues, for example. I am concerned that there is not enough time, and if the Government intend to make a further extension, it would be useful for those organisations to be aware that that extension is likely. I would prefer such an extension to have been made already, but an extension to September for all the measures would have been slightly more helpful.
We have spoken about the impact on companies, but insolvency also has an impact on the supply chain. In particular, self-employed individuals have been missed out of the furlough scheme, and if some of those organisations go under, they are more likely than others to be hit as a result of their being part of that supply chain and their role in supporting those businesses. We are looking at the big picture, which is great, but I am concerned that there is not enough focus on the knock-on impact, particularly on those groups that have been missed out and have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic.
I am a representative for Aberdeen, and we have had a triple whammy of Brexit, covid and the reduction in oil prices in recent times. That affects not just the big companies making megabucks profits in the oil industry, but the smaller companies that are producing tech for renewables as well as tech for oil and gas extraction. We do not want to lose that intellectual property—that tech—in renewables, and we must ensure that support continues to be available, so that if big organisations fail, despite what the Government have put in, smaller companies can keep going if they have the potential to become profitable in future.
It would be useful if the Minister reassured me that the Government are not just looking at the big picture but paying attention to the smaller organisations that may not be covered by the measure, particularly in the light of the concerns that we have expressed on numerous occasions about self-employed individuals being missed out from the furlough schemes. We are concerned that they may be missed out when we look at the future of this as well.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
As the Minister said, we are not out of the woods yet. There is a very long way to go, and it is right that we protect businesses that would be viable were it not for the pandemic and the resulting loss of revenue. These regulations play their part, but as the long-term impact of these challenges begin to make themselves known, it is clear that these measures are only part of the answer.
There are significant question marks over how the Government plan to support businesses in the long term. For example, in the absence of an impact assessment, it is unclear which businesses are benefiting from the exemption on the rules about wrongful trading. What contribution does the Minister believe the regulations have made in enabling businesses to recover? After the imminent end of the lockdown restrictions, businesses will continue to need support to recover, and it would be helpful to understand whether these regulations have worked up to now and what the likely impact of their removal will be.
Three million is the estimated number of individuals in business who have been wholly or partly excluded from financial support by this Government over the past year. That includes around 2 million owner-managers, also known as the ForgottenLtd, as well as the self-employed, freelancers, women who became pregnant and people who changed jobs at the wrong time. Let us remember that half of the excluded groups have not even been able to claim universal credit.
Similarly, we need to know the impact on businesses repaying the emergency coronavirus loans—CBILS, coronavirus large business interruption loans and bounce back loans. As we head closer to the end of the lockdown cliff edge, those businesses that took out loans and have been unable to trade will need to know what the implications are for them, their staff and, indeed, the economy as a whole. Let us not forget the 7.5 million employees of the ForgottenLtd, who will need to know what will happen to them, their jobs and the companies they work for when the loans have to be repaid.
Before the Minister says that the ForgottenLtd owner-managers took out loans and therefore had support, he should note that those loans were for their business costs, including for rates and for energy or electricity for equipment. Many owner-managers have been unable to pay themselves through furlough as they are paid dividends. Unless businesses have time to rebuild their profitability, they will simply be unable to restart because of the deferred business rates, corporate and personal taxes and covid loans.
There is a real problem of massive potential unemployment and business closure unless the end of the regulations is not just the start of financial problems induced by forced repayment—repayment that is simply not possible without sufficient income having first been re-established. According to the Government’s own Business Banking Resolution Service, nearly half of small businesses that have taken out emergency coronavirus loans do not intend to repay them, not because they do not want to but because they will not be able to do so. Are company owners right to be concerned that the end of the regulations will mean that business are forced to close because of an inability to pay mounting debts and the associated legal problems of trading insolvently?
The Government declined to support the excluded groups, but it was not because of a lack of money. Billions of pounds were available for friends of the Health and Social Care Secretary, for the International Trade Secretary’s adviser and for £7,000-a-day consultants to a centralised contact tracing system that still does not work, and having the Chancellor or the Prime Minister’s phone number meant paydays for moguls in the realm of millions of pounds. Will money now be available so that businesses can start the process of recovery, their staff can keep their jobs after furlough ends, and debt repayments can be delayed until they can be afforded? Will the Government adopt Labour’s suggestion of allowing businesses to wait to repay loans until they are making enough money to do so, in a way similar to that adopted for the repayment of student loans?
More than 1 million small businesses do not expect to recover from this pandemic, which is why we need to know where the regulations fit into the strategy for economic recovery. Millions of microbusinesses and owners of small and medium-sized business are trying to figure out how they are going to put food on the table and pay their workers. More needs to be done to give businesses stability and security than just extending the existing provisions again and again. That means looking at proper business support and enabling smaller firms, microbusinesses, sole traders and self-employed workers—all of them—direct access to Government contracts. That is how the US Small Business Administration operates. Why not do the same in the United Kingdom?
Does the Minister share my concern that, through David Cameron’s access to the Chancellor, Lex Greensill made so much progress in proposing invoice factoring in the public sector? The public sector is supposed to follow the prompt payment code. Why were Ministers and officials even considering invoice factoring? Will the Government use the recovery from the crisis as a reason to revisit the prompt payment code’s effectiveness, and particularly to ensure that smaller firms and microbusinesses are paid in 30 days? Direct procurement and payment in 30 days for small and microbusinesses are just two ways in which firms can be supported, alongside a delay in debt repayment. I hope the Minister will respond to those suggestions. I also hope he will empower the Small Business Commissioner with the proper resources to insist on prompt payment, including in the public sector.
The Minister could do worse than look at the United States, where they know the value of small businesses to the economy. The US Federal Reserve bank found that 30% of small businesses in the US—that is 9 million of them—did not expect to survive 2021 without assistance, which is why the US Small Business Administration has been tasked with supporting small businesses to build back better, alongside President Biden’s American Rescue Plan Act. In the UK, more than 1 million small businesses face similar concerns. Would it not be great if the UK had a small business administration to look after microbusinesses, the self-employed and SMEs? As the Minister should know, it is vital to distinguish between those fundamentally different types of business. The US Small Business Administration shows clear intent to support smaller businesses as part of a concerted and thought-out plan for the long term, not just a quick fix.
The excluded groups, the ForgottenLtd owner-managers, microbusinesses, sole traders and partnership businesses can all be viable again, but they need a plan that goes beyond the end of measures such as the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020. The failure to plan will lead to disaster for millions of people and just add to the significant problems that we have already seen as we come out of the crisis and into recovery.
Paul Scully
I thank Members for their valuable contributions to this debate—and, indeed, to the other, general debate I seem to have been hearing about coronavirus support beyond the regulations. Members have highlighted the importance of the measures that the regulations extend and the necessity of extending them so that businesses can continue to benefit from them.
I welcome the return to working with the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). We are in a grander setting than usual, but the conversation remains. I understand her concern about the fact that we have come back to extend these regulations, but it is important to remember that they contain some important powers on things such as wrongful trading and the moratorium, and that we are holding a lot of things in stasis. It is right that we get the balance right between giving businesses the certainty that she rightly asks for and using Government interventions in these matters sparingly and continuing to scrutinise them in this place. I would rather that we come back and do our work regularly than overstep in respect of these powers and intervene too much in the economy. It is important to keep an eye on these things.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of those businesses that have been excluded, or that have been coming back with requests for more support, including the travel sector, the wedding sector and the visitor economy as well. They are all hugely important businesses and sectors that are vital for our recovery. We are working on all those areas. We have the global travel taskforce. My colleagues in the Department for Transport are working on international travel. I am working with colleagues on weddings. The Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), is working on events and domestic tourism. All of these areas will be hugely important not just for the economy as a whole, but to get our towns and cities back open again. As Minister for London, that is something that I feel and see on a day-to-day basis.
The hon. Lady talked about Greensill and Liberty. Clearly, there are concerns here that need to be addressed, but, obviously, speculation about Liberty Steel and other businesses can in itself cause uncertainty to investors, employees, and people seeking to work with those companies. We are monitoring the situation. We are engaging with Liberty Steel, and we are engaging with the unions. I know that the owners of Liberty Steel are seeking a market solution, but we will continue to monitor that situation. We are also engaging with the sector, with trade unions and with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we can develop a long-term, sustainable future for the UK steel industry, because it clearly has an incredibly important role in the UK.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), erstwhile Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, that we want to make sure that, within our Department, we are building on her excellent work in the areas of audit reform and corporate governance. She rightly pointed out some significant failures, including BHS and Carillion to name just two, and we want to make sure that we can work on that within our audit reform work. We have already published a consultation to enhance the UK’s audit control and regulation, and we will make sure that we have full debates in this place as we bring those proposals forward for scrutiny in Parliament and in terms of legislation.
Let me turn now to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). I would like to pass on my thanks to others who noted her comments on depression in a previous debate. It is so, so important to speak out. I really welcome her personalised appeal to people, making sure that they know that it is okay not to be okay. They were wise words, and words that we must all take on board. There has been a mental health aspect to the lockdown. Obviously, business uncertainty plays a part. There are lots of businesses, small and large, that I see and hear from on a day-to-day basis, which are incredibly stressed and incredibly worried. I valued her words.
The hon. Lady talked about companies struggling to get back on their feet. Clearly, that is the case. I do not want to get into a wider debate about coronavirus support, but we realise that, with many of these measures, there is the risk of cliff edges, and we will continue to work through those and to flex to make sure that we can support businesses. She talked about smaller organisations as well, especially around tech and IP. Yes, we must make sure that we are working on those, too.
Over the past year, businesses have faced an exceptionally challenging time, with many unable to trade, or their ability to trade at full capacity restricted owing to social distancing measures. These regulations will provide the much needed support for businesses as we continue with the Government’s four-step road map out of lockdown, allowing them to concentrate their best efforts on reopening or continuing to trade and building on the foundations for economic recovery in the UK. We want to get to that economic recovery.
Finally, let me answer the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). When he was looking to throw this open to a wider debate, I think he missed the strengthening of our prompt payment code, which was done in consultation with the signatories to the payment code, and indeed the fact that we have got more to sign up to that as well. When he was looking for a wider debate about coronavirus, he also missed the plan for growth, which does exactly what it says on the tin. It looks beyond these measures. It is a plan and, funnily enough, it is a plan for growth, which goes beyond 30 June. Careful consideration has been given to extending these temporary measures, and the Government will continue to monitor the situation closely.
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 375), dated 22 March 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 24 March, be approved.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister claimed that
“last night our friends in the European Union voted to approve our Brexit deal, which he opposed.”
That is totally incorrect. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in an extraordinary sitting of this House of Commons on 30 December 2020, the Leader of the Opposition and the whole Labour party voted for the Brexit deal agreed by the Government and the EU. As limited as it was, we backed it and avoided a no-deal scenario. Do you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is vital that the Prime Minister returns to the House today to swiftly correct the record?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I hope she will appreciate that it is not really a point of order for me, but I am sure that the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and will report it back in the usual way, through the usual channels. The hon. Lady has obviously also placed it on the record by raising the point of order in the way that she has.
We will have a short two-minute suspension for cleaning before the next business.
Immigration
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 270 / Noes: 358 - Question accordingly negatived.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2021 (S.I., 2021, No. 184), dated 23 February 2021, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25 February 2021, be revoked.
On behalf of my party, let me say that it is entirely right that we have the opportunity to debate in the House of Commons the incredibly serious changes proposed in this motion. Quite frankly, it is remarkable that the Government sought to introduce these changes as a negative statutory instrument—through the back door without any opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny at all.
This statutory instrument will remove protections in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that sought to prevent potential victims of trafficking from being held unnecessarily in immigration detention. The changes are due to come into effect on 25 May, following an extremely limited consultation with a select few groups, which had just two weeks to respond.
The consultation, which did not seek to engage with any trafficking survivor groups, was described as “poor practice” by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Given that the changes are being made alongside those outlined in the Government’s new plan for immigration, published last month, we are gravely concerned by the Government’s desire to erode the rights and protections for victims of some of the most heinous examples of exploitation.
To be clear, the proposals will amend the adults at risk in immigration detention statutory guidance by removing paragraph 18 on trafficking cases. That means that, from 25 May, decisions about the detention of potential victims of human trafficking will be made without reference to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 guidance, which made it clear that potential victims of trafficking are automatically considered unsuitable for detention unless there are public order reasons that militate against that. As a result, a decision will now be assessed within the much broader adults at risk framework, which considers a range of vulnerabilities, with the latest figure suggesting that about 39% of those detained in immigration detention are considered adults at risk.
A range of immigration factors is considered as part of the decision-making process and those factors go far wider than public order. They can include a history of offending, but additionally whether the person’s immigration history includes having entered the country irregularly, not having claimed asylum immediately, or having failed to comply with Home Office reporting requirements.
Often, having been a victim of trafficking leaves such individuals unable to satisfy those requirements. Being subject to coercive control commonly results in an individual entering the country outside approved routes or being unable to claim asylum immediately. Furthermore, to benefit from a stronger protection against detention once brought under the adults at risk guidance, potential victims of trafficking with a positive initial reasonable-grounds decision will now need to provide additional professional evidence demonstrating not only that they are an adult at risk, but that detention is likely to cause them harm. Therefore, the primary impact of the changes will be that potential victims of trafficking are detained, and detained for longer. That is the view not only of the Opposition and various specialist stakeholders, but of the Government.
In response to concerns raised, the Home Office admitted that some individuals might, as a result of the changes, be more likely to be detained or have their detention continued. Why, therefore, do the Government continue to press ahead when they are well aware of the damage and distress that will cause, particularly considering that they seek to deliver the changes through a statutory instrument considered under the negative procedure—deeming them unworthy of debate and scrutiny?
I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who secured a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue just yesterday. That demonstrates that there are serious concerns about the proposals across the House. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the debate, and it seems that the Government seek to justify the changes by saying that a similar protection will be provided through casework guidance and training, which we have not yet seen and can only trust will be published in due course.
We also expect that changes will be made to the caseworker guidance, such as the increase in requirements for medical evidence, which will further weaken the protections for victims of trafficking. For example, there are plans to introduce quality standards for external medical evidence in the adults at risk policy, including proposals to limit the weight of remote assessment, and a stipulation that healthcare professionals should have all the immigration documents and medical records relating to conditions, which a potential victim might not be comfortable disclosing or be able to disclose.
Yesterday, the Minister emphasised his pride at this country’s leading role in identifying and protecting victims of modern slavery, but he also stressed that a rebalancing is required—if I have understood correctly—between protections for victims and immigration controls. He identified what he said is, by design, an “extremely low threshold” for a reasonable-grounds modern slavery decision whereby there is a requirement only to suspect, rather than to prove, someone is a potential victim of trafficking, and explained that the Government are looking to make adjustments to that, as set out in the new plan for immigration.
I am sorry to say that all that is delivering a downgrading of those protections, which we could have been proud of. That is an erosion of existing safeguards and it will undoubtedly increase the risk of vulnerable individuals being retraumatised in detention.
We are concerned not only by the implications of this statutory instrument but by the way in which the Government have sought to circumvent good practice and due diligence in their processes. The consultation period lasted just two weeks during the summer of last year, without the presence of specialist stakeholders and organisations. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has aptly described the consultation as “poor practice”. Shockingly, the Government did not consult the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner or her office on these proposals. I very much hope that the Minister has read Dame Sara Thornton’s letter dated 19 April outlining a range of issues with the proposals.
As many will already be aware, survivors of modern slavery are at increased risk of long-term depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide attempts and health complications. Last week, the Royal College of Psychiatrists published a statement saying that it believes that detention centres are likely to precipitate a significant deterioration in mental health in most cases, greatly increasing both the suffering of the individual and the risk of suicide and self-harm. In 2017 the Government promised a scheme called Places of Safety to allow survivors to access their rights soon after being identified in settings such as police raids or labour inspections. That would have given survivors an opportunity to access legal representation and advocacy while at their most vulnerable, as well as increasing the number of successful trafficking referrals to decision makers. Sadly, the Places of Safety scheme was never delivered, and as a result thousands of suspected slavery survivors were identified but never referred for support or decision making. I would very much like to know what has happened to that scheme, so will the Minister clarify that? An additional concern is the Government’s decision to cancel the pilot schemes exploring community alternatives to detention. I hope the Minister can also give some clarity to that crazy decision.
These changes represent a significant downgrading of the protections against detention currently given to potential victims of human trafficking. The Government say they want to introduce this statutory instrument so that the adults at risk policy can be used as the single mechanism for vulnerable individuals, in order to clamp down on the policy anomaly that currently exists. To perceive such legislative change purely in terms of fixing a policy anomaly fails to acknowledge the devastating impact it will have on vulnerable victims and represents this Government’s concerning approach to wider immigration policy.
The Government have previously stressed that a reduction in the number of people in detention is a key aspect of the series of reforms they are making across the detention system, yet this statutory instrument will achieve the exact opposite. Regrettably, it represents the Government’s failure to offer a solution that is compassionate, fair and deserving of vulnerable victims of human trafficking.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her speech. As she said, this matter was debated just yesterday in a Westminster Hall debate that was attended by one colleague.
Let me start by reiterating the Government’s commitment to tackling modern slavery. The UK has led the world in protecting victims of this heinous crime. We will continue to support those who have suffered intolerable abuse at the hands of criminals and traffickers, and we will do everything in our power to ensure that perpetrators face justice. In a further demonstration of our commitment to supporting victims of modern slavery, the new modern slavery victim care contract went live in January this year, with an estimated whole-life cost of £379 million over its five-year lifetime. It will deliver a better service that it is needs-based and will do even more to look after individual victims.
It is worth mentioning that last year there were about 10,000 claims by victims of modern slavery and we made about 10,000 positive reasonable grounds decisions. That is, I think, one of the highest numbers, if not the highest, in Europe, and it is many times higher than in comparably sized European countries. So there is no question but that the United Kingdom leads Europe in its work on protecting victims of modern slavery. We have also embarked on an ambitious national referral mechanism transformation programme to do even more work than we are doing already. We have, moreover, launched a review of the 2014 modern slavery strategy that will allow us to build further on the progress made.
Although our commitment to cracking down on these appalling crimes remains undiminished, being recognised as a potential victim of modern slavery does not and should not automatically result in being granted immigration status in the UK or immunity from immigration proceedings. There may be potential victims or victims of modern slavery who have no lawful basis to remain in the UK, some of whom will be dangerous foreign national offenders, and about whom we are faced with decisions about using detention lawfully as a means of securing their removal. That is especially true when other options, including voluntary return, have been exhausted. Where we are faced with these decisions it is important that they are made in a way that is consistent, fair and balanced.
The shadow Minister mentioned detention, and it is worth saying that the use of detention for immigration purposes has been reduced significantly. The number of people in immigration detention in December 2019, before the pandemic started, was about half the level reported in September 2017. Moreover, of those entering immigration detention in 2019, I believe, from memory, that 39% spent only a week and about 75% spent less than 28 days in immigration detention. It is used sparingly and only where necessary to deliver our immigration rules properly.
The rules we are discussing today rectify an anomaly in the existing policy to bring detention decisions for potential victims of modern slavery within the scope of the adults at risk policy. That is the policy we use to make detention decisions for vulnerable people, including those with serious physical or mental health disabilities. At present, the adults at risk policy requires detention decisions for potential victims of modern slavery to be made with reference to separate Modern Slavery Act 2015 statutory guidance. That guidance does not steer decision makers in how to balance a person’s vulnerability against other considerations when making detention decisions, but makes reference only to public order, as the shadow Minister said.
We believe that the adults at risk policy, which already caters to all kinds of other very serious vulnerabilities, is the appropriate framework for detention decisions for potential victims of modern slavery. It allows for a nuanced and balanced assessment of detention decisions to be made, which the current policy does not allow. It also supports our desire for a clear and consistent approach to safeguarding in immigration detention decision making and will enable decisions for potential victims to be made in line with those for other categories of vulnerable individuals. To be absolutely clear, the vulnerability and risks associated with potential victims of modern slavery will categorically continue to be fully accounted for and fully considered.
Let me be clear: these regulations will not weaken the protections afforded to potential victims of modern slavery. The adults at risk immigration detention policy is well-established—it has been in place for at least five years. It enables officials to identify vulnerable adults and make decisions about the appropriateness of their detention, balancing all relevant considerations. The adults at risk policy strengthens the presumption in immigration policy that a person will not be detained where they may be particularly vulnerable to harm in detention.
Moreover, we do recognise and will continue to recognise the specific protections afforded to those in receipt of a positive reasonable grounds decision, in accordance with the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. All those protections will, of course, be respected, and I can also assure the House that caseworkers and other Home Office staff will receive the appropriate guidance and training so that they are able to properly take into account those special protections for potential victims of modern slavery. We fully accept that those specific considerations exist. We recognise that in some circumstances an individual’s history may have been influenced by their trafficking or their previous modern slavery experiences, and that will most certainly be reflected in guidance and in subsequent decision making. Let me also be clear that every decision is taken individually, on a case by case basis, and there is a presumption against detention where there is particular vulnerability to harm. Those two things should give the House a great deal of reassurance on these points.
In conclusion, as I have set out, modern slavery is a despicable crime. The UK is leading Europe in identifying and protecting victims and going after perpetrators. The changes we are contemplating today make use of a well-established, effective policy for protecting vulnerable people and enable a rounded and balanced decision to be taken in these difficult cases.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]
Scottish National party MPs are fully behind this motion to revoke, and I support the arguments that the shadow Minister has set out. As well as thanking the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who secured yesterday’s debate, I want to thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his work on this, and I pay tribute to all survivor groups and others working in this field who alerted MPs to the significance and consequences of these regulations. These might be short regulations, but they are also deeply worrying regulations that could have severe impacts on trafficking survivors, and the so-called consultation on them was a pretty abysmal exercise altogether.
As we have heard, the goal of the statutory guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention is that it will, in conjunction with other reforms, lead to a reduction in the number of vulnerable people being detained, and a reduction in the duration of detention before removal. However, these regulations will have the opposite effect, because they remove crucial protections provided to those with positive reasonable grounds decisions. No longer will the detention of potential victims of trafficking be considered with reference to the separate Modern Slavery Act 2015 statutory guidance; instead, the process is to be merged into the overall adults at risk system. This means a serious dilution of the protections against detention currently afforded to potential trafficking victims. Potential victims are, and should continue to be, entitled to a proper recovery period during which they cannot be removed and therefore cannot generally be detained, thanks to the Modern Slavery Act guidance.
Unless these regulations are revoked today, other immigration considerations will potentially be prioritised. An irregular immigration history, which many victims of trafficking will have, may mean a victim being locked up, and the standard of evidence of potential harm in detention required of them will be ramped up. In short, more victims of trafficking will be detained and more will be detained for longer—something the Government do not even seem to dispute. That means more potential victims suffering real and serious harm to their mental health. That is utterly against the Government’s stated objective in the guidance, and it is against their obligation to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery.
In response to these very serious arguments, the Government seem to provide two arguments of their own. The first seems to justify the regulations on what amounts to little more than tidying up or administrative convenience: why burden officials with two systems of statutory guidance when one will do? The Government point out that potential victims of trafficking are the only group of people for whom such a special provision exists, and they call that a policy anomaly requiring correction, but these additional protections are absolutely justified, given what we know and understand about trafficking and the potential consequences of detention for such people. This is not a policy anomaly but a perfectly reasonable, proportionate response to the specific dangers that face trafficking victims. If anything requires correction, it is the mainstream adults at risk policy into which the Government want to throw trafficking victims. We know that it is overly burdensome and fails too many adults at risk. Let us fix that system, not meddle with the additional protections offered to trafficking victims.
The other Government argument appears to assert that there has been some evidence of abuse of the system, through false claims of trafficking designed to avoid detention. The answer to that it is not to make genuine victims suffer, as these regulations will, but to tackle the abuse head-on. It is the Home Office itself that assesses who is a victim of trafficking, and the answer is to invest in doing that better and faster. Why is it taking 456 days for potential victims to get positive grounds decisions? That is where the Home Office should look to weed out any abuse, rather than throwing victims under a bus.
Even if the Minister does not accept our analysis of the system as it stands, at the very least he should accept that if we are going to put everyone into one system, we should have a wide-ranging consultation and debate on how that system is working, what needs to be changed and what a better system could look like. However, instead of proper debate and consultation, we have had “poor practice”, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said. After two years of Home Office policy development, a small group of stakeholders had two weeks during the August summer holidays to feed back. The whole process was hush-hush, with those involved not allowed to share the proposals beyond a select few. Those lucky enough to participate were largely ignored. This so-called targeted engagement failed to consult relevant groups, including, as I understand it, the Government’s own modern slavery strategy implementation group or the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. Wendy Williams’ Windrush review demanded that consultation on changes to policy should be
“meaningful, offering informed proposals and openly seeking advice and challenge.”
The consultation did nothing of the sort, and a bad piece of secondary legislation that will harm victims of trafficking is the result. That is why these regulations should be revoked.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I find it hard to believe that we are having this debate today, and that this delegated legislation has been introduced at all. Emotionally, many Members of the House will find it hard to take, especially those of us who have taken any interest in detention, and specifically modern slavery and trafficking, over the last two to three decades.
After all the years of campaigning to expose modern slavery and trafficking, and after Parliament’s achievement of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which we are all proud of, this is like stepping back in time. It is a hugely retrograde step. After the exposure of trafficking and the recoil from the policies of the hostile environment, I thought we would never see this sort of legislation again. It is shameful that it has been brought before us. Have we learned nothing about the suffering that trafficking imposes on people? I urge the Minister and hon. Members not to support the motion, and to go back and look at some of the reports and investigations that led us to put in place extra protections for trafficking victims.
In 2017, Rahila Gupta—a member of Southall Black Sisters and now a famous author in my local community—wrote the book “Enslaved: The New British Slavery”. It was reported extensively at the time, and it shook many of us to the core with its descriptions of trafficking and the impact on our fellow human beings. Many other reports then followed, and we learned something of the scale of trafficking and its consequences in this country.
Yesterday, in Westminster Hall, the Government seemed to claim that the reason for this legislation was that the system was being abused somehow. No evidence for that claim has been published by the Home Office, and we have seen no independent assessment of the claim or data that the Government may want to bring forward to argue this case. What we do know, however—this is on the basis of research backed by the Home Secretary and undertaken in 2020 by Justice and Care and the Centre for Social Justice—is that there are estimated to be more than 100,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK. In 2020, only 3,000 people were positively identified as survivors of slavery in the second stage of the decision-making process.
I contend that the Government’s main worry should be their failure to identify and make safe the vast majority of people who have been trafficked into this country. The Government should concentrate on that, rather than on unsubstantiated allegations of abuse in the system. With no data published to prove it, the Government have argued that over the last 12 months, there has been a surge in foreign national offenders claiming to be victims of trafficking to disrupt immigration proceedings. That represents a complete failure to understand everything that we have learned about how many of those who are convicted are convicted of crimes that they were forcibly trafficked to commit in this country. I cite the recent examples from many of our constituencies of the Vietnamese young people who have been trafficked into cannabis farms in the UK. Many of those who are trafficked and then convicted of crimes lack access to legal advice and support even to explain their circumstances and case.
The Government appear to be arguing that the threshold of reasonable grounds for determining whether someone has been trafficked is too low. Under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking, the threshold was deliberately set low to ensure that people are identified. I believe we have an international obligation to uphold that standard under the convention. People who are referred into the system are referred, as the Minister knows, by first responders, who are professionally trained and authorised by the Government. In detention, virtually all the referrals come from the Home Office itself. As the Minister said, the Government have offered us revised casework guidance. That has not even been published, yet we are expected to vote into law this statutory instrument—a leap in the dark.
If the consultation had been adequate, no Government could have reasonably brought forward this statutory instrument. As other Members have said, the consultation was extremely limited, in both who was consulted and the timescale. Consulting for only two weeks on something so significant is a dereliction of the Government’s duty, particularly on openness, transparency and the consideration of all reasonable factors. As others have said, the Home Office admitted to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that more people will be held in detention if the instrument is approved. It will mean more people going into detention, but it will also be more difficult for people to get out of detention.
We need to recall the people we are talking about. These people are trafficked, exploited and abused, physically, sexually and mentally. They are extremely vulnerable. They are isolated and confused, often even lacking the ability to speak English, and they are suspicious of authority. Often, they have been emotionally abused to the extent that they are traumatised, and many suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. These are the people that this statutory instrument will increasingly force into detention. And let us be clear: we know now that, in detention, there is little access to legal advice or to emotional or health support, so it is often very difficult for these people to communicate their circumstances and their case.
What does detention mean? Well, this is the reality of detention. I have two detention centres in my constituency: Harmondsworth and Colnbrook. I have been visiting Harmondsworth for more than 30 years. Years ago, it was a couple of Nissen huts, with no more than about a dozen people detained there. Now we have what are, effectively, two prison-style buildings housing anything between 800 and 1,000 detainees.
These detention centres are notorious. Detainees have died, with accusations of neglect, lack of care and abuse. Perhaps the Minister will remember the 83-year-old man who was taken from detention to Hillingdon Hospital and died still in handcuffs. On two occasions, riots have broken out, with Harmondsworth being burned down.
Detainees get lost in the system, too, with examples of some being detained for long periods, trapped in detention. The irony is that most will eventually be released and allowed to settle, becoming valuable members of our community. The moral of this story is that we detain too many people unnecessarily and in unacceptable conditions. I believe that, in years to come, people will look back on this system with incredulity but also disgust.
I believe that this legislation, in addition to increasing the number of victims of trafficking in detention, will deter victims from coming forward. It will be used by traffickers to discourage victims from escaping. If the SI is passed, traffickers will say to victims, with some accuracy, “If you try to escape, you’ll be locked up anyway in a detention centre or prison.”
I believe that, if this House allows the statutory instrument to go on to the statute book, it will be seen as a disgraceful act of inhumanity. To attack some of the most vulnerable people, living in fear in our community, is a new low for this Parliament. I thought that we had all moved on. I thought we had moved forward. I hope that sufficient Members of this House still have the humanitarian instincts to reject this appalling measure.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister and all the contributors to the debate. This is an issue of great importance to me. I recognise that the Minister does his utmost in the capacity of what he is responsible for, and I believe in all honesty that he understands the issues that all of us are raising. The regulations, which will come into force on 25 May 2021, are an attempt to update the legislation with the latest information. It is clear that that is essential, as the number of people forcibly displaced around the world as a result of persecution, conflict, civil violence or human rights violations has rapidly increased in the last five years.
I declare a particular interest in this matter. As the Minister and other Members will know, I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. One of the things that burdens my heart is those who are persecuted due to their faith and religion or because they belong to an ethnic minority. In this House, we have been trying over the years to ensure we have a system that enables those people to be considered for asylum and relocation. I have done it before, but it is important in these debates to give credit and thanks for jobs that are done. The Syrian resettlement scheme was brought in by this Government, and all of us in the House supported it.
In my constituency of Strangford, we were able through the scheme to relocate four Syrian families, who have been there for almost five years. I met one of them just last week to discuss a housing issue. I had not seen them in person for that period, but it was wonderful to see that they were settled, they had work and they had their families. The lady had a second baby. She said to me, along with some of the people from the churches who have helped out, “This is now my home.” Our Government made it possible for people to have their home in my constituency and, indeed, in many constituencies across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is life changing. That is what we can do when we get it right. I wanted to put that on the record, because I got the opportunity last Friday to meet that lady again. Her family went through terrible things and faced upheaval just because they were Christians; that is a fact of life. We were able to help, and I thank my Government and my Minister for that on behalf of them and myself.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that there are currently 79.5 million forcibly displaced persons around the world. I have raised this issue on many occasions and cited that some of these are the most vulnerable people from the most difficult backgrounds; it burdens me when I hear about them. Many countries detain asylum seekers in detention centres while their applications are processed or following a decision to refuse them protection. At present, the total number of third country nationals held in immigration detention in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the year ending June 2020 is 698. I understand that the last year has been an incredibly difficult time, and that number is undoubtedly affected by the impact of covid-19 on the Home Office’s ability to release detainees. However, the United Kingdom has yet to reintroduce its resettlement programme. I am not sure whether the Minister is in a position to respond to this, but I am keen to know whether there is any intention to do again what the Government have already done well. We must ensure that that happens as soon as possible.
It is important to recognise that vulnerable persons detained in immigration centres have already experienced severe trauma. Many of them have seen things that we would never in a million years be able to envisage, understand or even contemplate. Many have PTSD and severe mental health issues associated with their pre-migration experiences. Prolonged detention—on top of all the trauma that they have had to go through—without sight of resettlement heightens those issues, and we need to do better for those people. What protections will the regulations provide to ensure that the detention of vulnerable persons is a limited process, instead of indefinite and non-reviewable mandatory detention? Is the updated guidance able to stand in the post-covid world that we find ourselves coming into, with the problems that we have?
Chris Philp
I thank all the Members who have contributed to this discussion. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his well-considered and thoughtful comments on the issues we are debating. I thank him for his remarks about the resettlement scheme, from which his constituents have benefited. That demonstrates the Government’s unshakeable commitment to protecting vulnerable people around the world.
The resettlement programme to which the hon. Gentleman referred has resettled 25,000 people over the past six years, which is more than any other European country. That is clear evidence of the Government’s compassionate commitment to those in genuine need. He referenced in particular persecuted Christians, of whom there are many around the world. In fact, following a speech that I heard him make in a debate in the Chamber a year or so ago, he will notice that the new plan for immigration expressly references persecuted Christians around the world and the need to offer them sanctuary here in the United Kingdom. Where Shannon led the way, the rest of the United Kingdom will, I hope, follow.
The hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that the resettlement programme will continue. Yes, it will. In fact, it is already continuing. We recommenced a few weeks ago, so I can give him the assurance for which he asked. On the question of indefinite detention, we do not detain people indefinitely for immigration purposes. About 75% of people in immigration detention are there for 28 days or less. It is used as a last resort. The Hardial Singh principles strictly set out the circumstances in which it can be used, and at any time anyone in detention can apply for immigration bail.
Most importantly of all, it is categorically not true and is not the case that we will be turning our backs on victims of modern slavery. On the contrary, we have done more than any Government in history to look after them. Indeed, we are doing more than any Government in Europe to protect and look after victims of modern slavery. The change that we are discussing today does not alter that fact. I can assure the House that decision makers will continue to take careful account of vulnerability, risk and the experience of modern slavery victims—or potential victims—when making these decisions. That will be fully taken into account, and balanced with other considerations. Victims will be respected, treated carefully and looked after, as they have been in this country for many years. We have a proud record on this topic, and that will continue for many decades to come.
Holly Lynch [V]
I am afraid that we are not at all satisfied with the Minister’s contribution. This is a shameful downgrading of essential, hard-won protections for those who have been subject to some of the worst forms of exploitation and abuse. The Minister says that we lead in Europe on modern slavery, but he uses that as a justification for downgrading protections, which means that we will trample all over that sense of leadership and welcome progress on this issue. We will no longer lead in this policy area, which is much more about humanity than it ever will be about practicalities.
The Minister suggested that only one other colleague attended the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, but he did not clarify the fact that it was a 30-minute debate. As such, there were no contributions from other parties or other Members. The early-day motion praying against the statutory instrument has secured 77 signatures, and is a more appropriate reflection of colleagues’ interest in this important matter.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made some incredibly powerful points, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. We do not have the confidence to support the Government on proposed guidance that is yet to be published. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his typically powerful contribution as well.
The protections currently in place represent far more than a policy anomaly. There is a strong case for them to be in place and we want to see those protections extended. We seek to divide the House to revoke these proposals.
Question put.
National Security and Investment Bill
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:54 - The House divided: - Ayes: 358 / Noes: 269 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C.
The amendments made in the other place concern what is in effect a reporting requirement to the Intelligence and Security Committee in respect of the national security and investment regime. They incorporate the text of Lords amendments 11 and 15, which were considered in this House on 26 April. In addition, they would end the reporting requirements on the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy provided for by Lords amendments 11 and 15 should the memorandum of understanding that governs the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee be amended to bring the Secretary of State’s activities under clause 26 into the scope of ISC scrutiny.
This House has already offered a view on the substance of amendments. It is disappointing that the other place has not heeded the clear and carefully considered message from this Chamber that the amendment to provide for a reporting requirement to the ISC is neither necessary nor appropriate. I welcome the Lords’ continuing attempts to find compromise, but I respectfully disagree with them. The Secretary of State has written to confirm plans for scrutiny with the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), and the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). The ISC remains able to scrutinise the work of the intelligence services where it falls within the memorandum of understanding and in accordance with the Justice and Security Act 2013.
As we rapidly approach the end of this Session, it is essential that this vital Bill on the UK’s national security does not fall as a result of our failure to agree that the BEIS Committee will continue to scrutinise the work of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments 11B an 11C from the other place and reiterate its message about the will of this democratically elected House, to help ensure that the Bill becomes law without delay.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) [V]
I again thank colleagues in the other place who have worked tirelessly to improve the Bill.
Labour is the party of national security and has long called for a new regime to deal with the evolving national security threat arising from mergers and acquisitions, as the Bill seeks to do. The Bill was much improved in Committee, as the Minister acknowledged in Monday’s debate; however, as Members from all parties highlighted then, it still lacks an appropriate level of oversight for critical national security decisions. Labour believes that Intelligence and Security Committee scrutiny is essential to provide the robust and sensitive oversight and accountability that matters of national security require. The Bill gives significant new powers to BEIS, a Department traditionally lacking in national security experience.
On Monday, as the Minister indicated, the Government rejected Lords amendments 11 and 15, stating that
“it is appropriate and sufficient for oversight and scrutiny of decisions made by the Secretary of State for BEIS to be conducted by their departmental select committee”—
that is, the BEIS Committee. The Lords have responded with amendments 11B and 11C, which would allow the Government to add the Investment Security Unit into the Government and ISC memorandum of understanding, thereby removing the obligation to provide the ISC with a confidential annexe.
We maintain our position: that the BEIS Committee does not have the security clearance necessary to provide scrutiny. In Monday’s debate, the Chair of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said clearly that the Committee
“does not have the access to the intelligence information that it would need in order to adequately scrutinise the Investment Security Unit in the BEIS Department.”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 164.]
As the Minister indicated, the Secretary of State has said that classified information could be shared with the BEIS Committee on a case-by-case basis, but the retaining, recording, discussing or reporting of that information after the fact would constitute a security breach, somewhat limiting the Committee’s actions.
In this afternoon’s debate in the other place, the Government said that they will “carefully consider” ways in which classified information could be provided so that the Committee can do its job. Why do we need careful consideration when we have, through the Intelligence and Security Committee, an existing and functioning mechanism for parliamentary scrutiny on issues of national security? Earlier this afternoon, the Government were again defeated in the other place, this time by an even greater margin, showing that, despite the Minister’s efforts, support for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight is growing. I feel that it is becoming an issue of intransigence and stubbornness—or, as former Conservative Health Secretary Lord Lansley put it today, “arrogance”—by a Government refusing to prioritise national security in the National Security and Investment Bill, and determined to overturn common sense for reasons that are unclear to us all.
It is clear to us that there is a need for Intelligence and Security Committee oversight. Indeed the Chair of the ISC, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), said:
“The setting up of the new Investment Security Unit in BEIS”—
a function of this Bill—
“is…precisely the situation that the Government assured the House”—[Official Report, 26 April 2021; Vol. 693, c. 157.]
would mean that there was ISC oversight, under the memorandum of understanding between the Government and the ISC. Today’s amendment provides for ISC scrutiny until an amended MOU resolves the confusion that appears to exist—on the Government’s part, at least.
If the Government are serious about protecting the UK’s national security through this Bill, they will not force through legislation with such a significant blind spot. Labour, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, many Government Back Benchers and cross-party consensus in the other place all agree that the ISC is best placed to provide national security oversight. Why are the Government determined to stand alone in risking our national security in this case?
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I will be very brief. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) made the case very clearly that we broadly support the principles of the Bill, but still have concerns over the levels of scrutiny, as we have heard from other Members. We have attempted to be constructive at all stages, and have tried to support the Government to find a balance between the needs of business and national security, particularly in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises.
Many amendments have been accepted, which will help to achieve this; we welcome the Government’s steps in that regard. However, the scrutiny process remains vital and we are not yet satisfied that it has been taken fully into consideration. The comments made by the Chair of the ISC earlier this week certainly highlighted that. I urge the Government to heed those words and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions and considerations in this debate and others. I will make a couple of brief points in response.
The nub of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) was the question of whether the BEIS Committee will have access to top secret information. We will make sure that the Committee has the information it needs to fulfil its remit and scrutinise the work of the ISU under the NSI regime. Much of the information is unlikely to be highly classified, but where the Committee’s questioning touches on areas of high classification, it is likely that relevant information could be given in a way that does not require as high a level of classification, and that this could be provided to the Committee on a confidential basis. If, however, the Committee does require access to highly classified information, we will carefully consider how best to provide this while maintaining information security in close collaboration with the Committee’s Chair.
The Government’s main powers to scrutinise and intervene in mergers and acquisitions for national security reasons comes from the Enterprise Act 2002. The powers under the Act sit with the Secretaries of State for BEIS and for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, not with the Cabinet Office. The BEIS Committee’s oversight of the new NSI regime is entirely in keeping with this and does not represent a reduction in the ISC’s remit, so there is no barrier to the Committee handling top secret or other sensitive material, subject to the agreement of the Department and the Chair of the Committee on appropriate handling.
This House should continue its excellent work of speeding this Bill towards becoming law for the benefit of the UK’s world-leading investment environment, as well as of protecting the nation’s security. I therefore urge the House to disagree with the Lords in their amendments 11B and 11C.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12.
Business of the House (Today) (No. 2)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions on the motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments to the motions selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; the business on that motion may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Scott Mann.)
Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the Leader of the House to move the motion, I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected amendment (a) in the name of Sir Christopher Chope.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
I beg to move,
That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, HC 1384, laid on Thursday 22 April; and approves the revised bullying and harassment policy and outline procedure, and sexual misconduct policy and outline procedure, set out in Annexes 1 to 4 of that report.
Before I begin, as I may not have the opportunity tomorrow, may I start by thanking Ray Mortimer for his service to the House? He is leaving after 18 years of serving us, and he has always in my time in the House—and I am a mere stripling of only 10 and a bit years’ service—been one of the friendliest, most approachable and helpful members of the first-class Doorkeepers team. He was welcoming to me from the day that I arrived, and he has always been smiling and positive. He knows better, dare I say, what the business of House is going to be, if one needs advice, sometimes than one’s own Whips know and sometimes even than the Leader of the House himself knows, and this is characteristic of the Doorkeepers. I know that my private office in particular has always appreciated Ray’s good humour, support and friendliness, too. I am sure that Members from across the House will want to thank Ray for his service. I also thank the shadow Leader of the House, who warned me that this was happening, and that is how I knew.
Turning to the motion in my name, the central aim of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme is to help improve the working culture of Parliament. The Government continue to be determined to play our part, giving the House an opportunity to have its say on the proposed reforms and their relative merits in achieving the change we are all striving for. This motion endorses the report agreed by the House of Commons Commission on amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.
At the time that the ICGS was created, it was important that the scheme was established as rapidly as possible. Built in to the set-up process were two reviews—one after six months and a second after 18 months—both to provide an opportunity for the scheme to be assessed and improvements identified. Inevitably, when looked at over time, there were aspects that required improvement.
I am grateful to Alison Stanley for the dedication and professionalism she has showed in her work reviewing the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, and in particular for her most recent extensive review, published on 22 February. It has been useful to have an independent and expert assessment of the ICGS, providing Parliament with a carefully considered set of recommendations that will help us to hone the scheme further and make Parliament a better place to work.
As the Leader of the House of Commons and co-sponsor of the review, I have taken a keen interest in the report. I am confident that the proposed changes will improve the policies and procedures of the ICGS, while simplifying and streamlining the management of cases. We have already made progress with the implementation of the proposals for textual changes to the policies and procedures concerning complaints of bullying and harassment or sexual misconduct in response to Alison Stanley’s report. These changes, endorsed by the Commission on 22 March, include the retention of the factual accuracy check as the key means of review, the imposition of a time limit for bullying and harassment cases, and textual changes to ICGS policies and procedures.
The motion today will amend the ICGS in several important ways. The language of the ICGS will be amended to make it less pre-judgmental—for example, by removing phrases such as “a case to answer”. The terminology will be updated to reflect language actually used by the ICGS helpline and team. The wording of the bullying and harassment policy will also be amended, to align more closely with that in the Equality Act 2010. The procedure will be altered to enable the independent investigator to consider at the initial assessment stage whether the complaint has already been fully and fairly considered in another context. That is an important development that will mean that double jeopardy is avoided.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Democratic Unionist party supports what the Government have introduced, and I want to put that on the record. Whenever we get the conclusions of what the Leader of the House is saying, it will be important for them to be given—I am sure that this is going to be done—to the Northern Ireland Assembly first of all, and to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly so that they can endorse them in their own regional Administrations.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that extremely sensible point. I would not want to trespass on the exclusive cognisance in their own fields of the various other Parliaments, but if it were thought useful I could certainly ensure that copies of what we propose were sent on an information basis. I am looking at both the SNP and the DUP in the hope that they would not think that that was an impertinence and an attempt to interfere. If those proposals were of use, however, I think that that would be a sensible thing to do.
The ICGS will be streamlined with the removal of the right to seek a review of the draft formal assessment, which is a current means for a complainant to request review when an investigation concludes that the case is not upheld. The factual accuracy check will now be the single point at which both parties, complainant and responder, can correct inaccuracies in the report. The system that we have had until now, which combines a factual accuracy check and a review, has resulted in substantial delay in some cases. We have debated the need for investigations to come to a conclusion more speedily on a number of occasions, and this straightforward measure will help to achieve that.
Another important recommendation concerns the introduction of a time limit for non-recent cases. That will apply only to bullying and harassment cases. The new timeframe will be brought in a year from now, applying to new complaints arising from 28 April 2022. From that date onwards, people can report an incident of bullying or harassment up to one full year after it occurs. That compares with the three-month deadline for claims to an employment tribunal, so the House is once again setting a standard higher than that expected in external workforces. Given the particular nature of sexual harassment cases and the understandable reality that people often need longer to feel able to bring forward such a case, there will be no time limit for those cases.
In addition to the changes recommended by the review, further technical changes are proposed to the policies and procedures, including making it clear that although bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct are defined in the same way across the parliamentary community, the Commissioners for Standards in both Houses are responsible for overseeing investigations, so there are some procedural differences. Other recommendations include aligning the language of the two policies and procedures more closely; amending the procedure documents to be clear that they provide an outline only of the procedure; making it clear that complaints can be made of any former member of the parliamentary community; including in the bullying and harassment policy that victimisation is an aggravating factor, as included in the sexual misconduct policy; and finally, including information on data protection.
I would like to provide some reassurance about whether the changes set out in the motion would have retrospective effect. For the majority of changes to the text of the policies and procedures, the question of retrospection does not arise. Some of the changes are purely linguistic—for example, the change in terminology from “case manager” to “independent investigator”, to ensure that the documents reflect the terminology used by those involved in the process, or the change from “reporter” to “complainant” in sexual misconduct complaints. In those cases, it would not be meaningful to talk about retrospection.
Other changes have been made to reflect existing practice. For example, the factual accuracy check, which was introduced as a procedural step some time ago as a matter of fairness to both parties, is now expressly referred to in the documents. Other changes have been made to clarify the language and to amend defects in the drafting to ensure that the documents clearly reflect the policy intention at the time they were made. It will be for the decision maker to decide how to apply the policy in cases already under way, considering both the language at the time and the intention. I will repeat that for the benefit of the House, because it is a fundamental point: it will be for the decision maker to decide how to apply the policy in cases already under way, considering both the language of the policy at the time and the intention. For Members or former Members, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards makes the initial decision, which can then be appealed to the independent expert panel in accordance with the IEP’s own procedures. For former staff, the house service is the decision maker, and for Members’ staff, the decision maker will be the Member.
There are also some minor changes where it is fair and reasonable to apply the changes—
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
The Leader of the House has addressed the issue that has been a concern to me and that led to me seeking support for an amendment—the issue of retrospection—but I am rather disappointed that he does not seem to be ruling out the fact that changes to paragraph 4.3 are retrospective. How can it be justified that we make retrospective changes to paragraph 4.3 which, subject to the decision maker, can be allowed to be lawful? Surely if we change the rules we should change them prospectively rather than retrospectively.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue is that it is not at this stage clear what decision the decision maker would make on the language that is currently used in the light of the policy that was adopted by the House. What we are passing today does not change the ability of the decision maker to make a decision on the language of the policy at the time. It is not an attempt to say that the decision maker must follow a new set of words or an old set of words. It is for them to look at what was there at the time both in policy and in terms of language and decide what the right decision is.
Sir Christopher Chope
But paragraph 16 of the Commission report states that the drafting of paragraph 4.3 has merely
“been updated so that it more clearly reflects the policy intention of the Commission and the House, when the resolution relating to non-recent cases was passed in July 2019”.
Without anticipating my own speech, all I can say is that there is no evidence at all that there was such a policy intention at that time, and I am very worried that those words in paragraph 16 could be used by a decision maker in order to justify what I would regard as retrospective change.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is not for me to say what decision the decision maker should come to, but the decision maker should base any decision on the language of the policy at the time. It would not be fair to make a decision on our clarification ex post facto. I hope that is helpful to the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I think this is quite important. The House is perfectly entitled to change its rules, but it is an absolutely fundamental part of natural justice that laws should not be changed retrospectively. Just for the sake of argument, we may, for instance, be dealing with a historical case that happened several years ago and the Member has left this House. It is absolutely vital that the Leader of the House makes it clear that that person would be judged according to the rules at the time, not according to the way we are changing the rules now. Do I make myself clear? If he makes that clear, that would be very helpful.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is absolutely clear, and that is broadly what I have been saying. What I am not committing to is to saying how the decision maker would interpret the rules as they were at the time, in view of the stated intention that the House had, because there was a degree of disagreement between the two. That is a matter for the decision maker to decide on the basis of the wording at the time, not on the basis of subsequent changes to the wording. What we are doing today should not influence the decision maker’s view of what existed at the time in one direction or the other. It should be based on what existed at the time.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
Then who will decide whether a complaint is in or out of scope according to the rules as drafted two years ago, which are being changed today?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The interpretation of the rules will be for the people who are the decision makers. As I set out earlier in my comments, ultimately it is for the IEP on appeal. In relation to Members’ staff, it would be the Member themselves. For somebody working for the House, it would be the House authorities, and for a Member of Parliament, it would be for the commissioner to determine what the rules at the time meant but not to jump to a change in the rules. That, I hope, is clear. I wish I could give the interpretation of what the rules mean, which is what my right hon. and hon. Friends are asking for, but that is not my territory. I would then be trespassing on the independence of this process, which is its whole virtue. I am simply making it clear that any decision maker should base it on the language of the policy at the time.
Sir Charles Walker
On that basis, it is possible for a variety of decision makers looking at the rules as they were before they were changed to come up with different decisions. Is that not a problem? One decision maker may interpret the rules in a different way from another decision maker, and that in itself creates a problem.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes a point that is sorted out by the fact that there is an appeals system and a senior body that can, on appeal, determine this, which I imagine other decision makers would then want to follow. It is not the same as a court, but it is not entirely dissimilar. Lower courts can make a decision, but ultimately there is an appeal body that will make a decision that we would then expect the lower-down decision makers to follow. I do not think that the problem he outlines would last, because there is a proper appeals system to the independent expert panel, which, very much at the request of Members across the House, contains very serious legal expertise, so that we can ensure that in all these cases, natural justice is done and it is fair to both complainants and respondents.
Sir Christopher Chope
Will the independent panel be accessible by former Members, rather than just current Members? In paragraph 3 of the Commission’s report, there is a reference to the changes to which we are referring being
“recommended by staff for clarification and updating of the documents.”
Are those staff involved in any of this decision making? Can my right hon. Friend ensure that those recommendations from the staff are published, so that we can all see what they were and the basis on which they were put forward?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Alison Stanley carried out a very thorough review and spoke to a number of people across the parliamentary estate to get their views and to get a full understanding of how the overall system was working. She drew her conclusions from that and made recommendations to the Commission, the bulk of which will be implemented if the House decides to support tonight’s proposal. When discussions are held in confidence, it is unfair retrospectively to undermine that confidence, so I could not give the commitment that the views given to Alison Stanley should be made public, because the views were not solicited on that basis.
Sir Christopher Chope
It was a mistake to put two points in one intervention. My first point was about whether former Members of Parliament will have access to the independent panel for appeal.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The independent expert panel is available for appeals for people who get caught up in the ICGS system. If any conclusion is made, I believe people have the right to ask to appeal to the panel. Not all appeals are guaranteed, but there is a right to ask for one. As far as I am aware, that applies to anybody who comes up within the system.
Let me come to the other minor changes. The original documents were clear that confidentiality is central to the process, but they made reference to the possibility that either a complainant or a respondent might wish to discuss the matter with a small number of people to seek practical support. Those mentioned were managers and HR services or other relevant parties. The new version refers expressly to trade union representatives and party Whips, because concerns were very reasonably raised that the document should make it clear that a Member who discussed his or her case with a Whip would not be in breach of the requirement of confidentiality. That clarification is relevant in all cases, whether or not the complaints procedure has already begun.
Where there is a real change to the policies and procedures, I am happy to confirm that the changes are not being applied retrospectively. In particular, the new one-year time limit on complaints of bullying and harassment will not be applied to any complaints made before 28 April 2022, and that is clear from the text before the House. Alison Stanley also recommended the removal of the complainant’s right of review because of the degree of overlap with the factual accuracy check. Any complainant who has made a formal complaint before the House’s approval of the amended texts will continue to be able to request a review on the grounds set out in the existing documents, namely that the procedure was flawed or that substantial new evidence has become available.
The purpose of all the changes we are debating today is to ensure that the ICGS is an effective, efficient, clear and comprehensive system for complaints and support. These alterations will make a difference to the running of the scheme and will help us to make progress towards real and sustained culture change in Parliament—something I know Members across the House are keen to continue to champion and support. I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I know that Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers would want me to agree wholeheartedly with the words of the Leader of the House about Ray Mortimer, whose service to the House is deeply appreciated, as is the kindness and courtesy that he has always shown to us. We will miss his cheerful presence. We wish you well, Ray.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I start by thanking the Leader of the House for outlining the position in relation to the motion. This is a good time to thank the people who started off the whole process of setting up the ICGS, who may have moved on before they had a chance to be thanked. It was a difficult task from the start, and they have done incredibly well. As the Leader of the House has said, Alison Stanley reviewed the process and then undertook an 18-month review, which was published on 22 February. I thank her for her diligence in her work.
The Commission discussed a report on the proposed changes, and that is now before the House. It includes amendments made in response to the 18-month Stanley review, and additional changes to policies and procedures. I want to deal with the response to the Stanley review. We have the introduction of a time limit from 28 April 2022, such that
“a complaint may not be brought more than one year after the incident…complained of.”
At present, there is no time limit on non-recent cases. Stanley suggested two years, acknowledging that tribunal cases have a time limit of three months. The Commission report states that the time limit will be one year from the date of the incident complained of.
The independent investigator will also be able to consider at the initial assessment stage
“whether the complaint has already been fully and fairly considered in another context.”
If it has, there will be grounds for rejecting the complaint. We know of incidents where staff have taken a complaint through the normal grievance procedures and also through the ICGS. As the Leader of the House outlined, we cannot have this double jeopardy. Again, the definitions are being aligned with the Equality Act 2010 to include all the protected characteristics. The 18-month review found that the combination of a factual accuracy check and the right of the complainant to seek a review of the investigators’ findings had delayed some cases substantially, but the factual accuracy check remains available for both parties to correct factual inaccuracies.
I turn to the policy and procedural changes. These will use the same words for both the complainant and respondent for all bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct cases. It is also stated that the existing procedure documents have been shortened and amended to make it clear that they provide an outline only of the procedure, and that further detailed information on the different stages of the process is available from both the ICGS team and the relevant decision-making body.
The Leader of the House has not clarified some of the questions that were asked. I find it concerning that the procedures should be in lots of different places and that they are not in a usable form. We have Standing Orders and “Erskine May”, so things are out there and transparent. We also have obiter dicta from his podcast about how Parliament works. Making it obscure and asking the team in the relevant decision-making body does not give clarity, certainty and transparency. People should not have to go to different places to find out what the procedures are. I am happy to work with him and anyone else to ensure that the procedures are published in full, so that everyone is aware of them. Again, victimising a complainant for bringing a complaint would be treated as an aggravating factor.
I turn to the vexatious question that has been before the House on the change to the drafting in relation to non-recent cases, which was agreed in July—that it should be possible to complain about the conduct of any former member of the parliamentary community, be they Clerks or anyone else, whether or not they hold a parliamentary pass when the complaint is made. As currently drafted, there is an “and” in paragraph 4.3, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said. The person has to hold a parliamentary pass, and the change is to whether or not former members of the parliamentary community—whether it is a Clerk, a Member or anybody else—hold a parliamentary pass. I think that that offends the principles of natural justice, one of which, I remind hon. Members, is procedural fairness—the right to a fair hearing. That means that people know the rules by which they are being judged and that people act fairly, act in good faith, without bias, and give each party an opportunity to state their case.
Procedural fairness, in my view, is not changing the rules and making them apply retrospectively. The Leader of the House did not actually say whether the rules were retrospective or not, so I ask him to confirm whether any changes made today will apply to the current cases that are going forward. I know that he suggested that it was about the decision maker, but actually, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) pointed out, it is an individual decision maker. They are all separate and they are all different. That is why there should be a set of rules that everybody can see and everybody can apply. In no quasi-judicial situation do we ever have different decision makers making different decisions on a rule that is not clear. The amendment sought to clarify that, so I hope that the Leader of the House will too.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I did not hear the opening comments from the Leader of the House because I was chairing a Committee meeting in another building. Following as closely as I can what the shadow Leader of the House is saying, as I understand it—on this particular paragraph 4.3, about passes—I presume that she would not have any objection to a change in the rules saying, “Passes used to be required but no longer will be required”, as long as that applied only to future cases. It seems rather strange that it should be said, “We are not changing the rule—we are just clarifying what the House meant previously, and when it previously said that the person has to still hold a parliamentary pass, what it really meant was that he or she did not have to be holding a parliamentary pass at all.” That is surely not a clarification of the rule; it is a change of the rule and, therefore, it should be forward-looking and not retrospective, should it not?
Valerie Vaz
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. I think he missed the earlier discussion about the lack of clarity around that, but it should not be the case that current cases are subject to a changes of rules. To me, that is a breach of natural justice. We cannot have different decision makers applying the rules as they interpret them. In my view, we cannot have changes in procedure to cases, because each case will be dealt with differently, but as it was set out—as the hon. Member for Christchurch read out paragraph 4.3—it is fairly clear that there are the two limbs and therefore that any changes should apply to future cases.
Sir Christopher Chope
I obviously agree with the right hon. Lady’s assessment of the importance of getting proper clarity and ensuring that we are not going to have retrospection, but may I also draw her attention to the sentence in paragraph 3 of the Commission report? I think my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House misunderstood that. It says that the changes that we are discussing were
“recommended by staff for clarification and updating of the documents.”
I am not referring to the Alison Stanley recommendations; this is something completely different. These changes that are causing us concern were recommended by staff. Is it unreasonable to ask whether we can see the document in which those recommendations were made and see whether some of the staff who made those recommendations may themselves have been involved or know decision makers?
Valerie Vaz
I do not have an issue with clarity. In fact, I think it is really helpful to see the thinking behind why the changes are being made, so unless there is some confidentiality issue, I do not see any problem. We are here discussing this, and we are not getting any clarity on it—certainly not from the interventions, or from the responses. There is no clarity on this, and I wish there were. There could be. That actually helps to make a system much fairer and work better, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
Let me move on to the next part of the Stanley report. She found in her review that those with a BAME—visible minority—background were less likely to have used the ICGS helplines compared with their white colleagues. She was concerned that several surveys
“carried out across Parliament have indicated that these groups are more likely to report that they have experienced bullying and harassment, sexual misconduct or discrimination.”
Despite that finding, there are no specific recommendations in the report that try to remedy it. Certain things have been remedied, but not others. In the light of the current climate, with Black Lives Matter, they should be considered.
Interestingly, in the introduction to its 2019 report “Stand in my shoes”, which has been published again on the intranet for Stephen Lawrence Day, ParliREACH stated that its findings confirmed its view that
“there is insufficient focus on and actions to challenge racial bias (both conscious or unconscious), and that many BAME”—
visible minority—
“staff expend effort each day to defend their right to work in Parliament and to progress through the organisation.”
It found that only 54% felt
“confident…to raise issues of concern”,
and 56% felt “comfortable being themselves”.
We know from other regulatory bodies that regulate professions, such as the General Medical Council and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, that BAME—visible minority—figures are over-represented among those complained about. The Alison Stanley review recommended that
“demographic analysis of the Helpline usage statistics”
should be
“carried out as soon as possible”.
I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that that is undertaken, because it is unclear whether that recommendation has been implemented, or whether there are any other measures taken to address this issue.
I want to draw hon. and right hon. Members’ attention—they may not be able to see this in some of the reports—to the costs of the ICGS. Its budget for 2021-22 is £1.8 million. We have investigators. I recall from the start of setting up the ICGS that we wanted it to be as fair as possible. Some 28% of those investigators are police officers: these are not criminal matters, although if they are criminal they should go to the criminal justice system, and that is what they are there for.
I think there are many barristers on the Attorney General’s panel, even the C panel, who are not very expensive—they are quite cheap—who could do the investigations cheaply and weigh the evidence in a proper way in a fair system. In the end, we all want a system that works. We want to stop bad behaviour. It is in all our interests to have a fair system that is transparent so that we abide by the rules of natural justice and we get justice for all. In that sense, I support the motion.
As there will not be another opportunity to do so unless the Leader of the House schedules more business, I want to say a few thank yous at the end of the day. The Parliamentary Digital Service is getting us all back to Parliament. We have a message from PDS to turn off and turn on our computers. It is showing us what to do as more people return to the estate. I specifically want to thank Ian Doubleday in Norman Shaw South, who has been really helpful in enabling Members to come back, and in keeping us and Members’ staff safe.
I pay tribute to one of our senior doorkeepers, Ray Mortimer, who has been here since 2003. He has led the Speaker’s procession for eight years, and the procession to the Lords during state opening twice. He has been through six Serjeants at Arms and three Speakers, and is on his fifth Prime Minister. His good friend, mentor and boss—in capital letters—Phil Howse said:
“Ray has been a superb asset not only to the doorkeeper team but to the House, dedicating the past 18 years to delivering fantastic service. His colleagues will miss his knowledge and guidance to the team. He is going from one house of drama”—
here—
“to another, the Marlowe theatre in Canterbury. We wish Ray and his wife Sam good luck and all the very best for the future, and thank him for his amazing public service and the loyal service to the House of Commons.”
I am sure the whole House agrees.
From me, on a personal level, and just as the Leader of the House said, Ray is always good fun. He is always ready with advice about what is going on in the Chamber. He is extremely supportive of Members, all our work and the smooth running of the Chamber. He is always smiling and in a good mood. We will remember him as our little Ray of sunshine. Thank you, Ray, from all of us.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I too express my thanks and good wishes to Ray Mortimer?
My interest in the issue arises from when I was on the Standards Committee, particularly during the 2017-19 Parliament. During that time, I was involved in discussions leading up to the creation of the ICGS and its extension in 2019. I have read the conclusion of the House of Commons Commission following Alison Stanley’s review, and I accept that the Commission is right to take the necessary measures in response to that review, but my concerns tonight are about the Commission’s endorsement of
“other changes recommended by staff for clarification and updating”.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that those are changes recommended by staff not in response to a request from Alison Stanley, but off their own bat. I do not know how they have appeared, who they were sent to or why we cannot see them, but it would be useful for the purposes of transparency if we could.
Those are set out in paragraphs 12 to 18 of the report. As has been discussed, the most significant change is in paragraph 16, which changes the scope of the provisions on bullying and harassment. I do not have any problem with the revision, but what I do have a problem with is the possibility that that change is retrospective. The issue of retrospection was discussed quite usefully in the original report. There was a legal opinion from Tom Linden, QC, on what were then being discussed as pre-scheme cases, and the opinion is set out on page 93 in the delivery report, published in July 2018. In that legal opinion, Tom Linden makes it clear that there is a common law presumption against retrospective effect. I hope that we are not going to get into territory where litigation will arise if people feel that the common law presumption against retrospection is not being honoured by the decision makers.
In that opinion, Tom Linden quotes Lord Brightman giving a good definition about what is retrospective and what is not. Lord Brightman says that it is
“retrospective if it takes away or impairs a vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in regard to events already past.”
It seems to me, from what we have heard, that the changes to paragraph 4.3 would be regarded as retrospective if those principles were applied.
The words in paragraph 16 that these changes are
“so that it more clearly reflects the policy intention of the Commission”
are weasel words. I can say that there is no evidence whatsoever—I was on the Standards Committee—that the Standards Committee, the Commission or this House ever intended, when extending the scope to non-recent cases in July 2019, that it should be possible to complain of the conduct of any former member of the parliamentary community until that person died. In other words, it might be 10, 20 or 30 years hence.
Sir Edward Leigh
Would it not be helpful if the Leader of the House, when he sums up this debate, made it absolutely clear that in the case of historic allegations, if the subject of that complaint is no longer a passholder, then that complaint should be judged firmly on the rules of the time?
Sir Christopher Chope
I think the Leader of the House will say that he has more or less said that, but anything else that he can do to reconfirm that would be extremely helpful. Where is the evidence that there was a misrepresentation of the intention in the wording of paragraph 4.3? The text of the paragraph remained the same in July 2019 as it was in June 2018, and if the new text had been intended to change the rules, then I think the Standards Committee, this House and the Commission would have been totally in opposition to any suggestion that we could expose former Members of Parliament to the risk of being complained against and investigated for the rest of their lives after they had left the House. In a sense, what this Commission report seems to say is that that was the intention, but it was never properly expressed in words. My view is that if that had been the intention and it had been expressed in words, it would never have been passed by this House, which is why I am agitated about this and particularly keen to see the terms in which the staff were recommending these changes.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that other people want to join in the debate, but this issue will not go away unless we clarify that these changes will not be retrospective in any respect.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
May I associate myself and my party with the comments made by Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Ray? [Interruption.] He has changed, just like that! It goes without saying that all of us in this place, who have the use and the benefit of the experience of all the Doorkeeping staff, find that they are just such a resource and provide such guidance, especially for Members when they first come here; they help us with basic things such as finding our way around and how the place works. They really are an amazing team, so I add my thanks and tribute to Ray and all the Doorkeeping team, and I certainly wish Ray all the best for his new endeavours.
I also largely echo the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House, as we very much support these amendments, the intention behind them and what we are looking to achieve. I add my thanks to Alison Stanley for the review that has been conducted. No one deserves to be victimised, bullied, disrespected or harassed in any workplace, let alone in a Parliament, and we certainly should not be tolerating any form of sexual harassment or assault of any kind. So the processes we have in place and the review certainly help in that regard.
We have certainly found that the fact that there is no cut-off date now for sexual misconduct cases is a real, positive step forward. I agree that we perhaps need to look again at the time limitations on other incidents, because that needs further review, but, as with all of these things, this process needs to be organic. It needs to be able to adapt as it moves forward. What we agree tonight cannot simply be what it is for ever more; it needs to adapt to circumstances as we move forward. At a time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low—there is no hiding from that—it is crucial that we do everything we can to enhance that trust with the public, who send us here to do a job. They send us here to represent them, to be upstanding citizens and to do our bit to move things forward. I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that we should all be held to the highest possible standards on dignity, courtesy and respect. It should not detract from anything that we do that we put in place the measures before us tonight.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
Although I am speaking virtually, I, too, wish to join in expressing my thanks and best wishes to Ray Mortimer.
I welcome the amendments being proposed today. I can see that both Houses take the culture of bullying and harassment extremely seriously in Parliament, and Mr Speaker has shown his commitment to all staff working on the estate. The creation of the independent complaints and grievance scheme is a significant undertaking, and we need a system that works. In the spirit of supporting the scheme to be the best it can be, I need to raise the issue of discrimination against black, Asian and minority ethnic people, to ensure that it is not overlooked—it has already been mentioned in this House, so I am fairly confident that it is not being overlooked in this debate.
ParliREACH, the workplace equality network, has focused on enhancing racial and cultural awareness in Parliament. It released a report in 2019 showing the scale of difficulties that people from diverse backgrounds face. The “Stand in my Shoes” report found that this staffing group in particular faced daily struggles to be treated with respect and with decency; from cleaning staff right through to MPs and peers, we can be made to feel unwelcome in the very place we work in. Staff reported having their presence questioned and equal opportunities denied. ParliREACH said that many of its members were reluctant to speak up when they felt discriminated against. They spoke about worrying that they would be seen as “calling the race card”, and they “feared recriminations” as a result. They felt that they had to be cautious to pick their battles carefully. That should not be the environment that staff have to be work in, on top of the work they have to do; it is very distressing. Parliament must therefore advocate justice equally for all protected characteristics.
I myself had a completely demoralising encounter when I was relatively new to this House. I was made to feel as though I did not belong here, and I feel that this was because of my gender as well as my ethnicity. Although this happened almost three years ago and I went through the formal complaints system, it is still yet to be resolved. Does this tell us that tackling racial discrimination is a priority for the ICGS? It absolutely must be. Cases must be addressed faster, and each one treated with the care and sensitivity it deserves.
ParliREACH pointed out the need to make the ICGS more accessible for its members, including the non-desk-based staff in Parliament, many of whom are from black, Asian and minority ethnicities, for whom it is not easy to make a complaint. If they do not work at a desk or own a computer at home, how can we say that the system is working equally for them? If their only option is to report something to their manager, who might themselves be the problem, it is not serving their needs. We must understand that many people coming from diverse backgrounds struggle to believe that processes such as the ICGS will deliver justice. We need to ensure that they are confident in the process, and that the ICGS is working as well for them as for others. The amendments we are discussing will make going through the ICGS a much smoother process, but I hope that the comments I have expressed will be taken into consideration so that the ICGS can be further improved to best serve all the people it pledges to help and support.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to all those who have participated in the debate and, as always, to the shadow Leader of the House who, along with me, serves on the Commission. Of course, although these recommendations are brought forward by me as Leader of the House, they are brought forward on behalf of the Commission, so a number of questions that she raised are questions for the Commission rather than for me as Leader of the House. The Commission has its own spokesman, and as we both serve on it, that is probably the best way of getting the information that the right hon. Lady requires, because I do not wish to blur the lines between what is my responsibility as Leader of the House and what is the Commission’s responsibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) went back to his fundamental point, and I want to give him clarification on who may appeal to the IEP. There is one category of Member or former Member that is excluded, and that is a former Member who had the good fortune—if it is a good fortune—to go to another place. They would not be able to use the IEP. Anybody who brings a complaint against a Member is able to appeal to the IEP, and any Member or former Member except a peer is also able to take their case to the IEP.[Official Report, 12 May 2021, Vol. 695, c. 2MC.]
My hon. Friend reiterated his concern about the issue of retrospection. The best I can do is to go back to what I said in my speech, because this is fundamental. The people considering any of these cases must do so looking at the language of the policy at the time. I said that twice when I was speaking, I think I then reiterated it in an intervention, and I have now reiterated it a fourth time in winding up. I think that is very clear. Where I cannot be clear, because we have not had a decision, is on how the panel would interpret the rules at the time, because that is rightly a matter for the panel because it is independent. I hope that I am giving my hon. Friend most of the comfort that he wants, without trying to be a soothsayer and make a prediction of what may be determined in the future.
Dr Julian Lewis
I know that my right hon. Friend will only be able to give me his opinion on this, in the light of what he has just said, but does he know of any specific historical case that is currently under way that would be ruled out of scope unless the rewording of paragraph 4.3 was applied retrospectively?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend raises a question of considerable importance and one that I have been very careful to avoid in all these discussions. It seems to me that it would be quite wrong to be making this decision, in relation either to what I have said about the rules at the time or to the new rules, with reference to any specific cases. That is fundamental to having a just and fair system. On the question he asks me, I know of gossip, but I have no confirmed knowledge of reports of who may or may not be facing an investigation. In all the deliberations I have done, whether on the Commission, in preparing my speech or in discussions I have had privately with the shadow Leader of the House, I have done it on the basis of general principles rather than trying to consider specific names. I think that is very important.
I thank the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for his support and for the contribution of his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is a member of the Commission, is always fully engaged with our discussions and makes a serious contribution to our deliberations.
I am concerned about the issue raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about a complaint that has taken three years. That is one of the reasons that we had the Alison Stanley review. It is one of the issues that has come up up most commonly from people who have been involved with or have an interest in the ICGS—a feeling that things are taking too long. It is absolutely the aim of the Commission and the ICGS itself to ensure that things happen in a timely manner.
I thoroughly agree that every Member of this House and everybody who works for or in the House should be treated with respect and decency, regardless of their ethnic background or any other background issues. That is fundamental to the House, to our democracy and, dare I say, to the constitution of this nation. I think we can go back—although I will not in this speech—to Magna Carta and the idea that we have equality under the law and that we all should have; that is a fundamental position of the British constitution.
I am, of course—I reiterate this—acting for the Commission, but in acting for the Commission. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House endorses the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Amendments to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, HC 1384, laid on Thursday 22 April; and approves the revised bullying and harassment policy and outline procedure, and sexual misconduct policy and outline procedure, set out in Annexes 1 to 4 of that report.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before we move on to the other motions, I too would like to send my thanks and congratulations to Ray Mortimer, who I can see is hovering at the back. Ray, I have been a Member for 29 years and you have therefore been a part of my life for the past 18 years, as you will have been for many people sitting around the Chamber. You have heard the accolades. You will be able to get Hansard tomorrow, take it home with you and, in your future life, I hope you will flip through the pages and read the warm wishes that you have received from so many people here. I hope it brings you and your family great joy. You have been very much front of house during the past 18 years; irrespective of what you are going to do with the Marlowe theatre, I hope you will take it in the right spirit—as I know you will—when I say, in the future, break a leg. Good luck.
This may also be the appropriate time to thank everybody who has made the past parliamentary Session work for us, under the most strenuous of conditions. I do not think that any of us thought, as we went into this covid situation, that we would be able to get democracy working in the way that we have. It was a bit clunky to begin with, but—my goodness me—we have learnt lessons and it has worked incredibly well. We thank the technicians and the broadcasting unit; we told Ray to break a leg, but they have been breaking their backs to ensure that the democracy here has worked.
We thank everybody: the Doorkeepers, the catering staff, the security, the cleaners and everybody who has made this democracy work. Thank you very much. We hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that the stress that they have faced will be eased somewhat with the relaxations in the coming weeks and months, and that we can get our democracy back working as normal. I know that is what everybody in this place wants. Thank you everybody.
I remind the House that, in accordance with the order of the House today and Standing Order No. 41A(3), any Divisions on the next two motions will not be deferred.
Business without Debate
Levelling Up Fund
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Rother Valley calling for a powerful bid to be placed by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to secure a grant from the levelling-up fund. My petition, both online and on paper, has received strong local support, with over 1,800 constituents signing it. The people of Rother Valley are calling for our high streets to be transformed. I believe it is high time the local authority delivers on this priority.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Rother Valley,
Declares that a strong bid for the Levelling Up Fund must be placed on behalf of the Rother Valley constituency; further that high streets in Rother Valley should form a central aspect of the bid placed; and further that proposals put forward by Dinnington Town Council and Dinnington Community Land Trust should be prioritised.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call on the Government to urge Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council to ensure that high streets in the Rother Valley constituency can be rejuvenated via the Levelling Up Fund.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002662]
National Minimum Wage Enforcement
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We are going to have Andrew Selous on the videolink. While you are speaking, Andrew, if you do not mind, we will be sanitising the Government Dispatch Box, and I know Mr Scully has been under strict orders not to go anywhere near it until it has been properly sanitised.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am very grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me this debate.
I am very proud to support a Government who have committed to the national living wage being equivalent to two thirds of the median income by 2024, in addition to reducing the age for accessing the national living wage to 23 this month and to 21 by April 2024. We want work to be worth while and an effective route out of poverty, so it is important that everyone is entitled to the legal minimum wage.
Unfortunately, the combined impact of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, along with the provisions of the Care Act 2014 and the enforcement role of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, have all been completely ineffective in enforcing the law for one of my constituents, a carer who is owed £62,961 of unpaid wages below the minimum wage. Four other carers were in the same position. Who knows how many others across the United Kingdom are in the same position. I will use this case to demonstrate how the law has not worked effectively. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on the individual case, but I would like him to set out the plans the Government have to remedy the flaws in the current legislation, so that an effective remedy can be provided to people such as my constituent where now there is none.
My constituent—I shall call her Mrs Wright; it is not her real name—provided care for seven years to a disabled woman, whom I shall call Mrs Edwards, which is also not her real name. The wages to pay Mrs Wright were provided by Luton Borough Council and paid by a local charity into the account of the person being cared for. Checks were then made by Luton Borough Council to make sure that the money provided was paid over to the carer. Section 33 of the Care Act 2014 enables care to be devolved to the person being cared for, who enters into a contract of employment with her carer.
After seven years of good and faithful work caring for Mrs Edwards, the local charity that had received funding from Luton Borough Council sent the carer a schedule showing that, throughout the entire seven-year period, she had been underpaid a total of nearly £63,000. The local charity also paid the premium for an insurance policy to cover employers’ liability and legal expenses and costs should the carer have cause to sue the person being cared for—her employer, Mrs Edwards.
Mrs Wright, the carer, was never provided with the contract of employment by her employer. Both Luton Borough Council and the local charity say that they are not liable for this massive underpayment of wages because the contract of employment is between the carer and the person being cared for, and has nothing to do with either of them. The legal expenses insurer did not even bother to reply, which is completely shameful. There is no point in suing the person being cared for—the employer—because she lives in a rented flat, has no other assets and all her income comes from state benefits. As Mrs Wright’s solicitor said to me,
“this is a wrong with no remedy.”
The aim of this debate—so that the Minister and I are not wasting our time—is to make sure that a remedy is provided to Mrs Wright and other carers in her position, so that the law requiring the payment of the minimum wage applies to them as well as to everyone else.
This matter was first brought to my attention in the summer of 2018. I did my research and found out that everything I had been told about the inability to secure the payment of wages legally due was true. I contacted Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to try to get enforcement action. HMRC said in the letter back to me that it was
“determined that everyone who is entitled to the national minimum wage should receive it.”
That turned out to be a hollow phrase, because no effective enforcement action can be taken against an employer who has no assets and, indeed, never had any in the first place. Luton Borough Council wrote back to me to say:
“any issue regarding alleged historical underpayment of minimum wage will be a matter for the person being cared for and the carer to resolve.”
I should point out that there is no “alleged” underpayment, because the agency employed by Luton Borough Council to check wages paid against wages legally required to be paid came up with a schedule showing the underpayment of nearly £63,000.
Having hit a brick wall with HMRC and Luton Borough Council, which was the local authority responsible for providing the person being cared for with funds to pay for the care provided, I went to see the previous Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Corporate Responsibility, who was very sympathetic and agreed that there was a problem. At that meeting, I was told that local authorities did indeed have a responsibility for direct payments, in that they must be satisfied that personal budget holders are capable of paying the minimum wage, and the local authority should have undertaken a six-month review, after which it should have reviewed the making of direct payment no later than every 12 months.
The Minister’s predecessor then helpfully wrote to the chief executive of Luton Borough Council, pointing out that it should have had an “effective monitoring process” of the direct payments to ensure that the individual fulfils their responsibilities as an employer and that, following the six-month review, the local authority should have reviewed the making of direct payment no later than every 12 months. In its reply, Luton Borough Council said that the carer had been paid a fixed weekly rate based on unmeasured work hours, when in fact the carer had very clear hours that she was expected to work.
The Minister’s predecessor also wrote to the Minister for Care at the Department of Health and Social Care to explain the problem. The previous Minister for Care wrote back to say that Luton Borough Council should have been satisfied that the person being cared for was capable of managing direct payments by herself or with the help of the charity asked to provide that help. As I said, a local charity used by Luton Borough Council has produced a schedule showing an underpayment of wages throughout the entire seven-year period amounting to nearly £63,000.
I have raised this matter before on the Floor of the House with the Leader of the House, who said:
“I am clear that careworkers provide essential support to some of the most vulnerable members of society, and it is essential that they are paid in accordance with the law, including the national minimum wage, for the work they do. This is a responsibility of local authorities, which should ensure that personal budgets are sufficient to deliver a person’s care needs, including making sure that they cover the cost of wages, and local authorities have a duty to monitor how personal budgets are spent. However, the Department of Health and Social Care will take this up with the local authority and ask it to investigate what sounds like a very serious and concerning case.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1450.]
I have also had a meeting with the Minister who is replying tonight.
In the 2019 Queen’s Speech, the Government announced that they would legislate to create a single enforcement body in an employment Bill. That Bill would give us the opportunity to remedy the very serious loophole that I have outlined. We should also remember the payment of premiums for an insurance policy to cover the employer’s liability and legal expenses and costs, which has been of no assistance whatsoever in this case.
The Minister will agree with me, I am sure, about the importance of people receiving the wages they are legally entitled to. We share a commitment to increasing the minimum wage to make it always worth while to go out to work and to lift more people out of poverty. I urge the Minister to make sure that the single enforcement body in the employment Bill will be up to the task of providing effective remedy in situations such as the one that I have described, and that it has retrospective power to help diligent, hard-working and highly compassionate carers such as my constituent, Mrs Wright.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing today’s important debate and, indeed, his tenacity in supporting and representing his constituent. I am proud to serve as the Minister responsible for the national minimum wage, the national living wage and workers’ rights, among my other responsibilities. I very much value his generous words on the benefits of the national minimum wage to make sure that we can encourage people, as he rightly says, and ensure that work pays. We must protect people on the lowest pay grades, but make sure that they stay in work and have a fruitful career.
The Government are committed to building an economy that works for everyone. Through the national minimum wage and the national living wage, we continue to ensure that the lowest paid in society are rewarded fairly for their contribution to the economy. In April, we increased the national living wage by 2.2% to £8.91, which is the highest ever UK minimum wage. A full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual earnings rise by over £345. That amounts to a total increase of more than £4,000 since the national living wage was announced in 2015.
We have lowered the age threshold for the national living wage to 23 and, as a result, 23-year-olds and 24-year-olds will get a 71p increase. We have increased the time for which employers must keep minimum wage records from three to six years. That means that workers will get more of the historical arrears that they are owed. The Government are committed to cracking down on employers who fail to pay the national minimum or national living wage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for introducing the debate. I am always encouraged by what the Minister says, and it is encouraging to hear the things that have been done. However, there are loopholes that allow the hours of casual workers not to be recorded and an appropriate minimum wage is not enforced, so does he not agree that they must be closed? Do his Government intend to ensure that employers will begin doing the right thing instead of being able to avoid it, as they can at the moment?
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman makes an important, twofold point. First, on anomalies, ignorance is no defence when it comes to paying the national minimum wage, and secondly, that is where enforcement comes in. I shall expand on that in a second. He is absolutely right to raise these issues, to make sure, as I have said, that companies are not balancing their books on the poorest paid in their workforce and in society.
We relaunched the minimum wage naming scheme on 31 December, naming and shaming 139 employers, including some of the UK’s biggest household names, for failing to pay the minimum wage. We have also more than doubled the budget for minimum wage enforcement and compliance since 2015. There are now over 400 officers in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dedicated to ensuring compliance with the minimum wage.
I should like briefly to share the results of HMRC’s work in the 2020-21 financial year. As we have heard, it was a really challenging year for the whole country. Many of HMRC’s investigations are carried out face to face. Its officers can arrive unannounced at business premises to check minimum wage records or to interview employers and workers. Those face-to-face visits clearly had to be limited in line with covid restrictions, and with many businesses closing their doors. Nevertheless, the Government believe that the pandemic is no excuse for failing to pay staff correctly, especially in sectors such as social care and retail, which have provided invaluable services over the past year. I am pleased that HMRC continued its enforcement and compliance work, prioritising desk work where possible and expanding its educational work with employers and workers.
Despite the pandemic, in 2020-21 HMRC closed over 2,700 cases, securing more than £16.7 million in arrears for more than 155,000 workers. It issued 575 penalties worth over £14 million. HMRC also contacted more than 770,000 employers and workers to improve awareness of the minimum wage. As part of this, it sent over 400,000 texts to apprentices regarding the risks of underpayment from unpaid training time. It wrote to nearly 200,000 employers and workers. HRMC produced a variety of webinars and educational videos that accumulated nearly 20,000 views. One of those webinars is aimed specifically at the social care sector, covering travel time, waiting time and breaks. About 12,000 letters are being sent to Care Quality Commission-registered providers of home care service to highlight that webinar.
The Government acknowledge the particular challenges in enforcing the minimum wage in the care sector. We estimate that approximately 27,000 social care workers were underpaid the national living wage or national minimum wage in 2020. That represents just over 3% of all workers in the sector and is in line with previous years. All workers deserve the wage they are legally entitled to, but particularly key workers in the current context of the coronavirus pandemic. The Government therefore asked HRMC to focus on the sector in its targeted enforcement activity. We have also recently published comprehensive revised minimum wage guidance for all employers. That includes guidance on the recent Supreme Court judgment on sleep-in shifts, where we now have clarity after years of revolving court judgments.
But I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns about social care workers. We met late last year, as he outlined, to discuss the issue of care workers providing care to individuals with direct payment arrangements, also known as personal budget holders. I appreciate that the situation with personal budget holders is particularly tricky as they are vulnerable individuals, but in minimum wage terms they are often the employers of their carers. That means, under minimum wage legislation, that any enforcement action by HMRC for underpayment of their care workers can only be taken against these individuals. I would like to give some assurances on how enforcement works in practice in such cases. Where complaints are received, HMRC works with all parties to ensure that personal budget holders receive the necessary help and support while also continuing to protect the rights of workers. As my hon. Friend said, local authorities have a duty of care under the Care Act 2014 to give personal budget holders clear advice about their responsibilities as an employer. Local authorities must also be satisfied that a personal budget holder is capable of managing direct payments, and should put in place an effective monitoring process related to those direct payments. Crucially, this involves checking to ensure that the individual is fulfilling their responsibilities as an employer. I understand that there are examples of local authorities stepping up to financially assist personal budget holders where minimum wage cases are brought against them. I strongly encourage this, and it is in line with the local authority’s Care Act duties, but ultimately HMRC needs to protect the rights of any underpaid worker.
Where arrears have been repaid to the worker, HMRC has discretion on whether to issue a formal notice of underpayment. HMRC rightly makes limited use of its discretion in practice, but cases brought against personal budget holders are instances where I would expect it to consider using that discretion. I therefore urge workers who care for personal budget holders and who believe them to have been underpaid, such as my hon. Friend’s constituent, to complain to HMRC or contact ACAS for advice. I understand, having spoken to my hon. Friend, that this is clearly an issue—although I cannot comment on his individual case in detail—that is a good few years old. As I say, I admire his tenacity in working with the council as well, pushing the council to do more and also speaking to my predecessor as well as to me. I know that my hon. Friend is calling for HMRC to be able to enforce directly against local authorities in such cases, but HMRC can enforce only against the employer—that is laid out in primary legislation.
It is right that there is a clear line so that employers are always clear about their responsibilities and workers are always clear about their rights. Any change could call into question the other scenarios in which multiple parties are involved in employment, such as in respect of agency workers, umbrella companies or contractors. That could lead to protracted court cases to determine who is responsible for paying the minimum wage, which would only delay workers getting the pay to which they are legally entitled. We therefore have no plans to change the minimum wage legislation.
We are extremely proud of all our health and social care staff and recognise their extraordinary commitment, especially during the covid pandemic. The 1.5 million people who make up the paid social care workforce provide an invaluable service to the nation, especially during the pandemic. Putting social care on a sustainable footing where everybody is treated with dignity and respect is one of the biggest challenges our society faces. There are complex questions to address and we want to give them our full consideration in the light of current circumstances, which is why the Government are committed to the sustainable improvement of the adult social care system. The Department for Health and Social Care will bring forward plans for workforce reform later this year.
We are providing an extra £341 million for adult social care, to pay for infection, prevention and control measures and to support rapid testing to the end of June 2021. That will bring specific funding for adult social care during the pandemic to almost £1.8 billion. We are also providing councils with access to more than £1 billion of additional funding for social care in 2021-22, on top of the significant support provided over the past year to support the sector in dealing with covid-19.
My hon. Friend talked about the single enforcement body, which is indeed something we are consulting on and working through, not least as we move towards the introduction of an employment Bill. We are taking the time to reflect on the lessons that we have learned from the covid-19 situation—the baked-in behaviour changes to work practices in the wider sense of the employment Bill—and the single enforcement body will be a really important part of that. I look forward to my hon. Friend’s contributions to the debate when we introduce forward legislation to bring that new body into existence.
My hon. Friend made some important points and I am really pleased to have had the opportunity to respond. The Government are committed to ensuring that all workers are paid at least the minimum wage, which is their legal entitlement. We also recognise that personal budget holders and individuals who arrange their own care are often among the most vulnerable in society. When complaints are received, HMRC will work with all parties to ensure that individuals receive the help and support that they need, while continuing to protect the rights of workers. I look forward to continuing to work with ministerial colleagues to ensure that all care workers are paid appropriately under the National Minimum Wage Act.
Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, may I associate myself with your words and wish you a very good Prorogation—or whatever the term is? Members, staff and your team have played an amazing role in allowing us to continue the scrutiny of the Government’s work and our work as a fully functioning democracy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Minister; that is much appreciated and I will ensure that that message gets passed on to the Speaker and the others in the team.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Con) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Alistair Carmichael (rt. hon.) (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Stuart Andrew |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Howell (Henley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con) | Anthony Mangnall |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Owen Thompson |
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Antony Higginbotham |
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Mark Harper |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerset and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) | Jim Shannon |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Owen Thompson |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to observe social distancing—you are all sitting in the correct places, so that is fine. Please wear a mask when not speaking, unless you are medically exempt. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Food and Drink (Miscellaneous Amendments Relating to Food and Wine Composition, Information and Labelling) Regulations 2021.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Nokes. This statutory instrument addresses inconsistencies in our food labelling that arise from our departure from the European Union. It deals with a number of EU exit-related issues, particularly on technical standards, that we were unable to address before the end of the transition period. It amends certain retained direct EU legislation and pieces of domestic food legislation in England, including the labelling of general food, non-beef meats, primary ingredients, and GI—geographical indication—products for wine and agrifoods. It also amends analysis methods and some practices for the production of wine, and rules on their labelling and marketing. Transitional provisions have been included in the SI to allow businesses time to adjust to the required changes.
The aim of the SI is to ensure that our food rules remain broadly the same as they were before, and that the rules and regulation continue to operate well. For example, where a label was required to include an EU address of the business responsible for the information, this will now be a UK or Crown dependency address. This is needed to ensure that consumers and trading standards officers can contact those responsible if necessary.
In addition, where a specific country of original is not provided for certain meats, terms such as “non-EU” will be replaced by UK-appropriate terms on the Great Britain market. UK caseins sold in business-to-business transactions will now have to be labelled with the address of the responsible business operator in the UK. For honey blends comprised of honey from several different countries, the term
“a blend of honeys from more than one country”,
or similar wording, can now be used, although of course a specific country can be named if that is what the producer prefers.
The wine rules reflect the GB context. For example, they will ensure that our rules relate only to products that could be produced here, so not retsina, which can be produced only in Greece. The SI provides for a period of adjustment on geographical indications on labels. That means that for a period of three years, or until wine products are sold, enforcement bodies will not take action if a product is labelled for sale as a wine or agrifood GI but is not in fact protected on our registers. This applies so long as that product name was protected in the UK before the end of the transition period. We are not expecting to use this provision much, as it will apply to only a very small number of GIs, which are included in trade deals that have not yet transitioned to being protected in the UK—so they would have to be GIs from non-EU countries.
The SI provides for adjustment periods to give businesses time to adapt to the new labelling rules. Businesses will have until 1 October 2022 to comply with food labelling changes on the English market, and wine products will also be able to be marketed, with either an EU or a UK importer detail, until that date.
There has been a great deal of business engagement on the changes that we seek to make today, including public consultation on how the retained legislation should be adjusted to fit the UK context. Views were sought in the “Food labelling: amending laws” consultation in 2018. Honey and caseins labelling options were considered in a separate public consultation in 2018. There has been regular consultation with the UK’s wine and spirits industry, and of course with the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. Businesses repeatedly asked for a period of adjustment, and that is what this SI will give them, if approved.
I am pleased to say that the devolved Administrations have been informed throughout the making of this SI and they are content. I commend the SI to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. I apologise for my near-lateness and the anxiety that it might have induced in colleagues—we do need the lifts in this place to work.
It seems no time since we were discussing our last SI, some 16 hours ago. I enjoyed the Minister’s introductory comments, which were elegantly presented, as always, on the technical issues that could not be resolved before the end of last year because they ran out of time. Of course, we are seeing the consequences now.
This SI is largely about labelling, or “minor ‘real world’ effects” as the explanatory memorandum imaginatively explains. We are not convinced that the effects are quite as minor as all that. Of course, there have been two attempts at this SI. The sifting Committee felt that the subject was sufficiently sensitive to be upgraded to the affirmative procedure so that it could be discussed, so we are grateful to it. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as eagle-eyed as ever, noted that meat, excluding beef, will be labelled as “non-UK” rather than “non-EU”—that does not preclude a specific country, as the Minister said. When we think about it, that actually reduces the information available to consumers.
The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee stated:
“We note that, as consumers will no longer be able to tell whether meat (excluding beef) is from the EU or not after the adjustment period, this may have the potential of reducing key information that is available at present about the origin of a product and therefore about the associated food standards.”
That might be an unintended consequence of this change, but I think it is worth exploring. I would say—as ever, I will put it more crudely than their lordships—that many people might like to know that the origin is the high-standard EU, rather than, to pick a random example, chlorine-washed America. I know the Minister is particularly keen that we keep repeating that familiar example. Why should consumers not have that additional piece of information? It is not as if the EU has ceased to exist, much as some Members on the Government Benches might wish that to be the case. The EU is still an important partner and we will still be able to purchase its produce in our shops, so it would be good to know.
There is one part of the UK that will still be applying those very same EU rules. As the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out:
‘We also note that after the adjustment period, different requirements will apply in GB and Northern Ireland (NI) where EU requirements will continue to apply as a result of the NI Protocol. Defra told us that “further steps will be taken to continue unfettered access for NI food products to the GB market”.’
I therefore have two questions for the Minister. First, why not allow consumers to know that the produce is from the EU? Secondly, what are those further steps to continue unfettered access for Northern Ireland food products to the GB market?
Similarly, the changes to wine labelling also seem to wish away the European Union. As the Minister knows—I pointed this out a couple of weeks ago—the Wine and Spirit Trade Association, despite the happy consultations referred to in the explanatory memorandum, is not particularly happy. The explanatory memorandum, in paragraph 10.7, suggests that there has been “regular contact”, so perhaps she could tell us how often and when. Given that the various consultations mentioned in paragraph 10 took place back in 2018-19, perhaps it was a while ago. The key point of difference here might be that there was contact at official level but possibly not at ministerial level.
I would be very happy to convene a meeting with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the Minister, perhaps even with that bottle of wine I mentioned the other week, wrapped in red, white and blue tape. I am sure that she will have read the excellent briefing that the association has provided for us today, which argues that under these changes it will no longer be possible to use one label for both EU and UK markets. As the briefing explains at some length, that will increase costs and complexity, which I would have though is undeniable. Sadly, of course, that has been the experience over much of this post-Brexit period.
The Opposition strongly urge the Minister to work with the industry to see whether a solution can be found before the labelling grace period ends in September 2022, which I am sure we all agree would be to everyone’s mutual benefit. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that, as well as perhaps a commitment to join Labour in promising the early end of the VI-1 form, which I have not mentioned since the SI before last.
Finally, let me say a little about honey and provenance issues, because these make headlines quite frequently, with consumers rightly concerned about what they are actually buying—I looked at a jar of honey in my cupboard this morning, and it was not entirely clear to me. I am grateful to the Food Standards Agency for briefing me on these complex issues. I think that a similar point to that made by the Lords on meat may also apply to honey of EU designation, because the distinction between the EU and rest of the world is important.
I am told that it is really quite difficult to test for added sugars in honey, which is one of the difficulties with the cheaper honeys available. At the moment, the test is done best by German laboratories that use a database made up of references that are predominantly European and have been built up over time. It is an historical accident that it has built up that knowledge, and in the past we had access to that, but now we are having to do it differently. The Food Standards Agency is working with retailers and trading standards officers to get the supply chain assurances that we would like, and I am told that good progress is being made. For consumers, however, being able to distinguish between the EU and the rest of the world seems to me to be of some value. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. Again, why not allow consumers to know and allow them to make that informed choice?
In conclusion, we do not oppose these changes, but we suggest that the ‘real world’ effects may not be quite as minor as suggested.
Victoria Prentis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that large number of questions, which I will try to answer. This was certainly not a case of running out of time at the end of last year. Different rules applied when we were subject to the transition period for leaving the EU, and it was deemed sensible to wait until after the end of the period to make these changes, and we have acted with all due alacrity since that date. It is true that we are dealing with a large number of SIs at the moment. Food labelling is important, and it is right that we get it right and ensure that the system works well.
On the general point, as I repeat several times a day, the Government are committed to maintaining high food standards, and this legislation certainly does not change that. Consumers need food information that is relevant for their domestic market. In order for our home consumers to remain informed, now that we are no longer part of the EU, it is required that they are informed that although information on the exact origin of the food may not be available, it is not from the UK. UK consumers would not be appropriately informed if the origin of the food in our market was indicated as being not from another geographical area.
Regarding the potential impact of hormone-treated or chlorine-washed meats in GB, the use of “non-EU” rather than “non-UK” would in no way better inform our customers of the food’s origin.
On EU food information legislation, annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol makes it clear that all pre-packaged food placed on the Northern Ireland market should meet EU rules, but any wine produced in Northern Ireland could bear that provenance. I am sorry if I did not make that clear to start with.
On wine specifically, we maintained a constant dialogue and engagement with the key wine production, trade and enforcement organisations in the time leading up to the end of the transition period. I understand that the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has written to me to request a meeting, and officials are currently setting that up. Officials have been in regular contact with the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and with WineGB.
The wine sector prepared well for Brexit, with the result that the trade has continued largely unaffected by the new arrangements. However, in the first few months of this year the wine sector, like some other food sectors, did encounter some ad hoc problems with entering certain EU states, as we have discussed before. We have worked with the companies involved and are doing what we can to ensure that does not happen with future shipments. As I said when we discussed the SI before last, we will meet the WSTA to discuss VI-1 forms, as the matter is under review at the moment.
In order to ensure the continued operability of our food labelling rules, and to reflect that the UK is no longer a member of the EU, it is important that we amend certain retained and domestic food legislation, and provide sensible transitional arrangements to allow businesses time to adjust. For those reasons, I commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021
(3 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 1996 (Protection from Detriment in Health and Safety Cases) (Amendment) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I will begin with some important background to the draft order, which was laid before the House on 17 March 2021. The UK is unique in having three employment statuses for employment rights—self-employed, limb (b) worker, and employee—when most other countries, including within the EU, have just the self-employed and employee categories.
Limb (b) workers have a more casual employment relationship than employees and are entitled to a basic set of rights, such as minimum wage and holiday pay. Limb (b) status allows for much needed flexibility in the labour market. Sections 44(1)(d) and 44(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which implements the EU health and safety directive into domestic law, give employees the right not to be subject to detriment by their employer for leaving or refusing to return to their workplace and the right not to be subject to detriment for taking steps to protect themselves or others in circumstances of danger which they reasonably believe to be serious and imminent.
In May 2020, the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain brought a judicial review against the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Following comprehensive proceedings, the High Court found in November 2020 that the UK had not fully implemented the EU health and safety framework directive into section 44 of the 1996 Act and that some protections applied only to employees, while the Court held that they should also extend to limb (b) workers.
The claim succeeded only in part, and the Court accepted that the UK was not required to extend unfair dismissal to limb (b) workers and had properly implemented the general obligations of the health and safety framework directive. The Government accepted the judgment and therefore proposes this draft order, which will extend the protection from detriment in health and safety cases to all workers, not just employees, as has previously been the case.
The Court also held that the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 should also be extended to limb (b) workers, and I am assured by officials at the Health and Safety Executive that work is under way to consult on the regulations and to extend them to all workers through an additional statutory instrument due to be laid later in the year.
These important protections have proved even more essential for employees who have continued to work through the pandemic and for those returning to work as businesses emerge from the lockdown. They ensure that employees have the legal protection they need to act to ensure their own safety and the safety of others without fear of suffering detriment for doing the right thing. That includes protecting them against being denied promotion or training opportunities.
Having considered the Court judgment, we agree that limb (b) workers should also benefit from the protections. That does not represent a major change as limb (b) workers represent a small share of the workforce. However, it does not make it any less important, as such workers undoubtedly have a significant role to play in our economic recovery from the covid-19 pandemic. That is why the Government want to clarify the UK’s understanding of the health and safety framework directive by amending section 44 of the 1996 Act. We are committed to protecting workers’ rights and supporting workers through the challenges created by the pandemic, ensuring that the UK remains the best place in the world to work. Clarifying our interpretation of the directive in the light of the High Court judgment will mean that more people are protected by the provisions.
Turning to the scope of the SI, the changes made to section 44 of the 1996 Act will apply in England, Scotland and Wales, because employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland. We have, however, discussed this SI with the Northern Ireland Administration, who have laid legislation to the same effect, which will come into operation in parallel subject to the Northern Ireland Assembly’s procedure.
Given that the limb (b) workers represent a small share of the workforce, the direct cost to business of the change is expected to be very low. We also do not expect the amendment to have a significant and disproportionate cost or impact in any region across England, Scotland and Wales.
This is a necessary change in order to clarify the Government’s interpretation of the health and safety framework directive. It will ensure that all workers are covered by the protections and that we build back better from the pandemic by maintaining the highest standards when it comes to workers’ rights in the UK labour market.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I start by paying tribute to the campaigning and work of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, as acknowledged by the Minister. It has been instrumental to the introduction of this amendment to the Employment Rights Act through its legal challenge on behalf of thousands of members in insecure work and the gig economy.
It was only through the IWGB’s work that these vital fundamental employment rights that most employees take for granted have been extended to limb (b) workers and those in the gig economy, because without the High Court ruling in the union’s favour, it is extremely doubtful that the Government would implemented this extension. Indeed, the Secretaries of State for BEIS and for Work and Pensions challenged the IWGB’s case in the High Court instead of extending the rights that should be afforded to workers under EU directives, as agreed under the withdrawal agreement, only to be defeated. As a result of the challenge and the delay that it created between concerns first being raised by the IWGB at the start of the pandemic and the High Court’s ruling in November 2020, many months have been lost in which the protections could have been extended, leaving working people without adequate rights or protections regarding health and safety matters during the height of the coronavirus pandemic.
The pandemic has been devastating for all, but particularly for those in insecure work and the gig economy, who do not share the same employment rights as those with employee status, to which the Minister alluded. For months they continued to work because they had no rights to fall back on and because they needed to work in order to make enough to get by, often putting in long hours in public-facing roles or jobs that brought them into contact with large numbers of people. According to the TUC, covid-19 mortality rates were twice as high for these workers than for those in secure employment.
Today is International Workers’ Memorial Day, on which we remember all those who have lost their lives in the workplace or in the course of their job, and it is worth noting that the Government have acted far too slowly to protect many thousands of workers in insecure work and in the gig economy.
This instrument clearly demonstrates once more just how much we need a new employment rights settlement that provides a clear universal definition of employment status, which the latest Labour manifesto called for, so that employment rights are afforded to all workers from day one and that the bogus self-employment that is used by many employers in the gig economy to exploit their workforces can be brought to an end. A universal definition would give certainty, security and stability to working people at a time when insecure, precarious employment runs rampant in our economy unchecked by this Government, who are happy to let the courts step in to deliver justice for working people rather than taking action themselves. Such a definition would strengthen people’s rights at work.
Despite being promised well over a year ago in 2019 Queen’s Speech, the long-awaited, much-delayed employment rights Bill is yet to materialise. It seems trapped in a permanent state of “in due course” according to official responses from this Minister and others. Such a Bill would offer us the chance to deliver a real, positive change and strengthen workers’ rights. It would allow us to correct the inconsistencies and injustices that the IWGB and others have highlighted. The Minister should be able to commit to its inclusion in next month’s Queen’s Speech, and I hope he acknowledges that today.
In conclusion, we support this instrument today, but we lament the Government’s decision to challenge the matter in the High Court and the length of time it has taken them to correct this injustice—a delay which will have cost the lives of many workers during the covid-19 pandemic. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government introduce their promised instrument relating to the PPE directive—I hope that it is not also left in a state of “in due course”—and, hopefully, a robust employment rights Bill without delay.
Paul Scully
I appreciate the spirit in which this debate has taken place and the agreement on the reason for the court case. It is right that the courts were able to consider all the details of the case before coming to a clear conclusion. As I said, the claim succeeded only in part, with the High Court accepting that the UK was not required to extend unfair dismissal, for example, to limb (b) workers and had properly implemented the general obligations of the health and safety framework directive, and we chose not to appeal that judgment. It is important that the Court can do its work on interpretation to build up the case law. As I mentioned before, officials at the Health and Safety Executive assure me that work is much under way to extend protections under the personal protective equipment directive to limb (b) workers as well. To align with the Court ruling, there is no reason for further delay.
As for the employment Bill, I look forward to debating it with the hon. Gentleman and to working through the Bill when parliamentary time allows. We will see when that discussion happens. I do not have the Queen on speed dial, so we will have to see what happens on 11 May.
In conclusion, I underline once more that the draft order will help workers across the country during the coronavirus pandemic and beyond, providing all limb (b) workers and employees with the right not to be subjected to detriment in health and safety cases. I commend the statutory instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021
Draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021
(3 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members to observe social distancing and to sit only in the places that are clearly marked. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Committee. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members sent their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021.
Alex Chalk
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. The draft statutory instruments before us are key components of the Government’s whiplash reforms. The measures will not only simplify the process of settling whiplash claims, but provide certainty to claimants as to how much their claim is worth. They will also benefit society more generally by enabling an average reduction in insurance premiums for ordinary motorists of an estimated £35 per year.
This House has already undertaken extensive and useful debates on the merits of the Government’s policy during the passage of the Civil Liability Act 2018. Our time today is somewhat limited, so I will focus on the detail of the draft regulations, rather than on the substance of past policy debates.
The measures in part 1 of the 2018 Act alter the process for making whiplash claims. That is done primarily by defining what constitutes a whiplash injury, introducing a fixed tariff of damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity—referred to by lawyers as PSLA—providing for an uplift to be applied to the tariff in exceptional circumstances, thereby preserving the discretion of the court, and banning the practice of seeking or offering to settle a whiplash claim without first seeking appropriate medical evidence.
In addition to the 2018 Act, we are increasing the small claims track limit in respect of road traffic accident-related personal injury claims from £1,000 to £5,000. The Committee may be aware that the Government have previously committed to increasing the small claims limit for all other types of personal injury, including employers’ and public liability claims, to £2,000.
On Monday, however, my noble Friend Lord Wolfson QC confirmed in a written ministerial statement that the Government have listened to the views of Members of this House and others, and decided to limit this increase to £1,500 and to defer its implementation until April 2022. We believe that to be a sensible and pragmatic decision that will provide additional time for affected stakeholders to prepare.
The draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 set out in a tariff the amount of damages payable for PSLA for whiplash injury or injuries of up to two years, and any minor psychological injuries suffered at the same time. The regulations also allow the court to apply an uplift of up to 20% of the tariff amount in exceptional circumstances. With regard to the ban on pre-medical offers to settle, the regulations specify what constitutes appropriate medical evidence and the experts who may provide it. That may differ, depending on whether the injuries include a non-whiplash element.
The purpose of the draft Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021 is to give powers to the Financial Conduct Authority to enable it to monitor effectively and to enforce the ban on pre-medical offers to settle.
I will now provide a little additional detail on each of the sets of draft regulations, having summarised them. The tariff in the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 presents a rising scale of fixed payments determined by injury duration, with the damages reduced less at the top end to recognise more serious injuries. Claims with a prognosis that exceeds two years will fall outside the tariff.
We have reviewed and updated the previously published figures to account for inflation, using the consumer prices index system. We have also added a three-year future-proofing element to ensure that the figures do not move out of alignment with future inflationary pressures before the required statutory review. That leads to an increase of about 11% over the figures previously provided to the House.
The limit by which the court may apply an uplift in exceptional circumstances will be capped at 20%. That is intended to balance the need for an effective and predictable tariff, and to allow for judicial discretion. It takes account of feedback received during consultation and earlier parliamentary debates, and it reflects other similar jurisdictions. For example, Italy also allows for an uplift of up to one fifth.
During the passage of the 2018 Act, we introduced amendments to ensure that the views of the Lord Chief Justice were sought on the tariff and the uplift before regulations were made. Accordingly, we have undertaken that consultation and we are grateful for his consideration of those matters. Following that consultation, we will undertake an analysis of the available data after a year, with a view to considering whether an early review is appropriate. That is a matter that arose from our discussions with him.
The draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021 also specify exactly what constitutes appropriate medical evidence to be provided before an offer to settle a whiplash claim may be made or indeed sought. They provide that when claimants live or are examined in England and Wales, they must obtain a fixed-cost medical report from an accredited medical expert selected via the MedCo portal.
Alternatively, if claimants suffer more serious injuries on the same occasion as the whiplash injury, they may rely on a report covering all their injuries, if that report is obtained from an expert listed on the General Medical Council’s specialist register. The purpose of that is to ensure that only claims that can be properly substantiated by a medical report are settled, because otherwise that litigation risk could be bought off. That in turn increases the cost of insurance premiums, thereby damaging the wider motoring public.
I would like to speak briefly about the Civil Liability Act 2018 (Financial Conduct Authority) (Whiplash) Regulations 2021. These regulations give the FCA the power to take effective action in monitoring and enforcing compliance with the ban on seeking or making pre-medical offers to settle—precisely the mischief we want to address. This ban applies to various types of regulated persons as specified by the Act, which also identifies the FCA as the appropriate regulator to take account in respect of persons authorised under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, or FSMA, as practitioners often refer to it.
The FCA is the regulator for insurers and claims management companies who may be involved in settling whiplash claims. These regulations ensure that the FCA has the powers it needs to regulate section 6 of the Act. In plain English, that means that if individuals were tempted to settle insurance claims without seeking a medical report, the FCA could step in and use its powers as a regulator to prevent them from doing so, or indeed to provide an appropriate sanction, should it feel it necessary to impose one.
I will end by emphasising that the measures contained in these regulations are necessary and important. They provide much-needed certainty to whiplash claimants; they will create savings that will be passed on to consumers; and they enable the FCA to effectively regulate the ban on offering and seeking offers to settle such claims without appropriate medical evidence. The regulations serve the public interest and I commend them to the Committee.
The Chair
I now call the Opposition spokesman, who wins today’s prize for the most attractive face mask.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone, and thank you for your chairmanship this afternoon. I would also like to thank the Minister for his remarks.
There is a long backstory to these regulations. The Minister mentioned the Civil Liability Act 2018, which in itself was a legislative response from the Government to the growth of claims for whiplash in road traffic accidents. The principle that I believe the Government ought to be aiming for is that there is a legitimate and easy-to-use avenue to claim for those who are genuinely injured, but at the same time it takes into consideration the costs to motorists as a whole.
Figures from the insurance industry suggest that in the decade prior to 2016, which is roughly when all this started—legislation is not always a quick process—there was a doubling of claims for whiplash, with an overall cost of around £2 billion a year. It is suggested that the rising whiplash claims drove up insurance costs for everybody else. That is what has spurred the Government on to introduce legislation.
There are several elements of reform set out in these two statutory instruments. Probably the most notable is a new tariff of payment depending on the length of the effect of the injury. The important thing about it is that these tariffs are set at considerably lower levels than some of the whiplash payments that people have been receiving in recent years. For example, if the injury does not last for three months, the payment is £260, which is a small amount of money. It then goes up on a scale to over £4,000 if the injury lasts up to two years. That is probably the main financial change here.
There is also the requirement for a medical report through a portal known as MedCo registration, and I have a couple of questions for the Minister about that. There is the increase in the financial limit of claims through the small claims process from £1,000 to £5,000. The important part of that is that it is designed to take lawyers out of the process for claims under £5,000. There is also the FCA ban on settlements without medical reports and, in exceptional circumstances, a power for the courts to uplift the payout on the figures I quoted a moment ago by 20%. I have a few questions for the Minister.
The first thing, which most people will look at, is that central justification for everything, which is that the volume of whiplash claims and payouts was resulting in an increase in insurance premiums for everyone. The Government claim that motorists will see a reduction in their premiums as a result of the overall reduced payouts for whiplash. The explanatory memorandum published alongside the draft regulations predicts a reduction in premiums of about £35. First, how will the Government ensure that the insurance industry will pass on any savings as a result of the changes? What is to stop the industry just pocketing the savings and increasing its profits?
Secondly, given that both sets of draft regulations are all about whiplash, how will mixed claims be treated, where not only whiplash might have been sustained, but other injuries too? That is very possible in a road traffic accident.
Thirdly, the draft regulations specify that the medical report must be provided through an online portal or by a doctor listed in the General Medical Council’s specialist register. Will the Minister clarify whether that means that a report from someone’s own GP would not be considered as a medical report under the regulations? That is most people’s point of contact if they have had an injury—they do go to see their GP. If that is the case, why is the GP’s report or letter not sufficient to corroborate the injured party’s claim?
Fourthly, how will data be handled by the new portal? How will the data be transferred securely between the insurance companies, solicitors’ firms and claimants?
Finally, what is the Government’s estimate of the impact of that question of taking lawyers out of claims under £5,000? Does that mean, given that most or all of the tariff is below £5,000, that claimants must in effect represent themselves? What are the implications for access to justice?
Motor insurance is rightly of significant political and public interest, because it is something that people are required to have by law; they have no choice about it if they want to drive a vehicle. The whole idea of the system is that claims should be honest and that there should be fair recompense for honest claims. That protects the interests of the claimants, but we also have to protect the interests of all drivers who have to pay their insurance premiums, many of whom—probably most—may never make a claim. The question is whether the draft regulations get that balance right, between those different interests of drivers as a whole and those making a claim, and whether they preserve access to justice properly for people genuinely injured.
The final thing I want to say to the Minister is about the review provision he mentioned. The 2018 Act states that there has to be a review within three years—I think that is in one of the early sections of the Act—but he also mentioned the period of a year. Review is important—to go back to my first question—because if the result of everything is simply to lower payouts to people, with the savings not being passed on to motorists and the insurance companies pocketing the difference, we will have to return to the issue in future. The founding reason for it would obviously be open to huge question in those circumstances. The real test will be whether the savings made are actually passed on to drivers as a whole in future.
Alex Chalk
Yes, lots of interesting and fair questions. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East for expressing himself as he has and for setting some of that initial context, which he did very fairly. I just want to develop that point before turning to his questions. As he rightly pointed out, the context of this is a worrying concern about what can only fairly be described as an explosion in whiplash claims, associated with grave concerns about the authenticity of a significant number of them. Only a brief look at some of the data could make one’s hair stand on end.
Alex Chalk
The right hon. Gentleman is very diffident on this matter. The latest ABI fraud data report for 2019 found that fraudulent motor claims are the most common insurance fraud, with more than 58,000 in 2019, valued at £605 million, which was up 6% on the previous year. However, City of London Police’s insurance fraud enforcement department achieved 433 convictions in 2019, totalling 239 years in custodial sentences arising out of this matter.
The point that the right hon. Gentleman was making is that this, of course, passes costs on to others, but it is worth taking a moment to dwell on how much we are talking about. The suggestion is that this will lead to savings of around £1.2 billion a year. None the less, his central point is a very fair one, which is to say, “Hang on a second; how can we be sure that these insurance companies will not simply pocket it and then up their profit margins, and the poor old consumer will not be reimbursed?” That is a fair challenge, but there are two limbs to the response to that.
The first part of the response is one that, bluntly, I did not expect to be able to update the House on today, but the impact of the pandemic—so cruel in so many ways—has unexpectedly shone a light on the likely behavioural response in certain regards. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that during the pandemic people have driven their cars quite a lot less. As a result, there has been a lot of pressure from consumers asking their insurers for a refund on their premiums. It may be that there are people in this room who have done exactly that, so when you actually look at the data to see how the power of the market has had an impact upon premiums—nothing the Government can do, but simply the actions of consumers putting pressure on their insurers—it is quite instructive.
I will give an example of one provider, Confused. In the fourth quarter of 2019, the premium was £630. In the fourth quarter of 2020, it was £575. Similarly, another insurer, ABI, was at £483 in the fourth quarter of 2019, and £468 in 2020. In other words, the power of individuals going back to their insurers and saying, “You are going to have to reduce my premium on account of the fact that I haven’t been driving my car” has had a market impact. As such, I think we can take increasing confidence that there will be a consumer power to drive down these premiums, effectively telling the insurers, “The Government have taken these steps to ensure that there is less fraud taking place by way of whiplash, and we know that there are savings of around £1.2 billion, so pass them on to me or I will go elsewhere”.
Mr McFadden
The Government cannot just leave it to the consumer to have to take the initiative. The Minister is probably right that some consumers have approached the insurance companies because they have been driving a lot less this past year, but trying to phone any big company like that—I am not referring to any insurance company in particular—and get through the systems is not easy. I suggest that we need more from the Government. Surely there has to be some sort of pressure from the Government, some sort of deal here, so that if the Government are going to pass legislation like this, the very purpose of which is to save the £1.2 billion in payouts, then insurance companies have got to pass it on. Otherwise, what is the point of what we are doing here?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman should have waited for me to make my second point, because he has asked and he shall receive. Let me just finish off the first point. It is not a case of always having to phone the insurer to say, “I paid X, so now you should give me a refund.” The point is simply this: if insurance companies do not offer competitive premiums, people are likely to go elsewhere. The experience of the pandemic is precisely that: unless those insurance companies act in a way that is competitive, they are likely to lose business.
The second point is this. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to be holding insurance companies’ feet to the fire. Having made a firm commitment to pass savings on to consumers, insurers should be held to account. That is precisely why the 2018 Act includes a statutory requirement on insurers to provide information to the Financial Conduct Authority on how they have passed on savings.
Insurers must provide that information to the FCA by April 2024, as stated in the draft regulations, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to study. The Government, with the assistance of the FCA, will assess whether the industry has passed on the benefits of the reforms to consumers. A report will be made to Parliament after April 2024. That will be his moment to say, “Do you remember, Minister Chalk, when we were having that conversation in April 2021, you told me that the savings would be passed on?” We have ensured that the mechanism is built into the regulations to hold those companies’ feet to the fire.
With regard to the portal, the right hon. Gentleman asked whether a person’s GP could be considered. It is important to note that under all sorts of legislation, whether on medical negligence or road traffic accidents, we have to have the right medical expert for the particular issue to come before the court—or, in this case, with a bit of luck, not to come before the court. It has to be the right medical expert. Without any discourtesy to GPs, they are not always the right expert. If the GP has ensured accreditation under the system, there is no bar to the GP being that expert, but it is not always automatically the case that a GP would be able to provide the medical report, because that might not be within their realm of expertise. There is nothing unusual about that and certainly nothing unusual in the draft regulations so far as that is concerned.
How will data be handled? Data will be handled in the normal way. There is overarching legislation that covers that.
On the impact of taking lawyers out of the system, we make no bones about the fact that for a small category of case, it is more proportionate and appropriate to do precisely that. Let me quote what the Lord Chief Justice said about this. Characteristically, he put it very clearly and pithily. He noted that the tariff was a
“narrowly defined statutory derogation from the principle of full compensation through an assessment of damages by the courts”.
He was saying that the Government are deliberately carving out an area to do with road traffic accidents to ensure that, where additional costs are created that pass on additional expense to consumers, that is dealt with in a surgical way. I say “surgical” because vulnerable road users such as children, pedestrians and cyclists are not covered. That is an important exclusion.
Mr McFadden
For two reasons, I am grateful to the Minister for stressing that. First, those groups he mentioned—pedestrians, cyclists and so on—are not covered, and that is important. Secondly, the broader importance—I would be grateful if he can reassure us—is that this is a carve-out just for whiplash in road traffic accidents, and it will not affect injuries at work or other kinds of injuries in which the normal system of claiming through a court and having a judgment on the proportionality of the accident will take place. Some people, responding to the draft regulations, have said, “This is unfair, because you are treating one class of injury unlike another.” There is that argument, and I repeat it, but a lot of our constituents want to be reassured that the draft regulations will not have a broader ripple into their circumstances if, for example, they were injured at work.
Alex Chalk
That is critical. The Government believe in access to justice. That means that if people make their way to work and their employer has created an unsafe environment, so they trip over something and need to make a personal injury claim, they should not be crowded out—not shut out from making a claim. The draft regulations preserve precisely that.
I will address the issue of mixed tariff cases and bring my remarks to a close. Section 3(8) of the 2018 Act provides that, where a claimant suffers injuries in addition to a whiplash injury—the point that the right hon. Gentleman was making—the court is not prevented from awarding damages to reflect the combined effect of the injuries sustained. Ultimately, it is for the courts to determine how mixed injuries are addressed. We are confident, given the excellence of our judiciary, that they are well placed to resolve such cases on a day-by-day basis.
In conclusion, the draft regulations are proportionate, calibrated and targeted measures that serve the public and consumers’ interests, drive down on fraud and act to drive down insurance premiums. They are manifestly good for the public and for road users. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021.—(Alex Chalk.)
Westminster Hall
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
GKN Automotive Plant: Birmingham
(3 years 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
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements in Westminster Hall. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates, which is slightly unusual. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room; that is something to be aware of when you are sitting in front of your screen. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room; you will see that there are hand wipes in front of you. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposed closure of GKN Automotive plant in Birmingham.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I declare an interest as, for 47 years, a member of, first, the Transport and General Workers Union and then Unite, and ultimately its deputy general secretary.
Manufacturing matters to the success of the UK. Manufacturing, the genius of science and the national health service have seen more than 30 million people vaccinated against covid. Manufacturing will be key to recovery. Manufacturing—green manufacturing—is key to combating climate change. Manufacturing getting it right is key to the recovery of Brexit Britain. And manufacturing is key to levelling up.
Automotive is the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing, and key companies in the automotive supply chain exemplify that excellence. GKN is one of them. GKN has a remarkable history. The company goes back over 262 years. It made the cannonballs for the battle of Waterloo and built Spitfires for the battle of Britain. The Chester Road plant has been operational for more than 50 years. Historically, it made parts for the original Mini Cooper. Throughout its history, GKN has been central to iconic moments in British history and British culture. Today, it is a major supplier of drive shafts and prop shafts to the automotive industry, supplying almost every car manufacturer in the UK.
In 2018, GKN was subject to a hostile takeover by Melrose Industries, a City firm with a reputation for buying companies, breaking them up and selling them on. For example, in July 2008, Melrose acquired the FKI group, of which manufacturing firm Brush is part. Melrose began selling off parts of the group in 2009 and sold off about 15 businesses between 2009 and 2014. It implemented severe job cuts at the Brush plant in Loughborough, taking the number of employees from 1,200 down to 600, with a further 270 redundancies in 2018, and, in the process, moving production overseas and hollowing out a once great company. Today, global field service engineers still employed by Brush are balloting against fire and rehire pay cuts of up to £15,000.
In 2018, that chequered past mobilised the GKN workers, their union, Unite, and a cross-party group of MPs—I stress that it was a cross-party group—in opposition to the takeover to demand assurances from Melrose that there would be no repeat of that experience if it acquired GKN. In return, Melrose promised that it was “ambitious for GKN’s future” and wished to make it
“an engineering and manufacturing powerhouse…We are British and work in the national interest.”
Following a hard-fought campaign, Melrose then won the shareholder vote by 52% to 48%, with the support of the hedge funds being critical as they sold GKN short. In the years since the takeover there have been some job losses at GKN Chester Road. However, the workers’ union, Unite, had been in discussions with the company about investment in the plant, and GKN Chester Road appeared in good stead, ending furlough in July last year. It was producing, and then out of the blue in February this year the closure of the Chester Road plant was announced by GKN with the loss of 519 jobs, and twice that number in the supply chain. It is now clear—the company has acknowledged this—that it had been planning the closure of the site for two years, with no consultation whatever with the workers. Its intention now is to export production and jobs from Birmingham to Poland and France. The European sites will be the beneficiaries of the loss of 519 well-paid, skilled jobs in an area with twice the national unemployment rate. I often say about Erdington, “It may be rich in talent, but it is one of the poorest constituencies in the country.”
The consequences of closure will be grave, not least the human cost. I visited the site again two weeks ago. One worker in his late 20s has three kids, including two young children. His partner stays at home to raise their children and he is the only breadwinner in the family. The kids go to school locally. Their whole family life is based in Erdington. What will his young family do if the plant shuts? No other well-paid jobs in the area can replace his current job. Another worker in his mid-20s is a single parent with two young kids. His father and grandfather worked at the GKN plant, with 60 to 70 years’ experience working for GKN in the family. What will he do if the plant shuts?
There are also wider consequences for the British automotive industry. What happens to GKN in the coming months will be a litmus paper test for the Government’s commitment to stand up for the industry. On supply chain consequences, GKN supplies nearly every major car manufacturer in Britain with drive shafts and prop shafts. It is the only firm in Britain with the capability to fulfil the orders that it does. What will be the cost to British automotive of losing a British supplier to Europe, particularly as we emerge from the European Union?
On building up supply chain resilience, there is now a welcome and major debate raging about supply chain resilience and certainty. The continuity of supply chains during periods of disruption are vital, as the past 12 months have shown. It is crucial for the resilience and competitiveness of British automotive over its international rivals that we have British-made parts supplying British car plants. At a time when the debate is raging about onshoring jobs and production back to the UK, here we have a company that is offshoring. What will be the consequences for British automotive if we lose the domestic production capacity of such vital components? Do we really want to move from a just-in-time supply chain of a matter of hours to a supply chain four and five days long, stretching all the way to Poland?
Closure is also a threat to the Government’s global Britain agenda. Part of the Government’s agenda is that, post-Brexit, the UK must look to international markets beyond Europe. The Government have sought trade deals with the likes of Japan and Australia. Aside from the merits or demerits of such deals, to benefit from such free trade agreements UK carmakers such as Jaguar Land Rover need enough local content in their cars to qualify to avoid paying tariffs. A driveline or e-axle equates to 15% of an electric vehicle, a significant part of their value. If we lose GKN’s British-made parts, car makers such as JLR could face significant tariffs on the cars they export to international markets. That poses grave risks to the international competitiveness of the industry. What signal does that send about Britain as a place to do business? We run the serious risk of iconic British cars potentially not being considered British-made, because of the lack of local content in them. Surely that cannot be the global Britain that the Government advocate.
There is a potential solution. We must now act to protect the workers, British manufacturing and the national interest. The consultation between GKN and the workforce is ongoing. I pay tribute to the union convener at the plant, Frank Duffy, and his shop stewards and members, for the admirable leadership that they have shown throughout what has been a difficult period for them. They have my unending support and solidarity.
During the consultation process Melrose’s case for closure has crumbled under the weight of scrutiny from the union. Despite Melrose’s claims, the Chester Road site is not unprofitable, but its accounts have been unduly impacted by transfer pricing within the business, so that other plants appear more profitable. The estimated savings from closure have also been shown to be hugely inflated. It is now clear that modest investment in the plant would allow it to be more productive than GKN’s other European plants. It already is more productive than a number of them. Alternatives to closure must therefore now be assessed in good faith by Melrose. Unite, Frank, and Steve Turner the assistant general secretary have all worked tirelessly to develop a cast iron business case for the future of the Chester Road site and they now rightly expect the company to respond in good faith.
Part of their plan would make the Chester Road plant fit for the future of the electrification process in automotive, so that it can play its part in the transition to electric vehicles, by also manufacturing what are called electric drive units. The chief executive of Melrose, Simon Peckham, made a commitment before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in February to assess such alternatives to closure during the consultation with the workers. Melrose must now honour that commitment. In parallel, together with the workers’ union, Unite, I have had constructive discussions with the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible, Lord Grimstone. It is important that the Government now match words with action and show their resolve to protect GKN and its workers. All parties must play their part in finding alternatives to closure, and all options must be considered to save the 519 jobs, and for the continued prosperity of British automotive, which is so vital to the economy of the west midlands.
From what I have outlined today it is clear beyond doubt that the moral argument is on the side of the workers at GKN, but I am the first to recognise that ultimately what matters to save GKN Chester Road is the business argument. That is why it is so important that Melrose should fulfil its commitment to consider Unite’s alternative business case, and that the Government should also act to ensure that that happens, playing their part to the full at the next stages. The Government are not a powerless bystander in the situation. When the national interest is threatened in this way, by the harm that the loss of GKN would inflict on British automotive, it is incumbent on the Government to act swiftly and decisively. It would be churlish not to acknowledge that the early discussions have been positive, and what the Government do at the next stages will be crucial.
I want to end on a positive note, from my years in the trade union movement. People develop an instinct about when battles can be won or lost, and I am steadfast in my belief that, with good faith on all sides, disaster for 519 workers in Erdington can be avoided. I pay tribute to their strength and courage. I can guarantee that they, the workers, will do their utmost to save the plant from closure. They are the living embodiment of all that is great about this country and British manufacturing. We can walk around the floor, as I have many times, and see generation after generation—for 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 years and more—serving this nation well. They are truly the best of Britain and the best of British manufacturing. It now falls on Melrose and the Government to match their courage to save thousands of British jobs and to act now to secure the future of the great GKN Automotive plant on Chester Road, Birmingham.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) speaking up for a manufacturing facility in his constituency. He and I have a great deal in common. We are joint chairs of the all-party parliamentary manufacturing group and we both want to see a strong future for manufacturing in the UK. I am, like him, an MP in the west midlands, where automotive manufacture and the components used in automotive are a key part of our local economy.
I am also a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and was a member of it in the last Parliament when Melrose gave evidence on 6 March 2018 ahead of its acquisition of GKN. As the hon. Member said, Melrose also gave evidence to the Committee on 23 February this year. I support his interest in supporting manufacturing in the UK, but as a former business owner I believe there must be occasions when we, Government and broader society should respect the ability of business owners and managers to take the action they consider necessary—often difficult and challenging decisions—in the best interests of their company, and accept that those decisions are being taken for the right reasons.
When GKN came before the Select Committee ahead of Melrose’s acquisition, it is fair to say that there was a pretty strong challenge by my colleagues on Melrose’s plans for the future of GKN. There were questions to the three founders of Melrose amid concern that Melrose was attempting to buy the company on the cheap and then sell off individual bits. In that session, Melrose set out its reason for the acquisition, which was principally to improve a business that in recent years had been only poorly run. As a member of the Committee, I was able to ask the witnesses what their plans were for the long term and what reassurance they could give that they would not simply sell it off. Simon Peckham, the chief executive, said:
“We say we have a three to five-year strapline, and we have always said that.”
He added:
“We are quite happy to hold businesses for longer. We are quite happy to go back to our shareholders if necessary and say, ‘This is the wrong time to do something now. We will keep this business.’”
So there is evidence that where the business is right, they will keep it. I therefore asked:
“Could we be confident that in five or 10 years’ time the structure…would be broadly as it is today?”
Simon Peckham was straight. He said:
“No. We have said, between years 4 and 5, we will sit down and work out what the right thing to do is. I cannot give you a commitment about 10 years’ time, but we have set out very clearly in our offer document exactly what we mean.”
I also asked Mr Peckham about how the acquisition of GKN was in line with the Government’s industrial strategy. Mr Peckham replied:
“At the end of the day, we want to invest in R&D. We want to develop these businesses. We want to grow them. We want to improve them. We want to take a GKN business that we think is currently underperforming.”
He said that Melrose had access to the ability to raise finance
“to build GKN, if it is the right thing to do”.
He added:
“I accept we are not saying we are going to hold these assets for ever. We are not sitting in front of you misleading you.”
It is therefore clear that Melrose intended to acquire the business, have a look at it and see what it thought needed to be done.
Mr Peckham appeared before the Committee on 23 February this year—three years into its ownership of the business—for a session that was essentially about Brexit, but the opportunity was there for the Chair to ask a question about Erdington. Simon Peckham replied:
“Erdington is one of the difficult decisions that we were presented with. As well as the good stuff we do, when we inherited GKN it was basically a troubled business. Your Committee spent quite a long time talking to them about that and the profit warning they did at the time. As a business, it needed improvement.”
Additionally, he said:
“Let me turn to Erdington, because it is a difficult position. It is one of the difficult things. We have complied with the spirit and the word of every undertaking we gave, but we also said we would make difficult decisions from time to time. Unfortunately, Erdington is one of those.”
Ahead of that session, Melrose sent its “Briefing note: Melrose meeting its commitments”. That set out legally binding undertakings for five years to ensure that Melrose remained headquartered and listed in the UK, that the board would have a majority of UK residents, and that GKN Aerospace and Driveline businesses would retain the same rights to the GKN trademarks. Significantly, rightly or wrongly, there were no undertakings in relation to jobs, employment or sites of any of the GKN businesses.
It is important to consider the business environment since that acquisition took place. In the past 18 months, businesses have had to face the pandemic and the uncertainty of Brexit. There was a huge fall in car sales: the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders reported 2020 sales were down 30% ,with showrooms shut for several months. The biggest decline was in diesel cars, but petrol reduced, too, due to a fast growing switch to electric. That sector is not currently served by products from the Erdington factory. That must have played a part in Melrose’s decision to wind down the factory over the coming 18 months.
I have listened carefully and know very well the case made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington. I am keen to see a strong future for UK manufacturing. I share his concern about the loss of the facility and the impact on his constituents. However, to be fair to Melrose, it made its position pretty clear on acquisition. That was accepted by GKN’s shareholders. The challenging business environment has brought forward a difficult decision. I believe the company must be able to take the action it deems to be in its best interests, while honouring the commitments it has made.
I hope that the phased approach that Melrose proposes over the 18-month period will minimise any impact on those affected individually, and the broader area in Birmingham. I have heard from the hon. Gentleman some of the alternatives proposed for the facility, and I hope that they might provide the basis for retention of some activity there, perhaps under the Melrose ownership or the ownership of others. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister what steps she may be able to take to assist in that regard.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this debate. I thank him for all he has done to secure the long-term sustainability of the GKN Birmingham plant and to support the 519 workers whose livelihoods are now under threat.
First, I should declare an interest. For 27 years I worked at the Vauxhall car plant at Ellesmere Port, before serving as the north-west regional secretary of Unite the union, of which I remain a member.
The automotive sector is truly the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing. It is deeply distressing to see its future thrown into jeopardy as a result of the pandemic, Brexit and a neglectful Government whose pledges to level up and build back better are worth less than the paper they are written on. We should be very clear: the closure of the plant is not an inevitability, as shop stewards of the plant have demonstrated in their two-part alternative plan. GKN Birmingham remains financially viable. With the right investment and direction, the plant can soon be returned to profitability by improving productivity and transitioning towards the production of parts that will be essential if the UK is to become a world leader in the electric vehicle revolution. The proposals are a testament to the expertise and imagination of workers on the shop floor, whose views are so often disregarded by management, but deserve serious consideration.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the alternative of shuttering the plant doors for good would devastate his constituency, which, like mine, already suffers some of the highest levels of deprivation and joblessness in the country.
The consequences of the plant’s closure would also be felt much more widely. The offshoring of a vital part of the automotive supply chain, and a loss of precious jobs, skills and infrastructure, would be a body blow to an industry struggling to recover from the worst year in its history. As a member of the International Trade Committee, I am acutely aware of how the pandemic dramatically exposed the vulnerabilities of international supply chains. Now, more than ever, we need to invest in domestic industry, and build up skills and well-paid jobs at home. That must begin with the Government investing in the future of Britain’s automotive industry at GKN Birmingham and Vauxhall’s car plant at Ellesmere Port.
When it comes to protecting a critical part of the supply chain at GKN, no option should be off the table, including part or whole state intervention or nationalisation, or any legislative measures that safeguard the plants from asset-stripping venture capitalists. If the Business Secretary fails to act now and make the crucial investment needed to allow the transition of plants like GKN and Vauxhall towards the production of electric vehicles and parts, it will not only condemn hundreds of jobs to the scrapheap, but fatally undermine the Government’s commitments to phasing out diesel and petrol vehicles, and achieving net zero emissions.
The Government face a major test—are they serious about levelling up left behind communities such as Birmingham, Erdington and Birkenhead, or is their pledge to deliver a green industrial revolution just another empty Tory promise? In Birkenhead and Wirral, thousands of jobs hang in the balance.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Thank you for accommodating me and allowing me to be here in person, Dame Angela. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this debate, which is not just important for Birmingham and the west midlands, but is of national significance because of the nature of the issues. I declare an interest as a long-standing member of Unite the union and chair of the Unite group in Parliament.
My hon. Friend has described what Melrose is doing to the GKN automotive factory in Birmingham. Frankly, it is an absolute disgrace. Out of deference to the procedures of the House, we do not curse and use foul language, but what is happening to the loyal workforce at this plant is an outrage. Over 500 jobs—my hon. Friend says 519—many thousands of jobs in the supply chain, and more than 50 years of proud history at the site are in the firing line. If this plant is allowed to close, and I am looking here at the Minister—we do not want just warm words but definite actions—it will be a nail in the coffin of UK manufacturing. We look to the Government for a response and a reaction.
GKN is a living, breathing symbol of a great British company. It has been building critical equipment, including for the defence of the realm, for over 260 years. My hon. Friend mentioned that it was involved in building Spitfires, and cannon balls that were used by the British artillery at Waterloo. Surely that is a history worth defending and a future worth saving.
I express solidarity with Steve Turner, assistant general secretary of Unite, who has been involved in plans to save jobs at the plant and Frank Duffy, Unite convener there, and his members, who have fought valiantly and continue to fight. Despite company promises to build a “British manufacturing powerhouse”, many Members of Parliament, including my hon. Friend and others present, and the trade unions, warned what would happen when Melrose launched its hostile takeover bid three years ago. Sadly, despite the comments, made I am sure in good faith, of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), those predictions have proved correct. I do not accept the argument that the plant is not viable. Melrose’s directors have been heavily criticised for excessive bonuses and profits. I will not quote a figure, but it is eye-watering.
It strikes me that there are some parallels with what has happened with the European super league, where an elite wring out value from an organisation—in this case, GKN. As we have heard, Melrose is already closing one factory in Birmingham, and now it wants to throw the other, on Chester Road, on the scrapheap with the intention of stripping it of its assets, because that is what asset strippers do: they buy companies cheap, break them up and sell them off, and they throw away what is left. I had some experience of it in the north-east many years ago with Helical Bar, a property company that bought up the capital assets that were sold off cheap from Aycliffe and Peterlee Development Corporation, then sold them off, making a huge profit for Michael Slade, the chief executive, and walked away without adding any value to the community or to the local economy.
The more than 500 skilled engineering jobs under threat at Birmingham are good jobs and part of the backbone of British manufacturing, but apparently they are not valuable to Melrose, because the company just wants to throw them away. However, these jobs are valuable to the workforce themselves—of course they are. They are valuable to the families who the workers support. They are valuable to the communities in the west midlands where the people live. They are valuable to the trade union. They are also valuable to the economy, to us here in this room; well, I hope they are. The question I put to the Minister is: if they are valuable, what are Ministers going to do to save them? What are they going to do to save British manufacturing, especially the automotive sector, as we shift rapidly to electric vehicles? I look forward to the Minister’s comments later in the debate.
The key issue with the GKN plant in Birmingham is whether it is viable, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington touched on. Unite the union has worked through the figures and looked at the numbers with independent experts that have been recognised by the company. They looked at whether it is viable, and at Melrose’s claim that, in fact, the plant has been losing money for several years. According to the information I have seen, this seems to be a case of what we would call creative accounting. It is called transfer pricing, where large companies that operate over several sites, often based in different countries, pretend the different sites are buying and selling from each other while building a product. In that way, they can say that some sites are theoretically profitable while others are loss-making, depending on what prices the company chooses to charge itself or elements of itself.
It seems to me that that is a fiction, and it is often used to reduce the tax paid in some countries because the profits made in another are higher. In reality, all the sites contribute to the value of the product made, and that is certainly the case with GKN in Birmingham. Melrose bosses think they can just get the work done cheaper in Poland and France, an appalling attitude for a company that promised the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee only a short time ago to build a British manufacturing powerhouse.
Unite has developed an alternative plan with the independent experts, and they make it clear that it is possible not only to make a profit on the site but to increase capacity by 50% and deliver annual savings of up to £8 million for GKN. Most importantly, this will save those valuable jobs and create more jobs for the future, but it seems that Melrose is only interested in short-term profit. We need the Government to make Melrose see that this is an offer it cannot refuse. That will mean support for the rapid shift to electric vehicles, which the factory is perfectly placed to take advantage of, as my hon. Friend said.
GKN Birmingham Chester Road produces Driveline components, including side shafts and prop shafts; small, specialist components. According to Unite, the e-axle, known as the eDrive, which is an existing GKN technology that was developed at its UK innovation centre, is a key product that can secure the Birmingham site’s long-term future, as well as the UK’s critical manufacturing capability. The demand for that product will only increase as we move towards full electrification, but Melrose must get serious about supporting its manufacturing base, and so must the Government.
When the company’s chief executive, Simon Peckham, gave evidence to the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in February, he put the blame squarely on electric vehicles. He claimed that
“electrification is a threat to jobs as well as an opportunity to grow jobs.”
He also said:
“For GKN Automotive as a whole, electrification is an opportunity; unfortunately, for”
the Birmingham plant “it is not.” We do not accept that. The workers do not accept that, and nor does Unite.
The question is: do the Government accept that electrification will not be an opportunity for those highly skilled engineers, who make parts for top brands, including Jaguar Land Rover, Toyota, and Nissan in my part of the country? Are Ministers, who promised a British manufacturing powerhouse, prepared to let Melrose throw those jobs on the scrapheap? Are they giving up on those skilled workers at a time when they need support most of all? I hope the Minister will let us know when she responds to the debate, because we will not give up on them, and neither will their union. We will fight all the way, because we are fighting for the future of British manufacturing. It is a fight that we are determined to win, even if it takes strikes, protests and other ways to disrupt Melrose’s disgraceful plans. The battle for the Birmingham plant has only just begun.
It would be useful if the Minister let us know which side she is on. Is she on the side of the skilled, productive workers, or that of the short-term, greedy bosses? I imagine the whole country would like to know the answer, especially as we go into the local elections in May. I hope the Minister will tell us.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Before calling Rachel Hopkins, I remind Members who are physically present to put their masks on when they sit down.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this extremely important debate. I am a Unite trade union member, and all of us in the Labour and trade union movement fully understand, particularly on International Workers’ Memorial Day, that an injury to one is an injury to all. That is why I am speaking in this debate as the Member of Parliament for Luton South, a constituency in my home town of Luton that has a long history of car and van manufacturing at the Vauxhall plant, which provides skilled jobs. I know how important those jobs are to our local economy and our communities’ livelihoods, so I send my solidarity to the workers at GKN in Erdington, whose jobs are at risk.
Manufacturing matters, and GKN is a vital strategic supplier to our automotive sector. It has the capacity to transition to new products for electric vehicles, as we have heard. That green capacity will be essential in the future for plants such as Vauxhall in Luton South. Since acquiring GKN, Melrose has sought to offshore manufacturing and transfer—
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
Order. Rachel, could you hold your microphone a bit closer? That is much easier for us to hear. When it is dangling, you are going very quiet. If you hold it closer to your mouth, that would be fantastic, because we will hear you much better.
Rachel Hopkins
I am very sorry, Dame Angela. Apologies for that.
Since acquiring GKN, Melrose has sought to offshore manufacturing and transfer successfully won contracts for UK work away from Birmingham. We know that it wants to offshore production to Poland and France to maximise profit, showing a total disregard for its loyal workers and the surrounding community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington said, the GKN plant is based in an area where unemployment stands at 12.5%, which is significantly higher than the national average. The loss of 519 skilled jobs at the plant in the middle of a pandemic would devastate the community.
The closure of GKN would also have a hugely damaging impact on our domestic automotive supply chain. As we have seen with other forms of manufacturing during the pandemic, it is important to have a robust domestic supply chain. That is increasingly essential for the automotive sector, due to the new rules of origin requirements with regard to tariffs.
It is economically illiterate of the Government to allow the closure of GKN in Birmingham and the offshoring of production. The loss of GKN—a critically important tier 1 supply chain manufacturer—will have a knock-on impact across our automotive sector. What I and others here find astounding is Melrose’s lack of discussion with the workers’ trade union, Unite. Unite’s two-stage plan for the GKN plant, formed through work with shop stewards and independent experts, outlines how productivity can be improved with additional savings, followed by a plan to produce eDrive components for electric vehicles. Estimates suggest that would save more than Melrose’s proposal to close the plant in Erdington, as independent experts believe Melrose has underestimated the cost of relocation.
We need companies such as GKN with eDrive technology based in the UK to help facilitate the sector’s green transition. Demand is increasing for electric vehicle components, with global electric and plug-in hybrid cells expected to rise to 40 million vehicles annually by 2025. Expansion of the eDrive could secure the site’s long-term future and play a pivotal role in the UK industry’s critical manufacturing capability. The eDrive equates to 15% of electric vehicles, comparable to next generation batteries. By 2030, that is expected to increase and make a significant contribution for exporters to meet new rule-of-origin thresholds. The room for GKN’s expansion is there, ready and waiting, and may not only save jobs, but could create them in the long run.
If Melrose intends to push on with this decision, it poses a critical temperature test of the Government’s industrial strategy, because what is levelling up if it is not protecting, promoting and creating skilled, well-paid jobs that are rooted in communities across the UK? If the Government allow GKN Birmingham to close, it will undermine and further expose the UK automotive industry’s supply chain to risk.
The Government must intervene and work with all parties to prevent the closure of GKN in Birmingham, and preventing the closure must be part of a wide interventionist green strategy to transition the automotive sector, ahead of the 2030 ban on new petrol and diesel vehicles. We need an electric vehicle revolution that backs manufacturers and creates new jobs. The Government must lead this step change by creating new gigafactories, protecting and enhancing the domestic supply chain and making electric vehicle ownership affordable. The UK has the skills and capacity to be a global leader in the electric vehicle market, but the Government must create the foundations for the sector to flourish.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this extremely important debate on the future of GKN, a vital employer in his constituency, in a vital industry for the UK economy. He is a really energetic champion for the communities he serves, as I know very well first hand, and he gave a passionate and important speech, which set out perfectly the issues before us today and, crucially, the alternative to closure. We have heard some excellent speeches today that also made those points very clearly. I declare that I, too, am a member of Unite the union, which I will be mentioning in my speech today.
I want to express my solidarity with the workers at the plant in Erdington and in the supply chain who are at risk of losing their jobs. Yesterday, I met Frank Duffy, the Unite convener. Like so many others working at the plant, he has decades of service. The announcement of closure earlier this year came as a devastating blow to him and hundreds of families across the region who have given their lives to GKN over the decades.
I put on the record my deep and profound concern about the decision by Melrose; I hope very much that it will think again. The decision flies in the face of assurances Melrose gave to the House via the BEIS Committee only three years ago. I heard what the hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) had to say, but I disagree. This is what is wrong with corporate law and public policy in this country; it is about so much more than simply shareholder return—it is about UK plc. I will explain that a little more.
Let us be in no doubt, as tragic as the proposed closure would be for workers such as Frank, this issue is about so much more than this important and historic plant in Erdington. What is happening here is a canary in the coalmine for UK manufacturing, automotive and decent jobs that level up. How the Government respond is a huge test. Its significance cannot be overstated.
What kind of Government are they? Are they one that actively supports and, where necessary, intervenes in British industry; one that has a real and meaningful plan to transition to a green new deal in key sectors such as automotive; one in which global Britain leads the way in the development and production of new electric technologies, providing decent, high-paid jobs for the future; and one for which levelling up is about a lot more than rhetoric and piecemeal pots of cash handed out on mates’ rates? Or are they a Government—which I fear the Business Secretary wants them to be—who are unashamedly free market and laissez-faire, one in which people, place and opportunity are the fall guys for globalisation and free-market forces?
Ministers might talk the talk of sharing prosperity in every part of the country, of a global Britain, of championing manufacturing and of greening our economy, but what actions they take here will show whether they are actually prepared to walk the walk as well. Be in no doubt at all that we are in a high-stakes global race for green jobs, the technologies and the production capacity, a race in which Britain is being massively outgunned and outmanoeuvred by other countries prepared to invest and intervene on an unprecedented scale to ensure that their domestic industries and workers reap the gains of that new drive.
The status quo does not exist, as the GKN situation shows. Either we fight hard to retain the capacity, the jobs and the opportunities, or they go elsewhere. Let us not forget that GKN is a British company, now proposing to offshore its last UK automotive manufacturing base, against the commitments made by Melrose at the time. Do the Government think that Germany, France or even the US would allow the move of one of their key industrial businesses? Not a chance. This is a key test of Conservative industrial strategy—if indeed they have one.
The Government’s actions so far suggest that they do not believe in an active industrial strategy. They scrapped the Industrial Strategy Council. Through covid, they have had an aversion to sector support, and we have seen a rebranded plan for growth that does not appear to create any growth. There can be no growth for communities in Erdington and beyond if Ministers do not press the company to change course and to invest rather than close the plant.
There is an alternative here, as we have heard so well during this debate. Unite and the workforce, with industry experts, have developed a compelling alternative to closure, which involves an improved productivity plan and a major shift to new products for electric vehicles for their main customers, Jaguar Land Rover and Toyota—which, by the way, lead the way in electric and hybrid vehicles. GKN’s only remaining automotive plant specialises in technologies that are critical to the development and expansion of UK vehicle production—here, just in time, domestically produced, which would not get tied up in rules of origin and the new red tape that we are seeing.
Surely it is a no-brainer for a Government committed to British industry, to British car manufacturing and to Britain leading the way in electric vehicles to do whatever it takes to retain that capacity here in the UK. Or do they stand by and watch it move to Poland and France? This is the real test for this Government, and I really hope that it is one that they will not fail. Will the Minister tell us today, will her Government do what it takes and put pressure on the company thoroughly to explore the alternative business plan, or does she think that that is not her role?
This is also a test of what kind of economy the Government want post Brexit. We were promised the freedom to support and intervene in British industry, outside the EU and free of the constraints of state aid rules. What is the point of that freedom if it is not used? We were promised an economy that could be at the forefront of seizing new opportunities, not one in which key assets were being offshored back to the EU. We have the EU trade deal, but there are clearly issues with rules of origin and the fact that the Government’s much boasted tariff-free trade is anything but, particularly for manufacturers caught up in a web of more red tape and bureaucracy. There is no doubt that this is a factor here.
The planned closure of GKN is also a test for the kind of recovery and economy we want post-covid. If the pandemic has taught us anything about industry, it is that we need more than simply ingenuity and leading innovation; we also need domestic and resilient production capacity. We have seen that long supply chains are not resilient, and that the lack of domestic capacity is bad for our country. Automotive production is a delicate ecosystem—once one part of the system is gone, it weakens the entire thing.
That is why GKN is the canary here. If Ministers are going to follow through on creating a more resilient domestic manufacturing sector, they must protect the automotive supply chain. This plant is right next door to one of its main customers, JLR. The plant in Poland that will take over production if these plans go ahead is four and a half days away. We are seeing the impact of long supply chains already, where production at two of JLR’s plants has recently had to stop because of delays in importing microchips.
Furthermore, the economic hit we have taken during the pandemic—one of the worst in the G20—requires more intervention and stimulus to kick-start recovery and seize the opportunity of the green transition for a more productive, higher skilled, technology-driven economy. That simply will not happen by chance or by market forces. The costs and investment required are too high, and the infrastructure and skills needed would never be met by the private sector alone. All the while, our global competitors are pump-priming their recovery; just look at what is happening in the US under Biden.
The situation at GKN also tests whether the Government really do have a recovery plan, or if it is just more rhetoric. If the Government are serious about levelling up, then that has to be about safeguarding good, decent jobs in the midlands and across the country; investing in people and places; and ensuring we see a transition to green which is just and fair. Letting this plant close on the basis of short-term decisions by private equity flies in the face of levelling up.
This plant has a proud industrial heritage, with over 50 years’ history at the site. It is the only British automotive plant owned by GKN, but now it threatens its future. This is a UK company planning to close its only UK automotive plant and move the jobs overseas. Frankly, it is a disgrace. If the Government care about people and places and levelling up, then it starts with anchor industries and companies in places such as Erdington, where unemployment is twice the national average. The Government must stand up for workers in Erdington and across the country in the supply chain, not stand back and let vulture finance destroy jobs and decimate the proud history in this community.
This is also a test of the Government’s commitment to communities and places in levelling up. That is why we need deeds, not words. While the Government are high on ambition, they are low on action. Labour backs our automotive industry, and we have set out an ambitious three-point plan to safeguard the industry’s future through investment in gigafactories and measures to make owning an electric vehicle more affordable.
Make no mistake, the eyes of workers and voters across the midlands are on the future of GKN and our world-leading automotive sector. If the Government allow the plant to close on their watch, so many more jobs and businesses will be threatened going forward, from Vauxhall at Ellesmere Port to the production location of that iconic British car, the Mini, going electric. Many are watching to see whether or not the Government are really serious about their rhetoric. This is a big test for the Government, one that none of us want to see them fail. The consequences are too great.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) on securing this really important debate today. I have an awful lot of respect for him, as he knows. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) about the passion with which everybody has spoken in the debate. It has been absolutely crucial.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington is a long-standing advocate for the UK automotive sector and champion of the world-class automotive businesses in his constituency, including GKN and Jaguar Land Rover. The proposed closure of the GKN Automotive plant in Birmingham is deeply disappointing. I myself have a background in manufacturing of over 20 years, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, and I feel a great connection to British industry—in fact, my great-uncle flew Spitfires, so I absolutely appreciate that aspect. I am really sympathetic to the difficulties associated with a situation such as this.
The Government are supporting manufacturing. “Build Back Better: our plan for growth” sets out the Government’s plans to drive growth and build on our competitive advantage through significant investment in infrastructure, skills and innovation. We will pursue growth levels in every part of the UK, enabling the transition to net zero and supporting our vision of a truly global Britain.
The proposed closure of the GKN plant was a great shock to the employees and will be hugely concerning for them and their families. The plant is part of the fabric of the local community, producing components, as we know, for vehicle makers including JLR, Nissan and Toyota. It is a really important part of the UK automotive sector, which provides 149,000 manufacturing jobs. There are examples of employees spending most of their lives at GKN, with some of them being there from the time they leave education until retirement. As we have heard, there are also people in their 20s with young families to support.
The Government are committed to doing what we can to save those high-skilled jobs. The Minister for Investment, Lord Grimstone, met with Liam Butterworth, chief executive of GKN Automotive, last month. That helped the Government to understand the rationale behind the proposed closure and explore options for securing a long-term, sustainable future for the Birmingham plant. At the meeting, welcome assurances were given that all viable alternatives to closure will be considered. Also, my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary and the Minister for Investment met with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington and representatives of Unite the union regarding this issue last month. The mandatory employee consultation provides a platform for alternative proposals to closure to be presented. Unite has developed its sustain-and-transition proposal, and we encourage it to table the proposal formally with GKN if it has not already done so.
The hon. Members for Birmingham, Erdington and for Easington (Grahame Morris) referred to transfer pricing. We have been told by GKN that sales between its plants are carried out on commercial terms, and that is independently audited.
Ultimately, the future of the plant is a commercial decision for GKN management, but we stand ready to discuss viable alternative proposals with GKN management. That could involve investment in capital equipment or skills to stoke the plant’s competitiveness. In the event of closure, with production carefully wound down over the next 18 months, the priority will be to find new jobs for those people who lose their jobs. GKN has committed to supporting its employees through this difficult time. The Minister for Investment will follow that closely.
As we know, the Melrose takeover of GKN in 2018 faced considerable opposition, with cross-party calls for it to be blocked on national security grounds. The takeover was considered by the then Secretary of State fairly and impartially, in accordance with the legal powers provided through the Enterprise Act 2002. Under the 2002 Act, the Government have the power to intervene in mergers on public interest grounds. There are, however, strict and limited grounds for intervention. Ultimately, the review determined that there were no grounds for objecting to the deal. Melrose was required to make commitments to the Ministry of Defence to address matters relating to national security.
In March 2018, the then Business Secretary wrote to Simon Peckham, chief executive of Melrose Industries, setting out additional binding commitments that would be needed in the event that the takeover bid was successful. A copy of the letter and the response from Melrose are available in the House of Commons Library. As we have heard today, there are differing views on whether those commitments have been met. The legally binding post-offer undertakings made to the Takeover Panel are independently verified every six months by third party advisers. The advisers provide a report to the Takeover Panel confirming Melrose’s compliance.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said, these are challenging times for the automotive sector. In 2020, 920,000 cars were produced in the UK, which was 29% down on 2019 levels. Businesses across the automotive sector, including GKN, have had to restructure to maintain competitiveness.
The Government have stood shoulder to shoulder with businesses and workers to support them through these challenging times and have provided an unprecedented level of support, including the furlough scheme. That helped protect the income of around 60% of the automotive sector’s full-time employees when production was temporarily suspended last year. In addition, £4.6 billion of liquidity has been provided to the sector through the coronavirus loan scheme. The Government are committed to supporting the sector through these challenging times, so that it can exploit future opportunity.
The global automotive sector is undergoing significant change, as production shifts to zero-emission vehicles and supply chains are restructured to produce new technology. Modern developments in production plants are being accelerated and creating a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity for the United Kingdom. To be clear, this is not just about protecting the status quo and retaining the manufacturers that we have in the UK, including JLR, Nissan and Vauxhall, but about stimulating a high-tech market that cements our global position at the forefront of mobility.
The Government have announced £500 million of funding as part of a commitment of up to £1 billion over the next four years through the automotive transformation fund. That will help build, at pace and scale, an internationally competitive zero-emission vehicle supply chain in the United Kingdom, including in key regions where levelling up is crucial, such as the north-east, Wales and the west midlands, as highlighted so well by the hon. Member for Manchester Central.
The UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement provides a phased introduction of the rules of origin requirements for zero-emission vehicles. That was welcomed by the UK automotive sector as it allows manufacturers time to increase local content—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley). GKN will be an important part of that future supply chain. It is developing cutting-edge vehicle technologies at its innovation centre in Abingdon. Securing investment in gigafactories is a priority to meet demands from UK-based vehicle makers. The Government are in advanced negotiations with several potential investors.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK continues to be one of the best locations in the world to research and develop the next generation of vehicle technologies and to manufacture zero-emission vehicles. GKN is at the forefront of these technological developments through its innovation centre in Abingdon. Our aim is that the Birmingham plant also continues to be at the heart of GKN’s manufacturing operations.
As I explained, the Government are ready to discuss alternative proposals that could include investments in capital equipment or in the skills needed to secure future vehicle technology. That would help provide long-term, secure jobs for the dedicated and skilled employees.
Jack Dromey
I thank all those who have spoken in what has been a powerful debate. We have heard about experiences from Luton to Birkenhead in traditional areas of engineering and motor manufacturing. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) made a powerful contribution and pointed out that the four directors of Melrose have done rather well out of what has happened in the last three years.
Let me go straight to the heart of the matter. This is a great plant with a great history that must not now become history. That would be a betrayal of the workers concerned, but also a betrayal of the British national interest. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), said and the Minister acknowledged, there are serious implications if the remaining domestic producer of vital components for the industry closes and we become dependent on supply chains from France, Poland and beyond. There are serious issues in terms of the British national interest.
It is fascinating that today, in its interesting report, the Covid Recovery Commission talks about
“the Great British Supply Chain”.
A fundamental rethink is under way in terms of vital strategic capabilities, and certainly the Chester Road plant is an absolutely vital strategic capability for companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and Toyota.
Crucially for the next stages, as a former trade unionist I always used to say that ultimately it is about getting to an outcome, a result, for the workers and for the country. That involves three parties. First is Unite, whose work on a well thought through and creative alternative I applaud. Let us be clear: it stands ready to have whatever discussions are necessary. In my experience, they can be difficult discussions, but Unite stands ready to play its part.
Second is Melrose. As I think has become widely known, I am not its greatest fan in terms of how it has conducted itself, but it has committed to looking at alternatives to closure and we must hold it to that commitment. Third is the role of Government to defend the British national interest and unashamedly recognise that the loss of 519 directly employed jobs and all those in the supply chain will have devastating consequences for the industry in the midlands in one of the poorest parts of our country.
The Minister has said some interesting and helpful things about our preparedness to look at a range of options for capital equipment and skills. These things always go in two phases. The second phase—God forbid—I never want to get to, and that is what happens if closure takes place and we have to pick up the pieces. Believe you me: it would be absolutely heartbreaking, were that to ever happen. The first phase is the one that we must concentrate on, so that the plant does not close and so that creative, well thought through alternatives are found and negotiated with assurances given. That is eminently achievable.
The Minister is right that we both have strong backgrounds in the world of work, and I have been involved, sadly, in many, many workplace closures over the years, some of which we have won, such as Rosyth Dockyard. I know what it takes to get to a result; it is eminently achievable. Forgive me if I stress this for one final time: the role of Government will be absolutely key in holding Melrose to its commitments. If they do that, it is possible for a plant with a great history to have a great future. If we meet the workers or talk to car industry executives, we come to recognise just how important this is. It would be utterly heartbreaking, and a betrayal of the British national interest, were the plant to close. That must never happen.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the proposed closure of GKN Automotive plant in Birmingham.
Redundancy Protection: Women and New Parents
(3 years 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
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. I remind Members participating or intervening virtually that they are visible at all times to each other and us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered extending redundancy protection for women and new parents.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Angela, and to raise the important issue of extending redundancy protection for women and new parents.
Regrettably, as in so many areas where progress is needed, Scotland is being held back from taking action due to employment law being reserved to Westminster. Without power over employment law, Scotland is not able to legislate to protect women and new parents from discrimination and unfair redundancy. Scotland should not have to wait for Westminster to act to prevent widespread redundancy discrimination, and I look forward to the time when we do not have to do so.
However, despite the lack of progress to date, I acknowledge the work undertaken by many Members of this House on a cross-party basis and by organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, going back many years. In 2015, the commission published research that revealed that one in 20 new mothers are made redundant during pregnancy or maternity leave, or on their return to work. That shocking statistic reveals a disturbing level of disregard on the part of some employers for the needs of women, children and new families.
The following year, the Taylor review into modern working practices highlighted further research that confirmed that the majority of employers expressed a willingness to support pregnant women and new mothers. The report commented favourably on the finding that more than 80% of employers felt it was in their interest to support pregnant women and new mothers. However, women might be less enamoured with the finding that at least one in 10 employers, and possibly as many as one in five, are not willing to support pregnant women and new mothers.
The detailed findings show a disturbing level of acceptance among employers and managers that discrimination against women on the basis of their decision to bear children or their caring responsibilities is acceptable. All the following views were endorsed by at least a third of the employers and managers interviewed for the research:
“During recruitment, it is reasonable to ask women if they have young children”,
and about their plans to have young children;
“During recruitment, women should have to disclose whether they are pregnant”;
“Women should work for an organisation for at least a year before deciding to have children”;
“Women who become pregnant and new mothers in work are generally less interested in career progression than other employees”.
Many of those interviewed claimed to have seen at least one pregnant woman “take advantage” of their pregnancy, and regarded pregnancy as putting an “unnecessary cost burden” on the workplace—quite shocking. Given that those attitudes and views are widely held among employers and managers, is it any wonder that pregnant women and new mothers are so widely discriminated against in the workplace?
I am sure the Minister is familiar with the proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child”. It is 25 years since Hillary Clinton highlighted that, in our modern and highly urbanised society, the underlying premise of that proverb is perhaps truer now than it has ever been. Of course, children are vital to the future of our society and our economy, with declining birth rates, increasing life spans and ever-more dispersed families. Perhaps, whatever we might think in our ever-more digital world, we are collectively becoming more dependent on community networks and wider society than ever before.
How can those interrelationships and that long-term intergenerational benefit work, though, if the first thing that happens to an expectant woman or a new mother is that she loses her job and her family’s ability to raise a child is compromised? However, unfortunately, as the research shows, far too often that is indeed what happens, so I hope it is accepted by the UK Government that no one should have to fear losing their job because they become pregnant. Surely that must be a given.
Between employers and Governments, effective arrangements should be in place to support women and their families through the potentially life-changing process of pregnancy and child rearing. However, under current arrangements, women only have enhanced protection from redundancy until they return from maternity leave, and the evidence is that this protection is not working. All the protection means is that a woman on maternity leave can be made redundant, but must be offered an alternative job above anyone else being made redundant if another job exists, which can prove a very big caveat.
The current law does not stop employers using pregnancy as an excuse for a piece of cost-cutting, as demonstrated by the case of Jessica—which is not her real name. Jessica, whose case was disclosed by the campaign group Pregnant Then Screwed, had a well-paid job, became pregnant, and was made redundant on the day she was due to return from maternity leave. The day before she was due back, which was during lockdown, she received a text telling her to not go into the office, but to be available for a video call with a senior manager. During that call, she was told that she was being made redundant. She had been back at work for all of 30 minutes. She is convinced that the firm simply wanted to cut its staff budget, and by going on maternity leave, she had unknowingly self-selected for redundancy. What a way to treat a member of staff, and what a welcome to the world for her child, into a family now burdened by unaffordable debt and forced to move out of their home, and with a mother whose mental health and career are in tatters.
As an employee of the company, Jessica might have had some chance of arguing a case for discrimination, although the costs and hurdles associated with attempting this would, and do, put most people off trying. On the other hand, Mandy, whose case was highlighted by the Taylor review, had no chance of doing so, because legal protections in the UK are so heavily and deliberately weighted against workers who are not direct employees. Mandy had worked for a bank on a zero-hours contract for several months. However, when she informed her employer that she was pregnant, her hours were reduced to zero; in effect, she was summarily dismissed with no recourse. Mandy is one of those pregnant women and new mothers who have borne the brunt of the increasing casualisation of the UK workforce. She found out that employment status, whether as a direct employee, self-employed, or as a limb (b) worker, is important, because it dictates entitlement to some key maternity and parental rights. Those in the growing number of insecure forms of employment can find their rights greatly diminished, reducing or eliminating their entitlements to maternity and parental pay and leave, health and safety protection, time off for antenatal appointments, and rights to return to work.
The “Insecure Labour” report produced by Maternity Action in November 2020 spells out some of the implications of casualised or insecure work on women workers, and pregnant women and new mothers in particular. Heather Wakefield, chair of Maternity Action, said that the report
“paints a shocking picture, which requires swift and radical action by Government, employers and trade unions to halt the damaging impact of casualisation on the working lives and wellbeing of pregnant women and new mothers.”
Cases such as Jessica’s and Mandy’s are not isolated incidents, certainly not during the pandemic. Last summer, Pregnant Then Screwed conducted research involving almost 20,000 pregnant women and mothers. It found that 10% of pregnant women said that they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months. More than half said that their pregnancy was a factor. Some 11% of women on maternity leave said they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months, and more than 60% said that their maternity leave was a factor. Almost 13% of women who had recently returned from maternity leave said that they had been made redundant, or expected to be in the next six months. Two thirds said that their maternity leave was a factor.
Further research that Pregnant Then Screwed conducted in March and April of this year suggests that the situation is worse this year than it was last year. Surveying 16,000 pregnant women and mothers, it found that 30% believed they had experienced discrimination from their employer during the pandemic. Clearly, if the protection is not working as it should, that is something that should have been addressed long before now. The SNP has been pressing the UK Government to act to protect pregnant women and new mothers facing discrimination and unfair treatment in the workplace, yet five years on from the EHRC research, the UK Government have so far failed to take the necessary steps to prevent redundancy discrimination. Surely the UK Government would agree with the need to protect pregnant women and new mothers.
In 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee recommended the UK Government implement within the next two years additional redundancy protection throughout pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months afterwards. In 2017, in their response to the Committee, the Government indicated that the current position was “clearly unacceptable.” Yet, here we are—four years on and no further forward. Had the UK Government implemented reform within the timeframe proposed by the Committee, many women would have been spared unfair redundancy and discrimination prior to and in the aftermath of the pandemic.
In the absence of action by Government, last year the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on pregnancy and maternity redundancy protection, which is still awaiting Second Reading. The Bill seeks to
“prohibit redundancy during pregnancy and maternity leave and for six months after the end of pregnancy or leave, except in specified circumstances; and for connected purposes”.
The SNP wholeheartedly supports the Bill. It is extremely disappointing that the UK Government have yet to put their weight behind it.
Earlier this year, Jamie Hepburn MSP, the Minister for Business, Fair Work and Skills in the Scottish Government, wrote to the Minister responding today, outlining the Scottish Government’s support for a range of reforms to support women and families, including extending redundancy protections for women and new parents. The letter makes clear the Scottish Government’s support for the Bill. It has also been endorsed by Maternity Action, which said that the Government should strengthen redundancy protections by immediately adopting the Bill as its own and expedite it into law.
Commenting on the current law, Rosalind Bragg, director of Maternity Action, said:
“The current law on redundancy and maternity is complex, poorly understood and difficult to enforce.”
She highlighted that women often find the person covering their maternity leave is kept on, while their role is made redundant, and described that as
“a classic case of unfair and unlawful redundancy”.
Maternity Action recognises that it may be impossible for pregnant women and new mothers to devote their energy and finances to pursuing employment tribunal claims, which is why it is important that the timescale for pursuing such claims is extended from three to six months.
Shamefully, due to the UK Government’s inaction on redundancy protection, women across the UK are facing a new wave of pregnancy discrimination and unfair redundancies as the furlough scheme winds down and employees try to return to their jobs. After years of the Government failing to deliver on their commitment to act, urgent legislation is now needed.
In April 2019, the UK Government accepted the need to extend redundancy protection for six months once the new mother has returned to work, afford the same protection to those taking adoption leave and extend redundancy protection for those returning from shared parental leave. It is now time for the UK Government to act and I look forward to seeing those proposals reflected in the Queen’s Speech on 11 May.
If the Minister is able, I am also keen to hear his thoughts and the Government’s plans to protect women and new parents in their employment in the context of the pandemic and the future of work. As we move out of the immediate crisis of the pandemic, some things are very clear. For instance, unfortunately, jobs and job security will be an issue and concern for many people. We cannot simply throw women and new parents on a jobs bonfire post pandemic. Employment protections, equality provisions and flexibility are all areas where, although in-roads have been made, they are not nearly enough. We must accept the need to go further.
Rather than aiming to go back to the old normal, the Government must consider fair work, the future of work, and what jobs and work will and should look like. All of us lose out when we restrict the talent pool by putting unnecessary barriers to work in front of women and new parents. An unthinking return to the same old, same old would be a real lost opportunity to do things differently and to take a lead on the employment policies and practices and structures that will make work possible for women, new parents and those with caring and other responsibilities. Things like the right to request flexible working from the start of a job would make a vast difference to many employees, and would support employers, too, in adopting the working practices and environments that will allow the talents of all employees to properly shine through.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on these and the other points that I have made today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing today’s important debate on extending redundancy protections for women and new parents. I can assure her that simply going back to how things were, as she talks about, will not be the case, as I will outline. As we get through to the Employment Bill and further consultation and discussions with businesses and other groups, including Pregnant Then Screwed, I hope we will end up in a far better place to ensure that we can tackle some of those issues.
From the correspondence I receive as a constituency MP and as a Minister, I know what a crucial issue this is, and the pernicious effect that discrimination can have on both the immediate and the longer-term prospects of women in work. More generally, there is the drag that that can put on equality and productivity. Last month, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) brought a number of representative organisations to talk to me about the challenges that pregnant women and new mothers are facing as a result of covid, so I am aware of the many issues that some women face.
I will start by being crystal clear about two things. First, there can be absolutely no excuse for discrimination against pregnant women or women on maternity leave. There is no excuse for any form of discrimination; it is unlawful. It can have absolutely no place as we start to build back better after the pandemic. We cannot effectively level up if we continue to allow some groups to be treated poorly simply because of who or what they are.
Secondly, I will not hide from the fact that there is a real issue here. The research that we jointly funded with EHRC has been cited and makes for uncomfortable reading. It is worth reminding ourselves of some of the key findings. Around one in nine mothers reported that they were dismissed, made compulsorily redundant when others in their workplace were not, or treated so poorly that they felt that they had to leave their jobs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for setting the scene so well. From his comments, I understand the Minister is sympathetic to this issue. Overall, three in four mothers, 77%, said they had a negative or possibly discriminatory experience during pregnancy, maternity leave and/or return from maternity leave. They have an issue that needs to be addressed. I understand that the Government will respond in a positive way but even though the Government are indicating welcome measures, such as extension of time protection on return from maternity leave, there are wider aspects that need to be addressed, such as shared parental leave, and the stigma that still attaches to a father taking that essential leave. When the Minister makes his good points, will he also address that?
Paul Scully
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are plenty of wider issues to be considered, including the right to request flexible working that we have heard about. Making that a default option is something we have talked about significantly and want to ensure is at the heart of the Employment Bill, when parliamentary time allows that to come forward.
We still need to do plenty of work with shared parental leave. We have collected a lot of data through the consultation as part of the formal evaluation of the shared parental leave and pay scheme. That will give us a fuller picture of how well the current system of parental leave and pay overall is working for parents and employers. Some of the examples that we hear time and again in the Chamber and Westminster Hall indicate that it is not working, so there is plenty more that we can do.
To return to the findings I was talking about before the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, if they are scaled up to the general population, it could mean as many as 54,000 mothers a year are losing their jobs, in many cases simply because they have had a child. Furthermore, our research found that one in five mothers said they had experienced harassment or negative comments related to pregnancy or flexible working from their employer or colleagues. If scaled up, again, to the general population, that could mean as many as 100,000 mothers having similar negative experiences. That can never be right.
The case for Government action is as clear as day. That is why we consulted on measures to improve redundancy protection for pregnant women and new parents. Following that consultation, the Government’s formal response said that we will: ensure the redundancy protection period applies from the point the employee informs the employer that she is pregnant; extend the redundancy protection period for six months once a new mother has returned to work; extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking adoption leave, following the same approach as the extended protection provided for those returning from maternity leave; and extend redundancy protection into a period of return to work for those taking shared parental leave. We have been clear that we will introduce these measures as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The ten-minute rule Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) was raised. I am aware of calls for us to do things differently. Indeed, I met my right hon. Friend and other colleagues to discuss her proposal, which follows aspects of the German approach, and my predecessors held similar meetings. It is not the objective that we disagree on but the means of achieving it, and even then we share a lot of common ground. The key difference is that the Government’s preferred approach retains and extends the current position of giving the pregnant woman or new parent preferential treatment so that, in effect, they are first in the queue for suitable remaining jobs in a redundancy situation. Others suggest removing the current framework and replacing it with a comprehensive redundancy band with some very limited exceptions so that, in effect, that a pregnant woman or new mother could only be made redundant when a business is closing down. The Government have not yet been convinced by that argument.
At its simplest, taking that approach could require employers to continue to employ people even when there is no work for them to do if the business continued to exist. That burden would fall particularly heavily on small businesses. That is why we continue to believe that extending the existing framework remains the right approach. We believe that we are more likely to promote the culture change we seek by placing a slightly more flexible requirement on employers for an extended period. The six-month extension of additional redundancy protection into a return-to-work period will provide a period of up to 27 months when pregnant women and new mothers will be first in the queue for suitable remaining jobs in a redundancy situation. I believe that will represent a considerable and significant step forward in redundancy protection for pregnant women and new mothers.
I have heard the arguments that there ought to be a role for state enforcement in redundancies involving a pregnant woman or new mother. We need to tread carefully when looking at state roles within those sort of areas. All redundancies should be fair, and it would not be rational to treat one group within the workplace any differently from another by giving them a different arbiter in the redundancy process. I appreciate the pressure and strain that the employment tribunal system is under and will be under owing to the covid pandemic, but none the less it has considerable strengths. For instance, it allows for careful consideration of employment disputes, which are often complex or may not be clear-cut, by those with appropriate expertise. Case law from employment tribunals allows our laws to evolve and develop to reflect changing working practices.
However, I am only too aware that improving redundancy protection only goes so far. The majority of employers report that it is in their interest to support pregnant women and those on maternity leave, with the main reasons being to increase staff retention and to create better morale among employees, but we know that many employers feel that women should declare up front during recruitment whether they are pregnant. EHRC and Department for Business, Innovation and Skills research back in 2016 put a figure of 70% on this. Further, the same research found that a quarter of employers felt that it was reasonable during recruitment to ask women about their plans to have children, so clearly there is some way to go.
Tackling the challenge of pregnancy and maternity discrimination will require action on many fronts. That is why we committed to set up an employer and family representative group, which I want to make recommendations on what improvements can be made to the information available to employers and families on pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Rather than focusing on the end of the process, redundancy, I want the group to look at earlier stages of the employment lifecycle, because we need to shift the whole focus of the debate on pregnancy and maternity discrimination so that employers get it right in the first place, rather than focusing only on what happens when things go wrong. I want the group to develop an action plan on the steps organisations can take to make it easier for pregnant women and new mothers to stay in work and for them to progress throughout their careers.
We are having final discussions with business and family representative groups. Indeed, only the week before last, Maternity Action wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on behalf of a number of trade unions and family groups to set out views on areas that might usefully be covered. This discussion is therefore very much a live one, and I hope to be able to announce the group’s membership and first meeting date soon.
I congratulate once again the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire on securing this important debate and for keeping this issue in the public eye. I started off by talking about how most employers realise the value of investing in their workforce and supporting them throughout their career. There are clearly actions that we need to take and issues we must address, as she and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined eloquently. I look forward to working with the taskforce, seeing what it has to offer, listening to further debates both in this place and in responding to it and tackling many of these issues, as parliamentary time allows.
Question put and agreed to.
British Meat and Dairy Products
(3 years 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
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
I remind Members that there have been some changes in practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate. I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive for the start of the debate, and Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I must also remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn.
Members attending physically who are in the later stages of the call list should use the seats in the public gallery and move on to the horseshoe when seats become available, but please sit where there are microphones functioning.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered British meat and dairy products.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am grateful to have secured this important debate at a time when there appears to be a growing disjoint between media coverage of farming and the reality of those of us who live among it. I hope as a baseline we can all agree that in order to survive we need to eat. In this country, we are fortunate that generally we can choose what we eat and where we buy it, albeit with factors such as price, availability and, especially, concern for the environment influencing our decisions.
Historically, there was far less choice in the food we consumed and our reliance on home-grown produce was significantly greater than it is today. If the pandemic has taught us one thing it is that it is good to be able to produce at home what we need, and we all need to eat. As a former fitness instructor, I know well how a healthy and nutritious diet is vital to ensuring that the body has the nutrients it needs not just to survive but to thrive. Those needs change at different points in our lives and according to our activity levels. If we are going to tackle climate change in a meaningful way, healthy bodies with healthy minds are best equipped to do that.
I am fortunate to represent North Devon, home to 475 NFU members, including 95 dairy farmers and 323 livestock farmers. I do not need to go far to find delicious, nutritious British food that comes from environmentally responsible sources. British meat and dairy are produced to some of the highest environmental and welfare standards in the world. Buying local can reduce the environmental footprint of our supply chains and incentivise sustainable farming. To take one example, according to the Government’s Climate Change Committee, greenhouse gas emissions from UK beef are about half the global average.
Since covid started, many of us have begun shopping more locally, and our local farmers have adapted and innovated to help their communities through the pandemic. In Croyde, in my constituency, the Heywood family have adapted their North Hole organic milk farm to sell through a vending machine to their local community. The milk is delicious and the vending-machine experience is a great way to link locals to their farm. Watching the fully robotic milking parlour is also an incredible experience. Those organic cows have a great life and their milk is highly nutritious. Dairy products contain high-quality protein, calcium, B vitamins, iodine and potassium. Dairy foods, such as milk, cheese and yogurt, are vital to bone health. Importantly, the greenhouse gas footprint of UK milk production is just 40% of the global average. There are 278 million dairy cows worldwide. If they were all as efficient as UK dairy cows, we would need only 76 million of them to produce the same amount of milk.
This week is Great British Beef Week, which this year is focused on recognising and highlighting British beef farmers and the work they do to support sustainable practices on their farms. Red meat is one of the richest sources of essential nutrients, such as iron, zinc and B vitamins, and a great protein source. It is also much lower in fat than it was 20 years ago. My local NFU chair, Daniel Balment, is the third generation on his beef and sheep farm near Brayford. Daniel maximises the grass that the farm grows well to convert to protein, as 65% of farmland in the UK is best suited to growing grass, rather than other crops. The UK climate is ideal for growing grass. Other crops could not be grown for food on many farms. That has to be factored in to maximising the output of our land.
Farmers have always been custodians of the countryside, and the Agriculture Act 2020 is potentially the biggest victory for nature and farming in a generation. Under the framework of public money for public goods, farmers will be paid according to the benefits they provide to the public—mostly environmental improvements—rather than on how much land they farm. Our British farmers are already committed to reducing their emissions and reaching net zero ahead of the Government’s 2050 deadline. This policy will go a long way towards supporting them.
Livestock provides us with healthy, fertile soil, beautiful landscapes—as my North Devon constituency is testament to—efficient water use, carbon sequestration, and unique, biodiverse wildlife habitats. The suggestion that reducing meat and dairy consumption is a solution to climate change is an oversimplification. As I said earlier, we all have to eat, and in general we choose what we eat. Much of the food on our supermarket shelves has travelled thousands of miles to get there and is not produced to as high a standard as it would be here in Great Britain. Many non-dairy or meat-free alternatives are shipped across the world to reach us, are less nutritious with less protein, are higher in saturated fat and are nowhere near as good for the environment as British meat and dairy. For example, products such as almond milk require 20 times more blue water—water from the normal water supply—than British dairy milk, which is much more reliant on green water from natural rainfall.
When choosing what to put in our shopping baskets—[Interruption.]
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House.
Selaine Saxby
As I was saying, many non-dairy or meat-free alternatives are shipped across the world to reach us, and are nowhere near as good for the environment as British meat and dairy. Products such as almond milk require 20 times more blue water—from normal water supply—than British dairy milk, which is more reliant on green water, from natural rainfall. When choosing what to put in our shopping basket, we should look for the Red Tractor—the symbol of British farming. Buying locally and seasonally not only might give people a much better diet but will do significantly more to reduce emissions compared with the alternatives. We can all do our bit to work towards net zero, by buying local British produce to support our great British farmers.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for securing this debate as we mark Great British Beef Week. As a representative of a rural constituency, I am incredibly proud of the world-class produce our farmers supply to kitchen tables, restaurants, the food service industry and elsewhere. Using one of the most sustainable production methods in the world and of the highest standards, our farmers work night and day to ensure their produce is truly something to celebrate.
It is those standards on animal welfare, environmental protection and traceability that this Government must properly protect. As we look at future trade deals, those standards must not be sacrificed on the altar of free trade. That would be deeply unfair on our agrifood industry, and it would be against the will of the people who take confidence in the UK mark being on what we eat. The UK mark—the Union flag marking the safety and quality of produce—must become more prevalent, not least in the catering industry. We need to improve transparency in this regard to ensure the food in this sector is not swamped by cheap, sub-standard imports.
We must support the industry as new markets open up. That support must be in the form of a marketing drive, support for promotional activity and, most importantly, substantial investment in our production chain. Our processing sector needs the support of this Government to achieve more value-added product. Primary producers and processors need support for research and development to drive efficiency. We in Northern Ireland need this Government to support our devolved Administration to make this investment, to match the aggressive drive for market dominance from the Irish Republic.
It is vital for our industry right across the United Kingdom that this Government consign the protocol to the dustbin. The unacceptable impact on east-west trade must be corrected, to return to the free flow of goods and the integrity of our internal market that we enjoyed before the protocol was put in place. The additional costs of doing business and the unacceptable administrative burden now facing local companies and farms has to cease. The ability to trade in livestock across the Irish Sea without impediment must be rectified. It is beyond belief that any UK Government would accept such a situation within its own borders.
I again thank the hon. Member for North Devon for securing this debate and for allowing us to both celebrate and promote the needs of our farmers and our agrifood sector.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, Ms Ghani. I thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby), for securing the debate, because British meat and dairy products are a great asset to the whole country and to everybody who eats them. I can say that I have consumed a large quantity of both meat and dairy; hon. Members can see that a good live weight gain was achieved in the process. Joking apart, we sometimes forget the great part that meat and dairy farming plays in looking after the landscape and the grass. When we look at holding carbon in the soil, we sometimes forget how much carbon is held by permanent pasture.
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). She raised the interesting point that there is a problem at the moment with exporting from Scotland into Northern Ireland. Scotland should not have to export to Northern Ireland, as it is part of the United Kingdom. We heard evidence at the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs from Northern Irish farmers having problems getting sheep from Scotland, because they have been on winter keep since the end of last year and they are not yet able to go over to Northern Ireland. When they get to Northern Ireland, they have to have their tags removed and have another tag put in. I suggest that that is also an animal welfare issue that needs to be dealt with. I have great respect for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who is here today, and for the Secretary of State, but we need to do more to rectify the trade situation between Scotland and the rest of the UK, including Wales, and Northern Ireland, so I look forward to that being sorted out.
We live in a world where, if we are not careful and if we do not value the great meat and dairy production in this country, we will land up importing a great deal more food. When we import food we have to analyse how it was produced, including looking at the water that was used across the world to produce it. Many countries probably cannot afford to have water taken away from them for the production of exports to this country.
One only has to look at the Brazils of this world to see that they are driving their beef cattle towards the Amazon, they are ploughing up the savannah and they are damaging the environment. We need to help the Brazilians to stop that process. Perhaps the President of Brazil, dare I say it, might have something to do with what is going on. We need to take this very seriously. We must not look for the cheapest product in the world when we import, because doing that does much to damage the environment. We produce our meat and dairy from grass, but we must be careful when we import proteins to help with that because some of that protein, especially the soya bean, is grown on deforested land or savannah. All of these things are important.
The number of Members here today shows that we think our production of both meat and dairy is important. We not only have great permanent pasture but good grass leys. The New Zealanders have done a lot of work on the digestibility of grass leys and different types of grass, which affects the amount of methane gas that animals produce while they are producing meat and milk. If a cow milks more efficiently and gives more litres of milk, the total amount of methane gas given off collectively is far less, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said. With the production of beef, the more efficiently we can produce it, and the better the breeding, the quicker and faster that beef is produced, and again, the methane gas is far less.
We have to take production of agriculture very much in the round. I think it is very simplistic to say, “Stop eating meat, stop eating dairy—that will solve the problems of the world.” No, it won’t, actually, because the grassland in this country relies entirely on meat and milk production—that is the balance. I made the joke when I started that I am a product of eating much meat and much dairy, so for me to actually say this is almost unbelievable, but there could be an argument that sometimes we do not actually need to eat quite as much meat or quite as much dairy, and I would probably be the first to admit that. On the other hand, a balanced diet is so necessary. If we look at the research, an expectant mother, for example, is not always able to gain the right protein and nutrients without their vegetable or vegan diet being very expensive and diverse. Let us be sensible as we move forward. Meat and dairy play such an important role.
My final point is that this is linked to the countryside that we see and love. Grassland, heathland, moorland, and Exmoor—my constituency adjoins that of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon through the Blackdown hills, a very small part of Exmoor—these are all areas of grassland and permanent pasture, and they are very beautiful and full of trees. All of those things are so essential. Do not forget that although it is beautiful that people can go and walk in and enjoy our landscape—we want to see more of that—it is not entirely a playground; it is also a production zone for producing good-quality food. If we combine the two, which I think we can do easily, food, farming and the countryside can all come together. I very much support my hon. Friend’s debate.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this important and timely debate.
I do not think it is, strictly speaking, a declarable interest, but the House may be aware that I come from farming family. My family still farm on the south-east corner of Islay. My wife is a partner in a veterinary practice in Orkney, serving a diverse range of farming interests: beef and lamb production, and, sadly, a decreasing number of dairy farmers. I declare that interest with some pride; it contributes directly and indirectly to the Carmichael family mortgage payment every month.
Food production has always been at the heart of the local economies in Orkney and Shetland. The designation of Orkney beef and Shetland lamb as protected geographic indicators is an indication of that and, indeed, of the quality of the produce for which we have been responsible over the years. In recent decades, we have seen a growth in producers who have been able to add value in a blossoming food and drink sector, which, in turn, has fed into a growing visitor economy, so it remains as important to the northern isles today as it always has been.
In Orkney, we have a long history of producing finished cattle for Orkney beef. In Shetland, traditionally we produced cattle for the store market, but in recent years, by a bit of creativity and a lot of effort, local farmers in Shetland have also been able to produce finished cattle, which have been slaughtered for local consumption in our good, well operated local abattoir. It is an exemplar of how agriculture can feed into a rural or island economy such as ours. Crucial to that operation, however, is the existence and operation of a thriving network of local shops. My concern today is that many of those local shops are currently under threat.
We have had supermarkets in Shetland for decades, like everybody else—we have a big Tesco and a fairly big Co-op in Lerwick and a smaller but still sizeable Co-op in Brae—but recently the Co-op Group lodged applications for planning permission for two further Co-ops, which would be bigger operations, in communities in Scalloway and Sandwick, which are currently served by a variety of small, thriving local independent shops. Those shops are quite clear that if the applications are granted, the future for them looks to be pretty bleak. That network of rural shops, however, is absolutely critical to food production in the Northern Isles, and the farmers I spoke about, who now produce finished cattle for slaughter and sale in the local retail sector, will struggle if that network of local shops is not there.
One of the local shops that will be most directly affected told me last week that it reckons that it takes goods from no fewer than 80 different local suppliers, which are all small and medium-sized enterprises that will never sell in the same quantity to a big outlet such as the Co-op Group. We know, and the Co-op will tell us, that it takes from local producers to put local lines into its shops. That is true. However, the beef and lamb farmers and those food producers who add some value to our local products will tell us that the Co-op, like all supermarkets, will take their products, but only on its terms. Therefore, even if a product does end up on the shelf, the supermarket will determine the price, the quantity, the regularity of supply, the delivery and often even the labelling. The hard commercial reality is that these local suppliers cannot survive on the margins that the supermarkets give them, so the existence of that network of local shops is critical to the future viability of agriculture in Orkney and Shetland.
The Co-op does have a long tradition of being at the heart of highland and island communities, and I am sure I am not the only one who spent many happy—or not so happy—childhood evenings licking stamps to be put in the Co-op book for the dividend, but the Co-op Group today is a very different beast. It operates effectively in the same predatory manner as we would expect of any other supermarket, bearing down on suppliers in communities such as mine. It is a trail that many communities the length and breadth of the country have seen over the years, but for a company such as the Co-op Group that has always prided itself—and, dare I say it, marketed itself quite effectively—on being the supermarket that was somehow different, to have this change in its culture is unfortunate to say the very least. I hope that it understands the damage it risks doing to the delicate and complex economic ecosystem that communities such as ours rely on. Once an economic ecosystem such as that is lost, it can never be easily recreated.
I do not wish to hold the House, but I want to mention one other matter of supreme importance to the production of food in the Northern Isles: the ability to export it to other parts of Scotland and the United Kingdom. It comes to the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). The Scottish Government are currently undertaking a consultation on the transportation of animals within Scotland. For us, with a 12-hour journey from Shetland to Aberdeen, that could have very serious implications. Even the shorter journey from Orkney to Aberdeen would be severely affected. If, in the last year, we had operated under the wind speed and temperature restrictions that are currently under consultation by the Scottish Government, there would only have been two sailings allowed from Orkney to Aberdeen. It is the law of good intentions and unintended consequences in operation. The people who designed the system, which is currently regarded as being blue-chip, with industry-leading standards, were the farmers at the turn of the century, and they are the people who should be involved in the recreation of that system now.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this timely debate during Great British Beef Week. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as one of the few practising farmers in the House.
The Cotswolds has one of the most sensitive landscapes in the country and I have always proudly championed British agriculture. As a farmer who grew up on my mother’s dairy farm, I know from first-hand experience how the UK produces some of the highest quality food produce of anywhere in the world, with exceptional animal welfare and environmental standards.
As Britain secures new trade deals, we have the opportunity to promote that high-quality meat and dairy produce across the world, produced by our innovative, environmentally friendly farmers. After 40 years of the European Union’s common agricultural policy, we can now pursue new trading relationships. It is an amazing opportunity to shape the future of our farming, promote our interests and meet the needs and ambitions of British consumers in the 21st century.
In 2020, meat and dairy products combined accounted for 2.2% of UK goods exports and 3.1% of all UK goods imports. The current trade deficit is found in all categories, apart from mutton and lamb, which has a trade surplus of £0.1 billion. We now import roughly 50% of all that we eat, down from 65% when I was a student. The UK is about 85% self-sufficient in dairy production and beef, but 98% self-sufficient when it comes to lamb. We need to work to a point where it is not just lamb that is in surplus, but where we are near self-sufficient in many more sectors.
What is the difference between our lamb and beef sectors? It could partly be better marketing of beef, which is usually a more expensive option in the supermarket. The deficit is something we want to change with our new trading arrangements. Beef exports from the UK last year came to £382 million, with growing markets in Hong Kong, Singapore, Peru and Canada. There is also growing demand in China for British pork, and in France for high-quality lamb produced in the Cotswolds.
British agriculture needs to increase and diversify its exports as much as it can in new international markets, after heavily relying on Europe. There is no reason why British food manufacturers cannot be innovative enough to create a wider range of products using British produce. That is especially the case for dairy-based products that are heavily imported, such as yoghurt and prepared desserts. That is unnecessary when we have such a strong dairy sector.
I urge farmers to take advantage of growing global markets. The Department for International Trade is launching a new mentoring programme, providing expert advice on trading internationally. Farmers in the UK are leading the world in finding innovative farming methods to farm in climate-change friendly ways, with the NFU pledging an ambitious net zero target by 2040.
The UK beef industry is one of the most sustainable in the world, with an extensive grass-based grazing system—not a cause of deforestation as in other countries, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said. The Committee on Climate Change found that the UK beef industry emits around half the greenhouse gases compared with the global average.
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon said, there are 278 million dairy cows worldwide. If they were all managed as efficiently as UK dairy cows are, we could shrink that number to 76 million and still produce the same amount of milk throughout the world. Around 70% of the British herd is on grass, and 65% of UK farmland produces some of the most productive grass in the world. That protects the character and identity of the countryside and generates an important income for rural communities. In the Cotswolds, which I have the privilege to represent, the distinctive, attractive landscape would not be the same without the raising of livestock, including the production of high-quality lamb, much of which could be exported.
Here in the UK, there is nothing better for the environmentally-conscious consumer who wants a balanced diet than to buy British. Not only does buying fresh local produce reduce greenhouse emissions from transporting produce; in addition the produce will be sourced from farms with sustainability at the heart of their practices. It is good to see some retailers increasingly championing UK products. I know, because I did a lot of the shopping during the lockdown, that Waitrose and Aldi have led the way on supporting British farmers throughout the pandemic. I hope that other supermarket chains will be encouraged to follow their example.
In conclusion, farmers can now set their ambitions well beyond the UK into exciting new markets. As they expand, they will have our full support in doing so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on setting the scene so well and giving us all an opportunity to participate. I am tempted to use a pun and say that I am pleased to have the opportunity to sow into the debate. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union and as a landowner.
My constituency is a strong farming community, and all my neighbours are involved in the milk, sheep and other sectors of the farming industry. One of the major employers is a Lakeland Dairies factory. I am acutely aware of the challenges facing the sector. The fact that Northern Ireland faces additional challenges because of the insidious Northern Ireland protocol makes life on our side of the sea that wee bit more difficult. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) mentioned that, and I am sure that other Members will. I must again highlight the need for the triggering of article 16 and an end to the hard border in the Irish sea. That would definitely do away with all the problems that we face at present.
I am part of the movement that believes we can and must do better with the stewardship of our environment. However, there are few who know more about cause and effect in the environment than the farmers who live it every day. I want to speak for the farmer, the person who looks after and manages the land—who lives on and loves the land, and whose very blood is in the land he farms every day. We are increasingly coming across a movement that seeks to blame the farming industry for environmental issues throughout the world. What it claims is simply not the case. When the total 460 million tonnes of UK greenhouse gas emissions are broken down, cattle and sheep account for 5.7%. The whole of UK agriculture was responsible for 10% of the UK’s total emissions. When grassland sequestration is taken into account the figure for cattle and sheep drops to 3.7%. Let us look at the reality of the stats. The farmer is clearly not to blame. It is time to work with the farming sector. I know that the Minister does that every day of her life and we represent those areas in dealing with the farmers in our constituencies, because we are there to support them.
The hon. Member for North Devon referred to figures on the efficiency of the dairy sector. They tell us all about how well the British farmer does his job. Our farmers know their responsibility, and they live it daily. I want to speak for the farmers in my constituency, and those elsewhere, and commend them for their industrious endeavours.
I read an interesting snippet in the National Farmers Union briefing. It was a statement by Dr Trevor Dines, a botanical specialist at Plantlife, on the publication of Plantlife research:
“Early succession habitats like hay meadows and permanent pastures, grazed by the right amount of livestock at the right time, can support an astonishing 770 species of wild flower and are crucibles of biodiversity.”
Wow—that is something for people to take the time to listen to, and I hope they will. It continued:
“Nearly 1,400 species of pollinators and other insects rely on species-rich grassland for their survival and they, in turn, support a myriad of bird and animal life. Re-creation of these open habitats must be seen as a priority as urgent as planting trees.”
That is what farmers say and what they and landlords do every day of their lives—365 days a year.
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for eggs, pigs and poultry, and the British Egg Industry Council set up a petition on change.org, to which there have been some 20,000 signatures. Supermarkets should use British eggs for foods made in Britain and stop importing eggs. Research shows that, although consumers put their trust in British supermarkets to sell safe products and be transparent about their sourcing, supermarkets continue to use a significant number of imported eggs in pre-prepared foods. I think it is time that we all bought British Lion eggs. I am old enough to remember that advert on TV—“Go to work on an egg”. Well, every day of my life, I go to work on two eggs. Seven days a week, I have two eggs for my breakfast. Incidentally, I have noticed in the Members’ Tea Room that many others in this House do too.
A survey of 3,000 British shoppers on their attitudes towards the use of eggs and egg ingredients by major retailers showed overwhelming support for the increased use of British eggs. That is why I am backing British farming, which has never been so important. The British egg industry is worth over £1.07 billion per year, and employs 23,000 people both directly and indirectly.
I will conclude on this Ms Ghani; you have been very kind to me. We need to keep this vibrant industry vibrant, and we in this House have a role to play, not in enforcing unattainable goals, but in supporting and rewarding best practice, which is standard practice in farms in every corner of my constituency, and indeed in every constituency throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
To get all the speakers in, I will have to enforce a time limit of under four minutes.
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this debate. Like her, I am fortunate to represent a large rural west country constituency, although mine is in God’s own county of Somerset. This debate gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to Somerset’s farming community and farmers in less fortunate areas.
This past year has presented farmers with unprecedented challenges. We all remember early in the pandemic seeing empty supermarket shelves, and many people feared that we were going to run out of food. Farmers rose to that challenge and enough food was produced to overcome the fears and meet the demand, and our shelves were fully restocked.
As I travel through the glorious Somerset countryside, it is impossible not to marvel at the contribution that farmers make to managing our landscape. The contribution that livestock and dairy farmers make to our environment is not fully appreciated. Meat and dairy production goes hand in hand with the sustainability of the landscape. British farmers lead the world in agricultural standards, animal welfare and sustainable farming practices.
This week is Great British Beef Week, and as the focus this year is on sustainability, we should remember that the greenhouse gas footprint of UK milk production is just 40% of the global average. British beef and dairy are fully on track to being carbon neutral by 2040.
The environmental contribution of livestock and dairy farming must not be overlooked, and neither must its enormous contribution to our rural economies, our way of life and brand Britain abroad, but the sector faces enormous challenges. Farmers are determined to grasp the opportunities of Brexit, but many say they face growing problems with exporting to the EU, in particular at the French border, where they are seeing outright inflexibility; they are not seeing the same at the approach to UK borders. I ask the Minister to explore and implement ways to ease exports to the EU, which is obviously our largest agricultural export market.
The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership—hard to say, and probably harder to put together—gives us a wealth of opportunity across the Asian, American and Australasian continents, with lucrative markets for our produce. That is great news for dairy producers, and producers of cheeses, in particular. I have some of the best in the world in my constituency, not least Wyke Farms, Barber’s, Montgomery cheddar and Godminster. The trade agreement gives them the opportunity to reach Canada and Australia. Producers can also send pork and poultry to Vietnam, beef to Japan and mutton to Malaysia. However, while Somerset’s farmers want trade partnerships, they do not want them at the expense of food standards, and I know there are concerns about any opening of the UK to cheaper, lower-quality imports.
The Government can do a little more to support farming in achieving net zero by 2040. Many farmers are now installing green energy plants to provide green electricity, but one farm in my patch tells me that the rating value of its green energy plant has doubled in a year, so I ask the Government to look at the rating system for green energy plants. We have to incentivise them and keep a level playing field, because certainty is a rare commodity in meat and dairy production, and over the past few years, of course, it has been harder than ever for the sector to have any kind of clarity. I hope the Government see that and continue to act in a way that smooths the path and gives our farmers clear sight of the future. The future is bright, but these are dark times, and we have to light the way with clarity.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) for having secured this afternoon’s debate. As the MP for Truro and Falmouth in Cornwall, it is unsurprising that farming plays a huge role for people in my constituency, and this is a great opportunity to stand up for our many hard-working farmers, farm workers and local supply chains.
It is not surprising that the English MPs in the room this afternoon are mostly south-west and west country MPs. The National Farmers’ Union states that the south-west’s livestock farms account for almost a third of all the dairy and beef farms in England, and over a fifth of all the sheep and lamb. British red meat and dairy has a great story to tell, and farmers can be very proud of having some of the highest welfare and environmental sustainability standards in the world. What is better to eat than Cornish cattle that has been grazing in the sea air on beautiful pastureland, making wonderful beef, clotted cream, and beautiful Cornish ice cream in Callestick, for example, near Perranporth in my constituency?
The UK has the fifth lowest use of on-farm antibiotics across the 31 European countries, beaten only by the Nordic countries, and that is due to their climate of cold and dry weather, which stops the bacteria from breeding and therefore reduces the demand for antibiotics. The amount of antibiotics used on UK farms reduced by 53% between 2014 and 2018. We really are leading the world in how we look after our animals, and in our welfare standards. A number of steps are being taken on farms that are done in the best interests of the animals, and are in line with expert advice and veterinary guidance. I also congratulate the UK meat and dairy industry on its work on tackling emissions—we have heard from various Members this afternoon how we have been doing that. British beef and lamb are among the most efficient and sustainable in the world, due to our extensive grass-based systems.
Livestock plays a key role in maintenance, as we have been hearing, and in the enhancement of wildlife habitats. Biodiversity would suffer hugely if the UK population became vegetarian and gave up meat. There are several examples of where livestock is critical to the life cycle of wildlife: for instance, the large blue butterfly, which breeds in warm and well-drained grassland. Livestock plays a key role in producing the suitable habitat through grazing, and if we gave up meat, suddenly that would not happen at all.
I am always encouraged when shoppers look to buy local, sustainably produced meat and dairy products, and most retailers are now increasingly sourcing British products to meet this demand. The UK is around 85% self-sufficient in dairy production, as we have heard, and 75% self-sufficient in beef production. Significantly, more than 11,000 dairy farmers and more than 23,600 beef and sheep producers in the UK are members of the Red Tractor scheme, and when shoppers buy British red meat and dairy products carrying the Red Tractor logo, they can be confident that those products are produced to world-leading environmental and animal welfare standards for the whole length of the food chain, from farm to packet. The supermarkets are starting to move in the right direction. We have a huge number of farm shops in Cornwall, of which I would like to mention a few in my constituency: Cusgarne near Truro, Curgurrell near Portscatho, and Trudgian in Probus. Not only do they buy local meat, so people can literally see the animals grazing in the fields before they buy meat for their family to consume; they also support smaller producers.
The Minister will not be surprised that I am making a call to ensure that the same encouragement and clout from Government goes into buying British fish—she knew I was going to say that. This has been a very difficult time for Cornish farmers and fishermen, who rely on their local outlets as well as on the supermarkets. Another hon. Member spoke about supermarket price points; it is really important that farmers and fishermen make a good living out of this. I am not—
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Order. You have gone over your time limit; forgive me, but we have to move on.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my colleague and fellow south-west Great British Beef Week love-in leader, my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). I speak not as a rural MP standing up for his constituent farmers, but as an urban representative for the city of Gloucester and its 100,000 consumers, and as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for much of south-east Asia and its regional organisation, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The two things come together very well.
I relate strongly to my hon. Friend’s calls to buy local. There can be no argument at all, at least among the six Gloucestershire MPs, that the finest beef is from Gloucester cattle—just as Single Gloucester cheese, made only from Gloucester cows, is one of our great cheeses. At this time of year, as all colleagues will know, a great round Single Gloucester cheese is normally to be found rolling down the steepest stopes of Coopers Edge in the great, globally renowned cheese-rolling competition pursued by 100-odd enthusiasts or lunatics. So yes, let us buy local and buy quality.
Let me focus on the export of British beef to south-east Asia in general and Indonesia in particular. Demand in Indonesia—a nation of 270 million people, predominantly Muslims—is growing by 7% a year, and 70% of the roughly £650 million-a-year market is imports, mostly from Australia and India, so there is an opportunity for us, but there are four questions. First, is there potential Indonesian demand for British beef? Secondly, is there potential export capacity here? Thirdly, is our halal certification process compatible with Indonesia’s legislation and approval process? Fourthly, is halal beef a sector that we want to pursue with other potential markets in Malaysia and the middle east? If that is all possible, we have an opportunity. We may need to pursue a free trade agreement to make our prices competitive with friendly Australian and Kiwi farmers.
As so often, these questions cross departmental boundaries, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for International Trade have worked closely on many issues. Today, in Great British Beef Week, I look forward to hearing the view of our excellent Minister on whether the enthusiasm and capacity of our farmers for halal beef exports are strong, and whether we can resolve the certification question.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Thank you, Mr Graham —that was mouth-watering.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this excellent debate. I declare an interest: I married a farmer’s daughter, and most of my family on her side are farmers across Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and—I say it quietly—even Devon. It is great to see so many colleagues from the south-west—we just about include my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) in that. That representation reflects how important farming is to our communities and our economy across the south-west.
We should be proud of our livestock and dairy farmers, who not only produce some of the finest-quality produce to be found anywhere in the world, but maintain the highest animal welfare and environmental standards. It is no mean feat to operate at such high standards while producing food of such amazing quality for us to buy and consume. Cornwall is particularly renowned for its dairy—Rodda’s clotted cream, which is located in the Secretary of State’s constituency, and our amazing cheese —as well as for its beef, lamb and pork. Much of it goes to support our hospitality and tourism sector, and the quality of food available in Cornwall is one of the things driving our tourism sector. People want to come to Cornwall not only for our amazing beaches and countryside, but because of the amazing food we produce. Clearly, farmers have faced huge challenges in recent times, but they have faced those challenges head on, which just goes to show the resilience within our farming sector. It has managed to do that over the past year during the pandemic and has adapted to a rapidly changing market.
Regrettably, as has been reflected in the debate, farming is sometimes presented as part of the problem in protecting our environment, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. British farming is among the most sustainable forms of farming anywhere in the world. Some of the facts and figures quoted by colleagues reflect that. Farmers are the custodians of our environment. They rely on our natural environment for everything that they do, so of course they want to protect it and care for it in the best possible way. Many of our farms are generational. Farms are passed down from one generation to another, so of course the farmers care for them because they want to be able to pass them on to their children and grandchildren.
Very often there is an unfair message that eating meat is a major contributor to emissions and carbon footprint, which is simply not true. Much of our farmland is suitable only for grazing livestock. We could not grow other food on it, and if we did not produce meat from that farmland, we would end up importing more food, which would increase the carbon footprint as well. There is much greater awareness today—it has increased over the past 12 months—of where our food comes from, which can only be a good thing. One thing I would like us to do with the new freedoms that we have since leaving the EU is to have better labelling of where our good British food comes from, and let us encourage everyone to buy as local as they possibly can.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on organising this debate. In the four minutes that I have I want to talk about agriculture on the Isle of Wight and then discuss with the Minister, through you, Ms Ghani, how we can use the Agriculture Act 2020 for the benefit of all of us, but very much for the Island.
I have noticed that a lot of us are talking about carbon and being responsible about animal rearing, but can we not use some of the incredible science in our country to breed cattle that produce less methane and—dare I say it?—pass wind less? Then we might have less of a carbon problem. I just put that out there. Perhaps the Minister will think about that. I am happy to suggest the Island for a pilot scheme. It would be great. We have lots of fresh air on the Island, anyway, and would have even more so with that idea.
The Island has a fantastic reputation for producing some of the best food in Britain, although, clearly, there is a lot of stiff competition. Briddlesford farm makes some of the best feta outside Greece. Calbourne Classics makes some of the best yoghurt in the country. I am yet to taste better fillet steak than that produced by Andrew Hodgson in the beautiful Bowcombe valley, and Queen Bower Dairy regularly produces fantastic soft cheeses and blue-veined cheeses. Isle of Wight tomatoes are very well known, to say nothing of all the lobster, crab and asparagus that we produce.
However, as the Minister knows, because she has been kind enough to discuss this with me, we have some issues. Living on an island, I perhaps share some concerns with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). Orkney has an abattoir. we do not. Our abattoir closed down a couple of decades ago. To take cattle for slaughter is an extra £70 per head of cattle. I am therefore very interested in the mobile abattoir scheme that the Minister discussed. I know it is being used in Gloucestershire at the moment. We would be extremely interested in having that on the Island because it would be extremely useful and valuable and would help to create a circular economy so that not only could we have a more sustainable agriculture on the Island by reducing the costs of slaughter and potentially make it more competitive, but it would make it more competitive when sending to the mainland as well because of that Isle of Wight brand.
In a similar vein, we would be keen to explore the use of grants for other shared things for items on the Island such as tanker and extra milk storage facilities, new grain storage, central fertiliser storage, animal feed milling facilities, and box erectors. All those things can make Isle of Wight agriculture not only more profitable—that is almost the wrong word—but can add more value to what we do. We would potentially keep more profit on the Island. As various Members have said, when people go to a supermarket they buy stuff that may be produced here or elsewhere in the European Union. I share the calls for better food labelling, because I will always try to buy local if I can.
The more that we can produce a local economy, so that Gloucestershire becomes even more proud of its produce, likewise the Isle of Wight, Kent and Sussex, that is the way that we can help local agriculture, and almost compete among ourselves. We keep forgetting, as has been pointed out, we have some of the most extraordinary food production in the world. Sometimes we do ourselves down and think that something that comes from Italy or France is better, when often it is not. I hope it will continue to be the case that we can push and get more value for UK produce. I will leave it there, but I look forward to discussing these matters with the Minister in due course.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing today’s debate. As the Member for Angus, one of Scotland’s most productive areas, it is a pleasure to sum up for the SNP and to add the Scottish dimension to issues raised by Members from around these islands. In Great British Beef Week, let us all collectively acknowledge that there is no finer beef than Aberdeen Angus. I look forward to the Minister confirming that in her summing up.
I am fully signed up to supporting and promoting British produce, but I will not be dissuaded from highlighting the current challenges that our producers face. The challenges in the meat and dairy sector have their roots in last spring, when we should have seen the emergence of new demand. Instead, we saw the eruption of a global pandemic, which decimated the hospitality and food service sector overnight.
Efforts were made to ensure that domestic demand, which rose sharply, would take up surplus commercial supply but, in reality, commercial food packaging and products made it incompatible with retail distribution processes and consumer tastes. Where we saw a glut of T-bone and fillet steaks, consumers were at the same time rushing out to buy mince. It was not just carcass balance issues that affected our producers. It was cheese, milk and yogurt, in large commercial containers with limited outlet into retail.
It was against that crisis that many of us called for an extension to the transition period last year, also recognising that the transition period was really no such thing. The UK Government advertised to businesses to get ready for exiting the single market and customs union, but were pretty sketchy on exactly how they could get ready to do that. Without a meaningful transition period, a soft start, room for manoeuvre or margin for error, UK meat and dairy exporters were thrown off a bureaucratic and procedural cliff on 1 January.
The dairy industry was especially hard hit, with exports to the EU down 96%, with beef, lamb, mutton and chicken exports collectively losing £50 million in EU sales. Many hon. Members have talked about the opportunities to export to wider markets. That is great, but it should not come at the cost to existing markets. The Food and Drink Federation report has shown that Scottish exports have been hit hardest, down 16%, with Wales 3.9% and Northern Ireland 7%. The British Meat Processors Association Brexit-impact report insists that blaming that on teething problems is no longer credible, if it ever was.
Collateral damage threatens our producers and their suppliers. I recently met with the Agricultural Industries Confederation to discuss the challenges in the agri-supply sector. Exiting the EU was top of their list. New tariffs for importing molasses for livestock feed, caused by an error in the UK global tariff, mean that there is now a higher tariff here than in the EU, which is expected to add £1 million to £1.2 million in extra costs to UK producers, all undermining our competitiveness. DEFRA is aware of this but, to date, there is no resolution. Nor is there a DEFRA resolution to issues affecting processed animal protein and the export health certificates that are now required to export those products from GB to Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister might want to discuss that in her summing up. Staying with Northern Ireland, as the president of the Ulster Farmers Union, Victor Chestnutt, pointed out to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week, Stirling bull sales in Scotland are vital for pedigree breeding and exchanging genetics. In 2019, 120 bulls from 37 Northern Ireland exhibitors showed at Stirling; by 2021 just four bulls were exhibited at Stirling from three Northern Ireland exhibitors. That is because when Northern Ireland farmers take a bull to GB and it does not sell, they need to pay for six months of residency before they can take it back to Northern Ireland. That madness is a disaster for sales and for breeding, and it is also a problem for Carlisle sales.
I want to touch on a comment from James Withers, of Scotland Food and Drink, who said
“It’s become clear that the EU third country import system was never designed for a country on its doorstep, integrated into its supply chains, sending large volumes of highly perishable product and smaller, consolidated volumes. In the end, the industry and consumer here want to maintain standards so let’s agree to align with our EU partners. Otherwise, the rug will be pulled from a significant chunk of the £1.2 billion of annual Scottish food exports for little, if any, benefit.”
The UK Government have in its power to support our meat and dairy sector through the Brexit carnage. I fully commend the innovation and energy with which our meat and dairy producers feed our communities and contribute to our economy, but let us not uphold any notion that everything is going invariably well. It is not. Those producers and the wider supply chains rely on EU exports, but exporting meat and dairy to the EU and Northern Ireland is harder now than ever. Let us all at least acknowledge that.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Ghani. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby) on securing this timely debate. These are vital industries that are crucial to our food security, to tackling climate and nature emergencies. They proved remarkably resilient through the pandemic. I pay tribute to all those involved: farmers, processors, retailers and shop workers. But I think one or two contributions have been a touch rose-tinted, because it is really tough out there.
Last week, I joined the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) in launching Labour’s rural review, on a family farm in Cambridgeshire. Thanks to the excellent organisation by the National Farmers Union, we heard from a real mix of farms. It is very hard out there. With the changes to farm support, it is obvious that some—perhaps many—will not survive. We have repeatedly warned that that is exactly what the Government’s Agricultural Act 2020, allied with the refusal to rule out undercutting through lower trade standard imports, was designed to do. We will fight that all the way. We are delighted to support Great British Beef Week.
I must point out just how interconnected but we still are with the European Union. EU countries have accounted for 70% of meat exports, 77% of dairy exports, as well as 83% of meat imports and 99% of dairy imports. Sadly, the rushed botched deal at the end of the year has left us facing really serious problems, not least in achieving carcase balance. The latest statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that exports of food and live animals were down about 31% on January and February 2020. In absolute value terms, exports of meat and meat preparations to the EU were particularly affected—down 52%. That is a systemic issue.
The British Meat Processors Association has warned that the industry is now facing a potential permanent loss of up to half of its exports. For dairy, exports remained at drastically low levels in February, according to recent figures published by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. The figures, drawn from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data, show trade with Europe down more than 90% for certain products compared with a year earlier. Cheese exports were down 75%, whey 83%, milk powder 86%, and butter exports were down 89%. Be in no doubt that it is tough for many. We know it is particularly hard for small independent producers. If it is hard to sell to the EU, meat and dairy farmers face a challenge to their incomes.
The Minister and I have been discussing changes to farm support for a long time. A new analysis by the Labour party shows that rural England stands to lose more than £255 million this year alone. That translates to as many as 9,500 agricultural jobs, and that will only get worse year on year. Of course, the schemes are still being designed, tested and piloted, as we have discussed on numerous occasions, but farmers are rightly concerned by the gap between the existing basic payment scheme being phased out and the environmental land management scheme. According to an analysis of DEFRA data by the Country Land and Business Association, 75% of farming enterprises are currently unprofitable without direct payments. According to a recent survey of landowners and farmers by the CLA, 76% fear that the new payments will not be sufficient.
It is hard to sell into the EU, support is being withdrawn and, frankly, British meat is still open to being undercut in trade deals. As we have repeatedly said, the Government should have put the protection of food and farming standards into law, but they have not. Without re-rehearsing the arguments made today, deals are currently being negotiated. UK campaign groups have raised repeated concerns over meat production in Australia and New Zealand, and the Government’s consultation on a prospective UK-Australia deal highlighted concerns about Australia’s farming practices, such as hormone injections in beef, excessive use of antibiotics in food production, high rates of food poisoning and lower standards of animal welfare, including continued use of sow stalls. Just last week, however, the Secretary of State for International Trade was lauding their high standards in the main Chamber. Frankly, it should be obvious that British farming will be sold out. The Trade and Agriculture Commission, which the Government conceded under pressure, has reported that there has been no response from the Government. Can the Minister tell us when we will get it, and will they adopt the recommended standards framework?
There is much more to be said, but let me move on to one of the potential solutions: public procurement. Supporting British farming means buying more British produce, which means looking at the public sector and the £2.4 billion a year spent on catering, and thinking about how more can be spent with British farmers. Government Buying Standards for Food and Catering Services, or GBSF, provide helpful guidelines, but these are not being applied in too many parts of our public services. That is hardly surprising, given the cost pressures that they face, but that is why leadership is required.
In such circumstances, who better to turn to than the EFRA Committee? As usual, its Chair, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), made his thoughtful and well-considered contribution earlier, but the Committee’s recent report urged the Government to update their buying standards for food into the new decade, address outdated standards on nutrition and animal welfare, and close loopholes in the current rules. The report also expresses disappointment that the Government do not use the GBSF as a mechanism to promote buying British within the public sector, as is the norm within public bodies in countries such as France.
Let me say a word about two specific sectors. There is insufficient time to do justice to lamb and poultry, but there are a range of issues affecting dairy. We all hope that the new dairy code of conduct will be successful and ensure the fairness that many people feel has been lacking. We will be watching closely, but I fear that it may have to be revisited yet again. There are also workforce challenges. A recent survey by the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers has revealed that almost one third of dairy farmers would consider leaving the industry due to a lack of labour, with 63% of dairy farmers struggling to recruit in the past five years. On their behalf, can I ask the Minister whether DEFRA is considering supporting the inclusion of dairy technicians in the next review of the Migratory Advisory Committee’s shortage of occupation list?
I turn now to the pig sector, which has had a really hard time. It is not all the fault of the Minister on this occasion—there is African swine fever in China, a surfeit of cheap pork in Europe and skyrocketing feed costs—but it is disappointing to hear that the percentage of British pork on the shelves has fallen in two of our major supermarkets, which is not helpful. Alarming figures suggest that specialist pig farms are expecting to see an 80% decline in average income between 2019-20 to 2020-21. The National Pig Association has described it as a perfect storm.
Some of the problems were indeed down to the post-Brexit export problems caused by the Government, but at its peak, a backlog of 100,000 pigs awaiting slaughter were housed in temporary accommodation on UK farms, which pushed up carcase weights and led to swingeing price discounts imposed by processers. I understand that the pig sector has approached the Government to call for sector-specific support, as was delivered to dairy farmers at the start of the pandemic, and I would be grateful to hear what consideration the Minister is giving to that request.
Let me finally mention our biggest challenge of all: climate and nature. We very much welcome the National Farmers Union’s commitment to reach net zero by 2040, and we want to see more support for farmers to reduce their emissions. That is why it is so important that we get ELM right and make it accessible in good time. British agriculture has to be on the front foot and continue to demonstrate positive progress. We will work with farmers to do anything that we can, and we recognise the efforts that are being made. Be it the dairy road map or Arla’s climate checks initiative, we can see people working hard throughout the farming and processing sector to get the advances that we all need.
There are indeed many paths to a sustainable future. A report from the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission in January made a powerful case for an agroecological approach that many will find attractive. Finally, we await part 2 of Henry Dimbleby’s report with keen interest. The country should not have gone without a food strategy for a decade. It will be fascinating to see how palatable the Government find his recommendations. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect it?
We believe that the meat and dairy industries, with the right support and help, will play a key role in achieving the necessary climate and nature targets in the future. I look forward to working with everyone in the industry to achieve that. I am delighted to have had the opportunity to take part in this important debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and to take part in this debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Selaine Saxby). British meat and dairy products have a really good reputation for quality, built on high animal welfare standards, strong environmental protections, traceability and sustainability. This Government will always support our farmers and producers, not only during Great British Beef Week.
It is great to be in a room full of such enthusiasts for their own local products. I will not, however, judge between Angus cattle and South Devon cattle, both of which we have kept at home. Other products are available and are kept by the farmers in the constituencies of those in this room. It is good to hear the enthusiasm in the room for buying local, buying sustainable and buying British. It is encouraging that, despite the challenges of the pandemic, and aside from the recent difficulties in the pig sector, generally our meat and dairy markets remain relatively strong, with good prices for milk, poultry, beef and especially lamb, which has been at 10-year highs since the beginning of this year.
I will not have time to respond to every issue raised, but I briefly mention the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who raised the problem of re-tagging animals moving from GB to NI. This is not required, as I am sure he knows, for animals going for slaughter only, but rather for breeding animals. We are aware of the burdens on those moving livestock and are working closely with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs where we can to try to minimise those issues taking place at the moment.
We heard about a desire to buy British from many Members, and about the commitment that some of our supermarkets have shown to selling British-sourced meat and dairy products. I was grateful to be able to speak to many representatives from our supermarkets on a call last week, specifically, in fact, about pork. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made a thoughtful speech about the interrelationships in the rural supply chain. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) was keen to support farm shops and, as ever, the fishing industry in her constituency in doing more direct selling to customers.
We are really ambitious, as a Government. We had a manifesto commitment that we want people at home and abroad lining up to buy British. We are working closely with the AHDB, and Members may have noticed that we had a number of successful campaigns during the pandemic, including Milk Your Moments, which is slightly more modern but just as good as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—“Go to work on an egg”.
On trade, the successful conclusion of negotiations with the EU with a deal, ratified only yesterday, based on zero tariffs and zero quotas means that we can now develop new relationships with our trading partners in the EU and globally. We are keen to grow our markets through the Department for International Trade’s new Open Doors campaign and increased market support and help in this area. We have a great agreement with Japan, which opens the Japanese market to UK exports of lamb and beef for the first time in two decades.
It was good to hear the level of ambition from the Cotswolds, represented so ably by a farmer, my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown); from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who spoke specifically about the Indonesian market—I will follow up with him directly on some of the points he raised; and from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), who particularly mentioned the cheese that he is keen to export.
The Government are clear, to reassure the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and other Members, that we are not compromising on the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food safety standards. The strong British reputation for our food is the basis on which we intend to sell our produce, both at home and abroad.
On other points—my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) mentioned the possibility of looking at a mobile abattoir scheme. I have spoken to him about that before, and am keen to do so again. We are piloting such a scheme, and look forward to learning from that and if it is appropriate to roll out more widely. A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), spoke about labelling—an important issue for all the food we sell. We spent time this morning on a complicated Statutory Instrument on changes to labelling. We will talk more about that this year as we go into consultation on labelling, and I encourage him to get involved.
On the environment, the PM has declared that tackling climate change and preserving biodiversity is the UK’s number one foreign policy priority. He saw this first hand when he visited a livestock farm in Derbyshire last week. Achieving net zero for 2050 is an absolute priority for this Government. We were the first major economy to bring this target into law, and this is just the beginning. We acknowledge the ambition of the farming industry in this space, and have great examples of UK dairy companies and others leading the way on this. There is a great deal that the livestock sector can, and will do, to help move towards these ambitious targets.
As many Members have said, we have one of the most efficient and sustainable systems of livestock in the world. Reducing production of our own, increasingly carbon efficient products, and importing less carbon efficient products from overseas, is clearly not the solution. Nor is it sensible to import feeds grown in ways that are damaging to the global environment just to fit our targets—[Interruption.] I will not give way, I have a great deal to get through—I apologise. New feeds will be of a real benefit, and good work is being done to understand ruminant digestion and target both nutrition use and reduce methane emissions.
We must be honest about possible trade-offs with animal welfare when we have this debate. We need to do further work on the use of nitrogen fertilizers and nitrogen fixing mixes in grass. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton talking passionately about herbal leys, which I would echo if I had longer. Carbon sequestered by hedgerows and on farm woodland can help meet our targets, though some of that will not be recognised for many years. It must be recognised that well-managed livestock provides huge benefits, such as supporting biodiversity, protecting the character of some of our most beautiful landscapes, and creating employment for rural communities. It provides important nutrition as well, and we must remember that food is at the heart of what we do. We recognise the delicate balance between these outcomes and the potential environmental trade-offs, and will ensure that decision making is evidence led, but takes into account the full sweep of trade-offs.
I need to let the hon. Lady finish the debate, but I will say briefly that, despite the views of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), targeted support for our farmers is definitely the way to go. Paying people for public goods is a much better way of optimising the environmental solutions than merely sticking with CAP. Henry Dimbleby will report in July. We look forward to a major conversation across the country about buying British, buying local and buying sustainable, and all other aspects of food production, until the Government’s response in December to his report. This has been a great debate, and I thank hon. Members for taking part.
Selaine Saxby
I thank the Minister for her response, and hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions. It is good to see widespread support for British meat and dairy farmers, as well as the Government’s environmental goals. The debate has recognised the importance of our global, as well as local markets for our fantastic British produce. I am sure today’s debate has whetted our appetites, and we cannot wait to dash out and buy something British for our evening meal.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered British meat and dairy products.
Online Scams: Consumer Protection
(3 years 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
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Members need to clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall throughout the debate.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered protecting consumers from online scams.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani.
Last year, my constituents Mr and Mrs Biggs came to see me at one of my constituency surgeries. They were asking for my help because scammers had stolen £30,000 of their savings. How had that happened? Well, a friend of theirs had spotted an advert on Google for a bond that, when compared with other products on the market, seemed to offer a reasonable rate of return over a three-year period. They called the telephone line provided to discuss the product further. The bond was being offered by a reputable firm, Goldman Sachs, and it was advertised on Google, which presumably had done its due diligence before accepting the advert, so my constituents invested. Only it was not Goldman Sachs that they had invested with, and the bond did not exist. Instead, Mr and Mrs Biggs, like many people up and down the country, had become victims of a very convincing clone scam. They had transferred £30,000 into the bank account of the perpetrators of that scam.
Clone scams exploit people’s trust in reputable brands by carefully mimicking their websites and online presence and even researching and impersonating their sales managers. When they also carry the stamp of an advert, be that on Google, Facebook or any other online platform, many consumers believe that the platform carrying the advert has checked out the company that posted it and that therefore it is an official advert from the company in question. But the truth is that that is rarely the case, because online platforms currently have no legal obligations to protect users against fake or fraudulent content, and that is the primary issue that I would like to address in the debate today.
In the last 18 months, we have been living through a public health emergency, but the pandemic has also had a really profound effect on the way adversaries operate online. We have seen everything: nation state espionage on vaccine programmes, the spread of misinformation and a huge increase in online scams. We have seen fake personal protective equipment, and phishing sites posing as councils giving out covid grants, or sending fake messages about parcel deliveries to try to download software on to victims’ phones or to direct them to give their bank details to scammers. It shows how sophisticated the world of online scams has become, how fast criminals can adapt to new situations and how easy it is for people to be taken in.
Action Fraud figures show that, in the year to June 2020, 85% of all fraud was cyber-enabled. Reports of clone scams increased by nearly 30% between March and April—just in the space of a month—last year. Victims lost more than £78 million to clone scams in 2020. It is hard to put those sorts of figures in the context of individuals, but the average loss for victims is about £45,000. That could be the deposit for someone’s home, the money that they were saving to start their own business or expand it, or savings for retirement or to pass on to their children. But it is gone, and often with no compensation.
Fortunately, in the end, my constituents, Mr and Mrs Biggs, were compensated. That was not without a fight and the resulting stress and anxiety. Many other victims are not compensated. In 2018, The Telegraph, which has done some really excellent work on this issue, reported that, in the previous year, only 25% of the funds lost to authorised push payment or APP scams, in which the victim transfers money to the bank account of the criminal, were successfully returned to victims.
These figures are shocking, before we even take into account the immense psychological and emotional toll on victims and their families. Scammers take advantage of people’s fears, hopes and anxieties, and they motivate them to transfer large sums of money on this basis. Anyone who has helped a victim of these crimes knows how heart-wrenching the ordeal is for them. The feeling of anxiety and powerlessness experienced when pleading with banks and law enforcement to help recover life savings is a tremendous unseen harm caused by online scams.
Recent analysis by consumer champion Which? found that there are 300 to 350 fraud reports every week in which victims show signs of severe emotional distress. One such account from Which? details the case of an 80-year-old gentleman who could not sleep for weeks after losing his retirement savings to scammers. The person behind the scam pretended to be a real investment company, assuming the name of a real investment manager at that company, and ultimately stole £50,000 from the victim, even after he checked their credentials online.
This scam, like the others I have mentioned, began as an advert at the top of Google’s search results. TV, print and radio advertising are all governed by a comprehensive set of rules, yet very little exists to govern online advertising. The majority of people now go online to research and buy everything, from pensions to pet food, holidays to houses, shoes to savings products, but it is for each individual platform to decide what, if any, verification checks it wants to make on businesses taking out adverts on its service.
I do not mean to imply that platforms are doing nothing. Following ongoing discussions with the Financial Conduct Authority, Google, for example, has updated its financial services policy to make financial services advertisers subject to its business operations verification process. I followed the link that Google provided in its letter to the FCA to understand more about what the verification process entails. The policy states:
“Advertisers may be selected to complete business operations verification if, for example, the advertising behavior has been identified as unclear or their ad content is deemed as potentially misleading.
Advertisers whose accounts were suspended due to a violation of our Google Ads policies may also be requested to undergo business operations verification as part of the account suspension appeals and remediation process.
Advertisers who are required to complete business operations verification will be notified and given 21 days to submit the verification form. In certain circumstances, we may pause advertisers’ accounts immediately when business operations verification is initiated. This means that advertisers’ ads will not be able to serve until they are able to complete the program successfully.
Advertiser accounts may be paused if the advertiser’s business model is unclear and we suspect that their advertising or business practices may cause physical or monetary harm to users. Non-exhaustive examples include: misrepresenting yourself in your ad content; offering financial products or services under false pretences; or offering unauthorized customer support services on behalf of third parties.
Once the verification form is completed and reviewed by Google, advertiser’s accounts that do not meet the requirements of this verification program outlined below will be suspended with a 7 day notice period. Note that if any further clarification or information submitted to Google during this 7 day notice period is insufficient to verify the account, Google may suspend the account immediately.”
So, Google “may” carry out checks, or they may not. They “may” pause the adverts at the start of the verification process, or they may not. Advertisers “may” get 21 days leeway before proper checks are completed. Advertisers found not to meet the requirements of the verification process will have seven days to provide further information to verify the account. If they cannot provide that, Google “may” decide to suspend the account immediately, but presumably they also may not. I know politicians are often accused of using non-committal language and trying to evade a straight answer, but this is a masterclass. It might be time that we in this place send the strong signal that that approach is not enough to protect our constituents, who are definitely being scammed out of their life savings.
If a verification process is to be effective, it needs to take place before any adverts are served. Leaving them up for 21 days while checks are completed provides a free-for-all for scammers. An experiment undertaken last year by Which? shows why. It created a fake water brand, Remedii, and an accompanying online service offering pseudo health and hydration advice, called Natural Hydration. It advertised both using Facebook and Google. Which? reported that
“With barely any checking, Google promoted ads for our website and fake mineral water to users who searched for popular terms, such as ‘bottled water’. Our ads gained nearly 100,000 impressions over a month.”
That shows how fast fake ads can reach a wide audience. A lot of damage can be done in 21 days.
Just this week, in a user survey published by Which?, a third of victims who reported a fraudulent ad on Google said that the advert was not taken down by the search engine, while a quarter of victims who reported an advert on Facebook that resulted in them being scammed said the advert was not removed by the social media site. Those companies earn billions of pounds from advertising. Yesterday, Google’s parent company, Alphabet, reported record results, with a 163% increase in profits. Alphabet’s executives have attributed that rise to an increase in people using Google’s online services and interacting with their online adverts. I do not think it unreasonable to require those companies to spend some of their money on helping to protect people from the harm caused by fraudulent adverts, especially given that adverts are targeted at users based on their recent web activity and behaviour. Fraudulent ads, based on a user’s interests or concerns, are effectively pushed towards them by online platforms, which act as enablers for the scammers.
I will briefly tackle the issue of compensation for victims, which is, at the moment, a minefield. In my constituency, I have seen cases involving victims who have found it incredibly difficult to make their claim heard by their bank, prolonging the painful battle to recoup their losses. Those people are forced into a position in which the odds of a successful outcome are low, and they often emerge at the other end with a growing distrust for our regulatory system.
The Financial Ombudsman Service website puts it very clearly:
“When it comes to payments that customers have authorised themselves, the starting point at law is that their bank won’t be liable for the customer’s loss, even when it’s the result of a scam.”
We might say, “Fair enough. It is not the bank that’s at fault. They are merely acting on the instructions of their customer.” What about the companies who expose users to those fraudulent ads, however? Those companies actually target the adverts at users based on their interests, and make billions from doing so. Are we honestly saying they should have no liability, and that there should be no redress for users who are targeted with ads placed by criminals? How can that be fair?
We urgently need to tackle the issue of online financial harms. I asked the Home Secretary about this matter when she gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee. She said:
“We are actually doing some work right now through the economic crime board that I chair with the Chancellor—I chaired it just last week. If you speak to many financial regulators and to the financial services sector, they are equally concerned about this. One of the key outcomes that we are now discussing and picking up across Government is: how are we going to make the online harms Bill much stronger, and how are we going to tackle many of these online advertising platforms that come up through search engines, social media and other forms of electronic communications?
We still have a way to go, but what I can say—and I am very grateful to colleagues in the Treasury on this as well—is that the level of focus and attention to this issue definitely means that it will be given a huge push, a significant push, because, quite frankly, economic crime is now becoming one of the most predominant challenges when it comes to law enforcement but also criminality.”
I could not agree with her more.
I would be grateful for an update from the Minister on how the Government propose to tackle the issue. Will financial harms become part of the online harms Bill as the FCA, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme and Which? are asking for it to be? If not, will she set out what they plan to do instead? In either case, can she go any further towards providing a timetable for action?
We have a really urgent problem affecting thousands of people every year. We must sort it quickly. I am confident that we can, because I know from knocking around the cyber-security industry for most of the past decade that the UK has always been a global leader in cyber-security and tackling cyber-crime. I have seen our strategy grow, mature and evolve as the threat has. Fraudulent online adverts are a real threat to all our constituents. It is not on the horizon; it is here already, and it has been for several years. The alarm bells are sounding, and the problem is growing, so let us grip it now and offer our constituents the protection they all deserve.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) on securing the debate and on the powerful case she made. The Pensions Scams Industry Group estimates that 40,000 people, like Mr and Mrs Biggs, were scammed out of pension savings in the five years after the introduction of the pension freedoms and lost £10 billion between them. As she explained, losing pension savings after a lifetime of work is a devastating experience, and she is right that most of the problem is online. In September, Aviva told the Work and Pensions Committee that in the previous six months—since the start of lockdown—it had identified 27 fake websites purporting to be Aviva trying to defraud pension-age customers of their investments.
As the hon. Member said, the Government have the chance to tackle this enormous problem in the forthcoming online safety Bill, but it appears, extraordinarily, that financial harms are to be carved out of it. I hope that the Minister can encourage us that that might be reconsidered. We have heard a separate announcement of a consultation on online advertising, but that covers only part of the problem. A call for evidence on online advertising closed a year ago, but as yet nothing at all seems to have come out of that, and asking us to wait for yet further consultation before anything is done would be hopeless. The FSCS, the FCA and, I understand, the Governor of the Bank of England are urging that scams should be included in the online safety Bill, so I hope the Minister can encourage us on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani, and a real pleasure to respond to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards) on securing a debate on this important subject. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) was able to contribute as well. First, may I say that our sympathies are with Mr and Mrs Biggs? My hon. Friend articulated all too well the losses that they have suffered. They have had to endure a terrible experience that, sadly, is experienced by many people, and we heard from the right hon. Gentleman the scale of some of these frauds.
The Government absolutely recognise not only the scale and the impact that fraud can have and is having on victims, but the impact of bringing perpetrators to justice. According to the latest figures, fraud accounted for over a third of all estimated crime in the year ending September 2020 and, as my hon. Friend articulated all too well, behind the statistics there is the trail of misery that these losses can encompass. Victims suffer both financial loss and emotional harm. There can be consequences for their livelihoods, their homes and their families’ futures. We also know that the money that has been stolen from them can often go on to fund other serious and organised crimes.
As this year has demonstrated, more and more people are online at home, and we are acutely aware of the importance of staying safe in the virtual world. We are focusing the Government’s efforts on tackling fraud and online scams in three key areas: prevention; catching the criminals responsible; and supporting the victims of these despicable crimes.
Prevention involves not just victims, the industry and tech companies, but all of us. That is how we will be able to tackle these crimes. We must ensure the private and public sectors prioritise preventing these types of frauds. That is critical to preventing the harms that we have heard about and the economic damage to our businesses, and disrupting the organised criminals who perpetrate these crimes. To do that, the Government are taking steps to ensure that fewer people fall foul of these scams.
The National Cyber Security Centre has been at the forefront of that effort. Last year, it launched a new suspicious email reporting service, which makes it easier for the public to highlight suspicious emails and websites. The service has already led to more than 5.5 million reports, and more than 41,000 scams and 81,000 websites have been taken down.
Importantly, we also need to help the public spot these scams. We are working with banks and many other organisations to help people spot when a scam appears, a dodgy text message appears on their phone or an email appears in their inbox so that they can protect themselves. That is in addition to the wider work with the public and private sectors.
Last year, we launched a new gov.uk page to help keep the public safe online. I recommend it to colleagues, who can perhaps disseminate it through their constituencies. We know that, sadly, in the midst of the pandemic, with the enormous human cost that it has had for so many people, fraudsters are seeking to take advantage of even that. We have been working with partners from across law enforcement and health to track and mitigate the threat of fraud around the pandemic. That has included a series of public messaging campaigns to inform the public of fraudsters who are seeking to exploit the vaccine roll-out and tell them how we can all remain vigilant against such attempts.
We are working with industry to try to cut off these scams before they bear fruit on the internet. We have been leading work to develop bilateral fraud charters with our banking, telecommunications and accountancy partners. They will bring greater clarity, transparency and accountability to the actions that each sector will take to target harden their systems and protect their customers from fraud. An example of that is the specialist Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit, which is a police unit that targets and disrupts credit card fraud and demonstrates the collaboration between UK Finance, the City of London police, the Metropolitan police and the Home Office. It is also working to help online companies take advantage of its services, in particular on the pernicious ways fraudsters are opening up their fraud—for example, through the recruitment of young people to become money mules. There is another great piece of work with the telecoms companies, whereby if somebody receives a suspicious text, they can forward it to 7726, which will enable the telecoms companies to look at it and see whether it should be removed.
The response to online scams and all fraud demands a collaborative, innovative response to keep pace with the changing threat and new technologies. We continue to work closely with industry to drive progress.
My hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman understandably raised the landmark online safety Bill, and they asked whether fraud will be included in its scope. The new law will impose a duty of care on tech companies. Although some companies have taken positive steps already, the Government are clear that more needs to be done. In relation to the specificity of the online safety Bill, there are ongoing discussions.
Of course, what has been said in this debate will be listened to, and the concerns that have been raised will be reflected upon. However, in the more immediate term, my hon. Friend has chosen a timely moment in which to have this debate, because only tomorrow, my noble Friend Baroness Williams of Trafford, along with other ministerial colleagues, will meet with tech companies to discuss a voluntary set of principles for preventing fraud and protecting the public on their platforms. The Government are having productive—we hope—but also insistent conversations with the tech industry as to what it should be doing in order to protect members of the public. I listened to my hon. Friend’s deconstruction—I think that is a fair word—of Google’s policy with great interest, and I will commend it to my noble Friend the Baroness before she goes into tomorrow’s meeting.
We are committed to tackling the problem of online fraud, and are considering every possible approach, including legislative and non-legislative means. As has already been mentioned, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading work on the online advertising programme, which will consider, among other things, the role of online advertising in perpetrating fraud. DCMS is also carrying out broader and longer-term efforts on digital identity and data protection, and as my hon. Friend has mentioned, in February this year, the Home Secretary chaired a meeting of the Economic Crime Strategic Board, which brought together people from across the public sector and industry. At that meeting, an ambitious new framework for a fraud action plan was agreed to drive forward and improve our collective response to these crimes. The full plan will be published later this year and will consider, among other things, how we can include all sectors to protect the public from fraud.
Law enforcement colleagues clearly play a crucial role in this subject, as do intelligence colleagues. We are considering all routes, including legislation, to give them the tools they need to go after fraudsters and protect those who are vulnerable to these harmful crimes. We have asked the Law Commission to review the existing corporate criminal liability laws for economic crime, including fraud, money laundering and false accounting, and we are hoping to hear from them next year. We will, of course, consider any findings that will benefit counter-fraud efforts, and we continue to work with regulators and industry to consider what more can be done.
However, as my hon. Friend has set out, this is about not just the financial impact on victims, but the emotional and other experiences that people have. We understand that reimbursement can be a key part of helping people deal with those experiences, and are working with the financial sector to ensure that as many victims as possible are either able to claim their money back, or are reimbursed. We are working particularly closely with the Treasury to explore what can be done to promote greater consistency across the sector. We are also working with national and local policing leads to support victims of these terrible crimes. The National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit, based within Action Fraud, is also supporting victims, helping them to recover and protect themselves against becoming victims again.
As this debate draws to a close, let me again thank my hon. Friend for having raised these important points in a timely manner. I very much appreciate the points that she and the right hon. Gentleman have made, both about tackling fraudsters and about supporting victims of these crimes. They have my assurance that the Government take these threats very seriously, and it is through working together and taking a collaborative approach—helping the public to understand where there may be a scam, but also working with tech companies to ensure that these adverts and other things that have been described are cut off at source—that we will help to stop these frauds from happening in the first place.
Question put and agreed to.
District Heat Networks
(3 years 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
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. Members who are participating physically and virtually must be present at the beginning of the debate and stay for the entire debate. I remind Members who are participating virtually that they will be visible at all times, not just to each other, but to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. I ask Members who are attending physically to wear masks until they are speaking. I call Elliot Colburn to move the motion.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered district heat networks.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time in Westminster Hall, Ms Ghani. I am grateful to the Speaker’s Office for granting me this debate, as some of my Carshalton and Wallington residents, particularly those living in the New Mill Quarter development in Hackbridge, have been adversely affected by district heat networks. In my efforts to support them, I have encountered many issues.
For the benefit of the House, I should briefly explain what a district heat network is. They are designed to take energy from a local energy source and distribute it to consumers through a series of highly insulated pipes. A common source of the energy is incinerators or so-called energy-from-waste facilities, as their proponents like to call them. That is the model used in my constituency.
When the Lib Dems gleefully secured the incinerator in Beddington that they fought so hard to deliver, one of their most common arguments was that the waste heat from the incinerator would be used to heat local homes. The idea was that highly insulated pipes would be laid, water would be heated at an energy transfer station, using heat from the incinerator, and sent along the pipes to residents’ homes, providing a reliable and supposedly clean heating source at a reasonable price, all run by an arm’s length company called Sutton Decentralised Energy Network—SDEN—which is wholly owned by the council. The reality is a system that has been dogged with failure, residents being ripped off and the complete absence of any action or even empathy from the council. I will expand on that point later.
My central point is that this relatively new form of energy production is almost entirely unregulated. When residents have problems, they have very little in the way of consumer protections or rights. I hope I can persuade the Government to fix that. The Government have already launched a consultation into the networks, which I contributed to, and have made space for discussions about the networks in the design of the Green Heat Network Fund. The consultation describes the heat networks as “central heating for cities”. When someone’s central heating breaks down in a traditional home, one family is affected. When a heat network breaks down, the entire network is affected, impacting hundreds or even thousands of people. As the consultation states, a heat network
“avoids the need for individual heating solutions in every building.”
Therefore, it encounters problems that will impact every building jointly. That is why there needs to be greater consumer protection.
I want to draw focus on several key themes today. The first is reliability. There have been extended delays in the SDEN system going live, meaning residents were until last month being provided with heat by the back-up boilers, which have proven less than reliable. By my count, judging from the contact I have had with residents from New Mill Quarter, in the past year, there have been nearly 20 hot water or heating outages, including over the cold winter months, leaving people without hot water or heating and putting vulnerable people at risk. On two occasions since December, the hot water and heating blackouts have required a call-out from the London Fire Brigade due to problems in the back-up boiler room.
The situation is not confined to Hackbridge. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy heat networks consumer survey of 2017 found that a greater proportion of heat network customers experience loss of heating compared with customers not served by these networks. A report by the Competition and Markets Authority showed reliability concerns as a consistent theme of customer complaints on heat networks, particularly citing unplanned interruptions.
I am guessing that most of us live in a home heated by a boiler. For those who do, breakdowns are a rare occurrence. For New Mill Quarter residents, they are very common. Even if those of us who live in a home heated by a boiler are dogged with problems, we can vote with our feet, and switch provider or change our system and replace the boiler. That option is not available to those living in a district heat network. Residents in Hackbridge were sold a system that they were told would be 100%, 24/7 reliable. There are marketing documents to prove that. [Interruption.]
Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)
Order. I believe all hon. Members present have a proxy vote, so there is no need for us to suspend for a Division in the House. Please continue.
Elliot Colburn
Thank you, Ms Ghani.
In a public meeting that the council tried—and failed—to keep me out of, despite my calling for it in the first place, residents were told that they should have somehow known that 100% did not mean 100% and that, inevitably, there would be problems. During that same meeting, residents expressed how they could never get through to someone when an outage occurred, were never updated and had no recourse to compensation because there were no obligations on SDEN to do anything, due to lack of regulation. The meeting ended with residents very unhappy, having received no answers and a pitiful compensation offer that did not make up for the stress and concern caused by the constant outages. Nor was there any hope that things would get better; indeed, outages continued well after the meeting took place.
The second issue I want to address is customer satisfaction. Residents in New Mill Quarter experience higher than average heating bills. I conducted a survey of those residents to acquire evidence of their experience. Some 71% of residents told me that their bills were a lot higher than before they moved into New Mill Quarter; that figure rose to nearly 100% when including those who said their bills were somewhat higher.
The pricing structure of SDEN is split into two categories: a variable rate, which is the usual cost of daily rate and usage; and a standing charge, which covers maintenance and repairs. However, the New Mill Quarter Residents Association calculated that the pricing model that SDEN uses as a basis for its costs is nearly £3 million higher for the estate than the next available alternative over the contract term. I can hear the Liberal Democrats shrieking at me—incidentally, they were so keen to keep information about the pricing model quiet and out of the public eye that it took freedom of information requests and a ruling from the Information Commissioner to get that information out of them. They would say that the costs are high because they include things such as insurance and system maintenance, and that is something that we mere mortals who have a boiler must pay for separately. But the numbers just do not stack up. There is evidence to suggest that residents are being completely ripped off. Some residents are looking into private litigation, and I do not think it beyond the realms of possibility that the matter is investigated by a series of Government Departments. Things are that serious.
The overall customer satisfaction with district heat networks is also in question. I detailed the service issues on the estate, which I will not repeat. It is worth noting that, on average, district heat network customers have lower satisfaction rates than customers of more traditional forms of heating. Despite being used as a flagship example of a nation embracing heat networks, Sweden has the lowest heating satisfaction of all five European countries surveyed in a recent 2021 study. The country has a history of consumer distrust of district heating operators, due to fear of being taken advantage of in a natural monopoly.
Potentially one the harshest elements of the district heat network for residents in New Mill Quarter is the totally restrictive and monopolistic nature of the project. There are no boilers in the properties, so there is no ability to switch energy providers. SDEN is the only option. The fundamental market freedoms that have helped make our country thrive are being denied there, and elsewhere in other district heating networks. There is no incentive for SDEN to help reduce the high energy bills, because there is no threat of their customers switching providers.
New Mill Quarter residents are trapped in high energy bill contracts. When I asked residents as part of my survey if they would like to change providers, 91% said yes and the remaining 9% were unsure. Not a single person wanted to stick. When asked if they were aware of SDEN and the obligation to use it when they moved in to their new property, 35% of residents said that they were not, and 13% were unsure. It is clear that many residents were not aware that they would be trapped in the scheme before they moved in, and an overwhelming majority would support freedom in the market to choose.
I am a Conservative because I believe in the principles of the free market. Competition and choice have been shown consistently to drive down prices while driving up reliability. Monopolies have no incentive to do either, because there is no chance of their losing their customer base. Of course there are other natural monopolies in the UK, such as water, for example; but those negative impacts are mitigated through tough regulation including an industry regulator, and consumer protections.
The final point that I want to make about the networks, at least in Hackbridge, is that the project was doomed from the start, owing partly to a faulty business model. The freedom of information requests and Information Commissioner’s Office complaints have revealed that SDEN was built on the back of a complete fantasy in terms of its financial and business modelling. That is probably why the council worked so hard to keep it secret. SDEN is not making any money. In fact, it is in a dire financial situation, and residents are the ones being asked to pay the price. It is really an issue of the customer base.
SDEN is still, even now after all the problems, being touted as a massive success of the delusional, out-of-touch and uncaring Lib Dem-run council. We were told that the incinerator would mean a district heat network that would power potentially thousands of homes, even with the potential to retrofit existing properties to connect to it, giving residents a so-called greener energy alternative. In truth, that was never going to happen. The logistical nightmare of getting the pipes laid and the infrastructure in place even to heat the New Mill Quarter new build development, which is an estate of just over 800 homes, was cripplingly expensive. So it was only ever really going to be an option for new builds, and it only really happened in New Mill Quarter because as the crow flies from the estate to the incinerator there are no obstructions in the way, so laying the pipes was relatively easy.
However, it is not as if developers want to be connected in the first place. The council essentially had to strong-arm Barratt Homes into accepting SDEN and is now trying to force other developers in the borough to accept it too. On more than one occasion it has been caught with egg on its face because it failed to persuade others, including the local hospital, to become customers. That has caused real financial difficulty. Owing to the delays in getting connected and failure of the back-up boilers, in addition to failing to find new customers, the council has to foot the bill for the high gas consumption costs. That, in my opinion, offers a much better explanation for why residents’ bills are so high. It is not that hard to follow the money. The council has to pay a high cost for the gas and residents have high energy bills: put two and two together. Even now that the landfill gas engines at the incinerator site have been switched on, I have it on good authority that they are not enough to heat the homes in New Mill Quarter, so a lot of the work is still being done by back-up boilers. It is going to take yet another two years before the incinerator turbines come on line.
Looking to the future, even if the system was reliable, the incinerator was connected and working well, and prices were reasonable, it would not change the fact that the business model is still fatally flawed. There is something glaringly obvious coming down the line that I fear has been overlooked. That is the fact that the Government’s own resources and waste strategy calls for the phasing out of incinerators—or so-called energy from waste facilities—as a form of waste management, as we look further up the waste hierarchy. The less waste we produce and the more existing waste can be recycled or reused, the less necessary disposal through incineration becomes.
What happens then? The day will come when not enough waste will be produced to burn, and consequently power the heat networks. What, then, happens to the residents who get heat from them? The back-up boilers are not the answer, as has been demonstrated, because they cannot cope with the stress of maintaining an entire heat network. There can only possibly be two options. One is to import waste to keep the incinerator and the supply going, which means more vehicle movements and more pollution, and scrapping the fantasy that it is some kind of green alternative. The other is an expensive, time-consuming and in many cases potentially impossible retrofit of an alternative energy supply. The networks are not future-proofed at all and it may be 20 or 30 years away but the day will come when the failure to future-proof could lead to an even greater problem for residents down the line.
I have covered a lot of ground today, but I hope that I have demonstrated the seriousness of the problems facing New Mill Quarter residents, who feel ignored and abandoned by their ward councillors, the council at large and SDEN. SDEN’s problems are not unique, although I imagine some of the dodgy dealings might be. However, tougher regulation is clearly needed, as examples of what I have described can be found across the country. At the very least, consumers need to be given greater protections and there should be a regulator on a statutory footing, which must compel the pricing model to be on par with the market average. There should be a 24/7 helpline to report faults, a compensation package for every outage, the ability to escalate complaints to a higher organisation, and so on.
I also urge the Government to look at whether these monopolies are a good idea at all. The inability to choose a provider is not just unfair; we are also heading to a point where the source of energy might not even be available in a couple of decades. It is not fair of our generation to burden a future generation with tackling that problem. I urge the Government to let SDEN be a lesson in what not to do. Let us not resign residents in Hackbridge or anywhere else to this poor state of affairs.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. In preparing for this afternoon’s debate, I looked back over my records and discovered that the first time I raised concerns about inadequate consumer protection for customers of district heat networks was in early 2016, a matter of months after I was first elected to this House.
In some ways, the situation has moved on significantly since that date. I recall at the time making the case for greater protection for heat network customers, only to be told by Ministers that statutory regulation would not be appropriate, and that it risked strangling an emerging industry with red tape. There is now at least a consensus that further regulation is required in this area.
I remember pressing the Competition and Markets Authority to open an area of investigation into the industry, only to be told it had no plans to do so. The CMA eventually carried out a market study that determined that many customers of privately operated communal heating schemes are not well served on price and service, and it recommended a statutory regime governing the regulation of heat networks.
Yet, taken in the round, there has been a tangible lack of progress when it comes to doing what is necessary to ensure that heat network customers are adequately protected. That should be a concern to each of us, but it should particularly concern the Government, not only because of their avowed aim to keep customer bills as low as possible, but because low levels of consumer confidence in heat networks, born of consistently poor service and expensive bills, will make it that much harder for the UK to decarbonise heat and reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions.
In the time I have today, I do not intend to delve into the enormous challenge presented by the urgent need to decarbonise heat, and what more the Government must do to meet that challenge, not least because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) will do so with his customary rigour and incisiveness when he responds from the Front Bench. I do want to make the point that we will struggle as a country to take the public with us when making the case for the benefits of large-scale heat network deployment if we continue to put off addressing the systemic problems in the sector.
It is true that for many customers, heat networks offer an efficient supply of heat and hot water, at prices that are close to or lower than other sources of supply, such as gas and electricity. I am sure the Minister will cite evidence indicating that the majority of customers are satisfied with their systems. However, it is beyond dispute that a significant minority of customers of privately owned heat network schemes, including thousands of my constituents, given the number of new build developments in my constituency, are still not getting a fair deal.
Whether it is unreasonably high tariffs; significant variation in unit prices and average bills, not only between schemes but between customers on the same scheme; significant month-by-month variation on standing charges, which are often incredibly high; a lack of transparency in billing; or frequent outages that are the result of sub-standard or poorly installed equipment, far too many heat network customers are being badly let down.
As a voluntary consumer protection scheme, the Heat Trust does a good job. It is a welcome development that a growing number of sites are registering with it, but the protection it affords to customers on such sites are inherently limited. Similarly, the process of attempting to secure redress by means of a complaint to the energy ombudsman is time-consuming, constrained by the fact that the service deems issues such as heat price increases to be commercial decisions that it cannot adjudicate on. Of course, that is not available to customers on sites that, for whatever reason, have not registered with the Heat Trust.
The simple fact is that neither the trust nor the ombudsman is a substitute for providing heat network customers with the same degree of protection that is afforded to gas and electricity customers by means of formal regulation of the sector.
I say to the Minister: no more delay. The heat markets framework consultation closed on 1 June last year, and we have heard nothing since. Every month that passes without legislative action means yet more expensive bills and continued poor service for heat network customers at the sharp end of industry practice, who cannot afford to wait another year or two for the Government to provide them with the protection that they deserve.
I fully appreciate the demands on the Minister’s time, but I urge her to give the matter greater priority and, subsequently to this debate, to forcefully make the case for bringing forward the necessary legislation to introduce a regulatory framework for the sector as early as possible in the next parliamentary Session. In the interim, will she look again at what more the Department might do to cajole reluctant suppliers and operators to register all their communal heating schemes with the Heat Trust?
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Ms Ghani.
This is not the first time that I have spoken in a Westminster Hall debate on district heat networks. Such technologies are important for bringing green energy into ordinary people’s homes and making Britain carbon-neutral as soon as possible. However, as we have heard, work needs to be done to ensure that district heat networks provide not only energy efficiency, but cost efficiency. District heating providers must be brought under the control not just of formal regulators, but of consumers.
The Catford Green area of my constituency is home to leaseholders, private renters and social tenants. All those residents are locked into a heating scheme that is more expensive and less functional than the standard heating system—they are paying more money for less energy. I am sure that all colleagues agree that that does not make sense, but they have no choice.
One constituent told me that he found out about the contract with E.ON only on the day he moved into the flat that he had just bought. Unable to shop around, he feels trapped in a contract that suits his building’s owners’ finances, rather than his own. Another constituent in the same estate told me that the nature of the contract meant that she could not opt out of bills when her flat was empty. She went travelling for a few months but still had to pay a minimum of £30 to £40 a month for energy that she did not consume. Catford Green residents have also reported frequent power outages with a lack of acknowledgment or compensation from E.ON. Again, that is not fair and not right.
District heat networks clearly need regulation. With an uncompetitive market, consumers are being overcharged for a low-quality service. The current Government position of relying on voluntary membership of the Heat Trust network cannot continue. Regulation must be enforced by the Government with exactly the same expectations that are placed on other parts of the energy industry, and the same consequences for breaching standards. There must be a cap on the standing charges that companies rack up, and greater transparency in pricing tariffs. Customer service must improve and customers such as my constituents in Catford Green must be listened to and respected.
Like me, the residents I spoke to are committed to reducing their environmental impact. They support the objectives of district heating, but their valid points about high costs and low standards must be addressed to ensure the effective progress of this innovative technology. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will look at this; they must regulate the service. My residents deserve it, and so do the public.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Ghani. You will be pleased to know that the word “resignation” does not appear once in my prepared notes.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing the debate; I should have realised that potentially it would relate to a constituency issue, rather than being a plug for district heating. He made his case well about the issues that his constituents are suffering, and there is no doubt that the Minister has to provide a robust response. We also heard from the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) about the need for a regulator and for consumer protections—that was certainly a theme common to all three speeches.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington highlighted the fact that energy from waste is causing a traffic movement issue. There is a proposed site next to my constituency where residents are concerned about movement and emissions. The point about there being no future-proofing is interesting, and it certainly seems that the local council has a lot of questions to answer. I must say that I was really shocked and surprised that it was not a Conservative council that the hon. Gentleman was laying into; he let slip at the end that it was a Lib Dem council.
Looking at the big picture for heating overall, we face conflicting problems when it comes to heating our homes. For too many people, fuel poverty is an issue, yet 85% of our homes rely on methane gas heating—a system that is cheaper than electricity and, for the most part, clearly very convenient, given that a boiler can be activated at leisure. That is illustrated by the fact that until it was recently overtaken by China, the UK was the biggest market for gas boilers in the world, but we know that cannot continue. We need to decarbonise, and we need plans, strategies and funding to get there.
The UK Government are good at soundbites and targets, but targets are meaningless without policies—for example, the target of 600,000 heat pump installations by the year 2028, from circa 20,000 a year right now. That means almost doubling the number every year from next year onwards. Without coherent policies and funding strategies to put that in place, it does not seem realistic, especially when we factor in that the installation cost for a full system is circa £15,000. Without grants or some sort of long-term route to market strategy, strong action is required for the Government to get heat pump installations in place.
The 10-point plan also has targets for carbon capture and storage from hydrogen production. We are still awaiting strategies for them, but district heating is not even mentioned in the document. In fact, district heating has not featured significantly enough in debates to date, which means today’s debate is very welcome. Looking forward, the reality is that if we are to decarbonise, we will have a rise in some form of district heating in some cases.
As far back as 2017, the then director of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy stated that
“whatever you do you end up with 17-24 per cent district heating”,
so why does district heating lag behind in discussions and planning? It is quite clear that we need more of that. We need the heat and buildings decarbonisation strategy, as well as the Government’s net zero strategy. The Scottish Government published theirs in February 2021. If re-elected, the SNP pledged to decarbonise the heating of 1 million homes by 2030—over a third of the housing stock in Scotland—and all new homes and buildings from 2024 will use renewable or zero-emission heating. That is backed by a £1.6 billion investment plan.
Scotland is trying to reduce emissions and heating costs, and to fight fuel poverty. Compared with Westminster, we spend four times more per capita on energy efficiency, which is vital in reducing emissions. By contrast, the UK Government’s future homes standard involves eliminating the connection of new homes to the gas grid by 2025. That means that by 2024, something like 200,000 new homes will be connected to the gas grid and will then need retrofit measures in order to decarbonise at a later date.
That is not to say the UK Government have not made attempts to introduce a greater range of district heating. Some £320 million was allocated through the existing heat networks investment project, but that comes to an end in 2022, and two pilots—in Sheffield and Manchester—were pulled. What has been the extent of spend on district network creation to date? What lessons, if any, have been learned, including what we have heard today? What would the success of the green heat network fund look like, and how much of the green heat network’s £270 million is new money?
As we have heard clearly, the big issue for district heating is the fact that there is no regulator. This means that consumers in district heat networks have less security than traditional gas and electric consumers, and there is no ombudsman to receive complaints. That discourages consumers from connecting to the heat network. As we have heard, the ones who are connected have real issues trying to resolve matters.
Looking to Scotland again, the Scottish Government passed the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act in February 2021, which provides a regulatory framework to cover heat networks. What is the UK Government’s position on introducing a regulator or a regulatory framework for district heating? I hope the Minister can answer that. As the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, the industry and the Heat Trust are trying to fill the gap with a voluntary standard, but at the end of the day it is voluntary. That belies the issue, so we need statutory protections.
We need to see greater investment in energy efficiency. What of the Tory manifesto’s £9.2 billion commitment? We need to see a coherent heat and building strategy that will deliver a suite of options. They will still need to include district heating, which the Committee on Climate Change reckons will account for 18% of heat in our homes going forward. That means ensuring a route to market for the capital cost and/or a Government funding plan.
It is interesting that the Association of Decentralised Heating estimates that energy bills for those in district heating is £100 cheaper compared with gas, so this could be a good tool for fighting fuel poverty. Again, clearly we need protections. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, we cannot have a closed shop where consumers start paying higher charges than they otherwise would need to.
As we look forward, there is plenty to be done. I look forward to the Minister’s response. With COP26 on the horizon, this should be our ideal platform to demonstrate a coherent, complementary heat decarbonisation strategy.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing the debate. Although such positions are not declarable on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I ought to say that I am a vice-president of the Association for Decentralised Energy, formerly the Combined Heat and Power Association. The position I hold reflects my long-standing interest in district heating and local energy schemes, which I have maintained throughout my time in Parliament, which is now a very long time. I will mention briefly in my comments my interest in these schemes and arrangements.
I was not sure what the thrust of the debate was going to be, but I anticipated that it would probably be about the concerns that some Members have expressed over time about circumstances relating to the operation of some, but by no means all, district heating schemes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), I have expressed concerns about that, and I have put forward remedies for those concerns over a number of years in this House.
I think district heating will be an important part of our approach to the decarbonisation of heating. It certainly has a substantial part to play, under particular circumstances and in particular areas, in delivering low carbon heat reliably and satisfactorily to populations. At its heart, it is a system about networks, not about what goes into the networks. A variety of different forms of fuel can go into the network and deliver heat very efficiently. It is not just about taking heat from incinerators. It has much wider applications through heat engines or through low-carbon sources of energy that can be a part of a network. The network can adapt and change over time.
The efficient use of heat that this represents has been rolled out much more in other parts of Europe than has been the case in the UK. I visited Denmark a little while ago, which has more than 50% of its total heat provided by district heating schemes, and in Copenhagen it is about 90%. They are well-regulated schemes with a very low level of complaints and a very high level of delivery and efficiency, and they generate affordable heat in the process.
My city of Southampton now has five district heating schemes within the city boundary, including the nation’s only geothermally heated district heating scheme, which I often draw attention to. That demonstrates that the fuel types for heat schemes can be very different. Where the schemes are well run, there are few complaints and they continue to deliver affordable and, in this instance, low-carbon energy to the city.
That is one side of the coin. The other side is what happens with the schemes that already exist, and indeed have existed for a long time and have different forms of ownership and input. I am pleased that the Government have recently woken up to the potential of district heating. Through the green heat network fund and various other things, they will be providing money and support, mainly for local authority-based schemes, to bring forward district heating in the future, but I am well aware that the good schemes that may be brought about in the future are by no means the whole picture of district heating across the country. There are currently about 2,000 schemes in the country, which produce something like 2% of domestic, public sector and commercial heat demand, and supply just over 200,000 buildings and almost 2,000 commercial and public buildings across the UK.
As we have heard, a proportion of those 2,000 schemes are not well run at all, frankly, and for various reasons they have produced a bad deal for customers. Indeed, in some instances, because of the age of the system, there has not been any investment in the system and they are producing very inefficiently. In some instances, because of a frequent change in private ownership, they have simply been starved of the sort of investment they need to run at a good level, and there has not been the level of customer care that there should have been in the systems over the period. The points that hon. Members made about their local schemes are well founded. It is up to us to recognise that that is the case and to do something about it; otherwise, the next generation of district heating schemes, which will be essential, will not be well founded, as far as their operation is concerned, for the future.
The Government have sort of recognised over the years that that is a problem, but I am afraid they have not done very well by customers in those circumstances. Until relatively recently, they considered that regulation should not be statutory, as my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich said, but that it should be entirely voluntary and done on the basis of an industry scheme. The 2013 paper “The future of heating: meeting the challenge” stated:
“The Government does not want to stop the growth of the sector through introducing unnecessary regulation. DECC is therefore initially seeking an industry-led scheme”.
Up to relatively recently, that was the position of the Government over a long period.
A heroic effort to do just that was introduced by the Combined Heat and Power Association, now the ADE, through the Heat Trust, which, in its own right, is a good scheme. Of course, as hon. Members have mentioned, it is entirely voluntary. If schemes do not want to join it, they do not have to—a lot have not. The redress is strictly limited to those people who are already likely to be the good guys in the first place, and not those that are, perhaps, the most egregious underperformers as far as the overall system is concerned.
Fair play to the Government, who have recognised that that system is not the right way to go about regulation for the future. In spring last year, we had the “Heat networks: building a market framework” consultation, which set out a scheme for universal regulation —not a perfect scheme, but a scheme nevertheless. We had that consultation, introduced last February and concluded last summer—and have heard nothing whatsoever since. There has been no Government response or discussion of how the very sketchy scheme set out in the original consultation could be improved and assured as a universal scheme, both retrospectively and prospectively, for district heating.
In the end, we only have one line on the subject in the energy White Paper:
“We intend to legislate in this Parliament for the regulation of heat networks to protect
consumers and reduce carbon emissions.”
That is a fine ambition, but hon. Members will notice that the proposal is to legislate in this Parliament on something that we do not know the content of because there has been no comeback from the consultation on what a scheme might be. Should we legislate in this Parliament, say at the very end, there will inevitably be a time lag in bringing a scheme to fruition, and we could be well into the end of this decade before we get the sort of regulation that we clearly need. I guess the Minister is going to make some considerable play of the fact that the Government intend to legislate, but, frankly, that really is not good enough. As I say, we do not know what this regulation will consist of, how universal it will be, what redress will be in it, how legally enforceable it will be and how it will shape new networks, or retrospectively encompass all existing networks.
Finally, a vague suggestion that we might legislate sometime in this Parliament, with a possibly extended implementation date, does not answer the issues that hon. Members have raised in any coherent and satisfying way. First, we need to get the response to the consultation out as soon as possible, so people are much clearer about what it is we might be considering, and if they think it is insufficient, they can talk about how better to deal with the issues mentioned in that regulation in a satisfactory and comprehensive way.
Secondly, we need a commitment from the Minister this afternoon that she will not just rest on the idea that there might be legislation some time in this Parliament, but that she will go away this afternoon and get writing that legislation—not personally, necessarily, but with the support of some of her colleagues and civil servants in BEIS— and get that through Parliament as quickly as possible. That means next year. I know the Minister is close to being a miracle worker in her position, but if she can achieve that over the next period she will certainly have my full support.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. Let me begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this really important debate. I also thank the hon. Members for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for raising issues of concern in their own constituencies. As ever, I thank my friend the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who turns out to be an expert and an advocate on the subject of domestic heat networks—who knew? He was able to take us from Denmark to Southampton in demonstrating why they can and should be an important part of the mix. I thank to all colleagues for their contributions to the debate.
I was very sorry to hear of the troubles experienced by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington in the New Mill Quarter of his constituency. They have had really awful challenges with their district heat network. I sympathise with the difficulties that has clearly caused them all and it is profoundly disappointing to hear that their Lib Dem-run council has failed them all so very badly. I absolutely agree with the need for protections for heat network consumers. The experience of my hon. Friend’s constituents highlights the importance of the Government’s commitment to regulate the heat networks market within this Parliament.
Heat networks play and will continue to play an important part in assisting us to meet our net zero challenge. They will unlock larger-scale renewable and recovered heat sources, both energy from waste heat and heat from rivers and mines. It was interesting to hear about the geothermal heat source being used in Southampton. When deployed effectively, they can bring greater heat efficiency than individual gas boilers, lower costs for consumers and support local regeneration. However, we recognise that we need to regulate the market to ensure that those outcomes are real, for which protections for heat network consumers are needed.
As colleagues have highlighted, in 2017 the Government commissioned a survey to quantify consumer experiences with heat networks in England and Wales. The results showed that consumers connected to a heat network have generally received good service and were as satisfied as non-heat network customers, which makes the terrible experiences of those in New Mill Quarter all the more upsetting. The results of the survey also showed that, on average, a heat network consumer was likely to pay £100 less per year for heating and hot water compared with consumers on other utilities. Again, this makes it all the more shocking that my hon. Friend’s constituents have got such a raw deal from their Lib Dem council’s activities.
The Government also noted, however, a report by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2018, which showed that a significant minority of heat network consumers experienced high prices, frequent outages and a lack of transparency. Therefore, we committed to the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendation of regulating the market and, last year, consulted on establishing a heat networks market framework.
The framework will include introducing consumer protection rules to combat cases of detriment, such as the outages being experienced by the residents of New Mill Quarter. We want heat network consumers to have comparable levels of service and protection to those using electricity and gas on individual contracts for their homes. As part of the market framework, we will introduce quality of service standards requiring notification periods for planned outages and compensation for all outages.
Consumers will have access to an independent redress scheme and a consumer advocacy body, which will provide a consumer helpline and priority services for consumers in vulnerable circumstances. The regulator will have powers to enforce price transparency, introduce guidance on fair pricing, set requirements on cost allocation and conduct investigations into heat networks where prices are disproportionately high. Finally, consumers will be provided with a minimum level of easily accessible information and guidance on heat networks at the pre-contractual stages of property transactions and during residency. There will be requirements on the provision of heat supply agreements and billing information.
We are preparing to introduce legislation to regulate the market, but, as colleagues have mentioned, there are some measures already in place to improve standards for heat network consumers. The Heat Trust provides an independent market-led voluntary standards scheme and consumers on heat networks registered to the Heat Trust benefit from terms of service similar to those in the gas and electricity markets. They can also access the energy ombudsman if they have a complaint against their heat supplier. In 2019, BEIS wrote an open letter to all heat network operators encouraging them to register their schemes with the Heat Trust and we continue to encourage schemes to sign up to raise standards now and to prepare for regulation.
Alan Brown
The work on the regulation framework the Minister is talking about seems well advanced, so can she give us a timescale for when legislation will come forward?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
If only I could do it tomorrow, but I think Prorogation would stop me. We have also supported the Heat Networks Industry Council in its work to establish the consumer protection agreement and the heat network emergency responders group in response to the covid-19 pandemic. We encourage heat suppliers to sign up to that agreement and we have written to signatories urging them to do more to tackle outages and improve compensation standards for those outages. Although these schemes have benefited many consumers, we recognise that regulation is needed to drive up consumer standards across the heat networks market. I therefore reiterate our commitment to that regulation today, but I am afraid that I cannot give a precise date.
The Government have introduced several schemes to support heat network deployment. Our heat networks investment project has made £320 million of capital funding available for investment in heat network projects through grants and loans in England and Wales. That will be succeeded by the green heat network fund in 2022, which will support and incentivise the use of low-carbon heat sources in heat networks. Both investment projects will ensure adequate consumer protection measures are in place by requiring projects to demonstrate Heat Trust or equivalent standards, which will ensure that taxpayers’ money supports only heat networks that deliver fair pricing and which are well designed, efficient systems.
Furthermore, we have been carrying out work on improving performance across a number of existing heat networks. That provides an evidence base for the development of the heat networks efficiency scheme, which will part-fund operational performance improvements and carbon emission reductions in existing systems. Further details will be announced later this year.
It is essential that heat network consumers are provided with clean and reliable heat at an affordable price. As such, we are developing the heat networks market framework that will place consumers at its heart, deliver sustained investment in the sector and maximise heat networks’ potential economic and environmental benefits. We committed in the energy White Paper to legislate for the market framework by the end of the Parliament.
We are working closely with the industry and consumer groups to ensure that regulation delivers positive outcomes for consumers, and we will shortly publish the Government’s response to last year’s consultation. I look forward to working with all colleagues on the proposals that we will bring forward. In the meantime, I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and his constituents well as they seek redress from their council, whose failure to meet the standards that residents could have reasonably expected is motivation indeed for the Government to get protections in place.
Elliot Colburn [V]
I thank the Minister for her response. It is really reassuring to hear that the Government have heard my concerns and those of colleagues across the House and will take action in the form of regulation. I look forward to working with her constructively to bring that about and get it on the statute book, because it is really needed. If heat networks are to form a big part of our heating for the future, they must be regulated and have consumer protections. At the moment, residents in New Mill Quarter can only dream of living under a heat network that lives up to the standards expected in a normal home, let alone those of an innovative scheme for the future. I am grateful to the Minister and look forward to working with her.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered district heat networks.
Written Statements
HMRC: Contingencies Fund Advance
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will incur new expenditure in connection with the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic in 2021-22.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £7,792,000,000 for this new expenditure will be sought in a main estimate for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £7,792,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
Further requests to the Contingencies Fund may be made as necessary to fund covid-19 activity delivered by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
[HCWS945]
Contingent Liability: National Gallery
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of all members of this House to bring to their attention the departmental minute issued today that provides the House with notice of a small, short-term contingent liability created by my Department. This is in relation to an exceptional exhibition arranged by the National Gallery in partnership with the Polish Cultural Institute, and pertains to specialist indemnity insurance coverage protecting five artefacts from harm or damage, required throughout the period of transport and display. The National Gallery, an arm’s length body of Government sponsored by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, will be incurring the liability.
The National Gallery will on 17 May 2021 open its eagerly awaited exhibition “Conversations with God”, with Jan Matejko (1838-1893)’s epic painting of astronomer Copernicus—a Polish national treasure—at its heart. Successive delays caused by covid-19 have frustrated the schedule and logistics of this exhibition, the first devoted to Poland’s national painter, whose works are very seldomly loaned.
The complexities of transporting fine art across Europe mid-pandemic, related pandemic stipulations, and works of particular national importance, are such that Polish lenders have requested an indemnity directly from National Gallery in the event that any of the artworks suffered damage, in addition to the fine art coverage provided by the Government indemnity scheme. Despite the UK’s Government indemnity scheme enjoying widespread recognition as the “gold standard” amongst such schemes, the Department has agreed to this additional layer of coverage—a particular lender requirement under Polish law—in view of the exhibition’s exceptional content and timing. The indemnity would be in place for four months (May to September 2021), up to the consignment of artworks’ total value of £5.6 million and therefore represents a contingent liability. The likelihood of the contingent liability crystallising is remote. Furthermore, a claim would be far more likely to fall at the lower end of the monetary scale provided for.
In the event that loss or damage to an object occurred, the lenders would have the right to request compensation directly from the gallery, should it believe the Government indemnity scheme or a commercial insurance product to be inadequate or unduly inaccessible. The Department is confident, however, that the risk is very low, given the comprehensive nature of Government indemnity scheme coverage and its excellent track record in meeting the rare claims brought by lenders. The Department is further reassured by the rarity of “total loss” cases, with only one such pay-out under the Government indemnity scheme in the past decade, and by the National Gallery’s exceptional standards of care, which has submitted no claims under the Government indemnity scheme for at least the last 20 years.
A copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-04-28/HCWS946.
[HCWS946]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. I remind speakers to manually press on their microphones before speaking. The time limit for the following debate is three hours.
Integrated Review: Development Aid
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
That the Grand Committee takes note of the reduction in United Kingdom development aid and its impact on achieving the objectives outlined in the Integrated Review of national security and international policy.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I express my thanks to colleagues on the Cross Benches for choosing this Motion for debate, but also to the many Members from all parts of the House participating today. They all bring significant expertise and knowledge to our proceedings, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the sponsor of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, and former Ministers, including my long-standing friends the noble Baronesses, Lady Chalker and Lady Northover, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who with great principle and honour resigned her post in protest at the abnegation of the Act. I also thank the Library for the excellent note prepared in advance of the debate, and draw attention to my role as an officer of several relevant all-party parliamentary groups.
In 1970, as a student, I campaigned for the implementation of Resolution 2626 of the United Nations, urging developed nations to raise their aid contribution to 0.7%, and in seven parliamentary elections which I contested in Liverpool always committed myself to voting in Parliament to support that target. The Motion enables us to reiterate our commitment to what is, after all, a long way short of the injunction to tithe; to drill down into the integrated review’s objective for the UK to be
“a force for good in the world”;
and to ask how that claim can be squared with a precipitous cut in development aid from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%. I hope that the Minister will tell us whether he agrees that the estimate of a £4 billion cut in real terms is correct.
In response to today’s debate, the Minister will be pressed on the central question: whether the Government intend to introduce legislation to reduce ODA funding this year and, if not, how they intend to ensure that they are acting lawfully and in accordance with their statutory obligations. I particularly look forward to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who will address that point further.
Yesterday, Dominic Raab, the Foreign Secretary, appeared before the International Relations and Defence Select Committee. He has previously said that
“we will need to bring forward legislation in due course.”
Does that remain the case? If the Government’s position is now that legislation will not be necessary because 0.7% will be restored when fiscal circumstances allow, can the Minister describe the fiscal criteria that will be used to permit a restoration to 0.7%? By sleight of hand the temporary could, as we all know, so easily become permanent.
The immediate fiscal criteria do not look very promising. The Office for National Statistics says that in 2020 we recorded our worst economic performance in more than 300 years, with the economy contracting by 9.9%. But if times are tough and require draconian cuts, how do we square these cuts in aid with the cost of increasing the number of nuclear warheads—also announced in the review and in contravention of our non-proliferation commitments?
Even before these drastic cuts in ODA, we were confronted by the reality of a smaller cake, but our spending priorities and life-and-death decisions should have been shaped by parliamentary scrutiny and informed by a review—not, as with the merger of DfID and the FCO or swingeing cuts to ODA, retrospectively justified by one. As my noble friend Lord Hannay said last week, the cart has preceded the horse.
Circumventing legislation, avoiding scrutiny, curtailing debate and upending due process and good governance lead to bad decisions. Many of us are jealous of the role of Parliament and object when we see it diminished. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, chair of the International Relations Committee, on which I serve, specifically points to what she calls the review’s
“lack of consistency in the approach to relations with countries in Africa”—[Official Report, 22/4/21; col. 1986.]
and the failure to provide details of the effects on individual countries. Today, I hope the Minister can rectify that lack of detail—cut by cut, sector by sector, country by country. Concealing these details from Parliament is simply unacceptable.
In a curious, largely undefined, phrase the review says:
“We will be active in Africa”.
What will this mean in Tigray, in anglophone Cameroon, in ravaged Mozambique, in South Sudan, in northern Nigeria and in combating the rise of Jihadist ideology? What is the review’s justification for switching emasculated resources from west Africa and the Sahel? Ahead of this debate I drew the Minister’s attention to UN estimates that, in the Horn of Africa, some 4.5 million Tigrayans urgently require emergency and life-saving assistance and that over 2.5 million children are malnourished. People are being starved to death and, in terrible massacres reminiscent of Darfur and Rwanda, there have been brutal killings and an estimated 10,000 women raped. Unbelievably, some Tigrayans have fled to Yemen, believing that they will be safer.
As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will no doubt remind us, development is impossible without conflict resolution. Is it the case that the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund has been cut by a staggering £363 million —by 50%? That will merely add to the 70 million people displaced worldwide, making no sense in terms of our security, let alone our humanitarian duties.
Consider Yemen, where the FCDO’s Chris Bold says that aid has been cut by 50%. Millions are facing starvation and food insecurity. Around half of all children under five in Yemen—2.3 million—are projected to face acute malnutrition in 2021. Nearly 400,000 are expected to suffer from severe acute malnutrition and could die if they do not receive urgent treatment. No impact assessment was made of the effect of the cuts on vulnerable groups such as women, children, people with disabilities or displaced people. Why not? This is downright irresponsible. In an excoriating remark, Mark Lowcock, the UK’s first special envoy for famine prevention, said that we are trying to
“balance the books on the backs of the starving people of Yemen”.
Bilateral programmes in Yemen, Syria and Sudan will be disproportionately affected as it is harder to extricate the UK from multilateral programmes, so funding is lost merely because it is allocated through the wrong line. Yet in yesterday’s welcome session with the Foreign Secretary, he said that the Government were not salami slicing. He was asked about his seven strategic criteria for the FCDO: climate change, Covid, girls’ education, science and technology, open societies, humanitarian assistance and trade.
Measure the criteria against resources and the random way in which it has been done. Girls’ education, an FCDO priority, will be cut by 25%. Save the Children says that humanitarian preparedness and response will be cut by 44%, despite 200 NGOs warning that more than 34 million vulnerable people will face famine or famine-like conditions.
CSW says that
“spending on the newly formed Open Societies and Human Rights directorate”
is set
“to fall by as much as 80%.”
The FCDO priorities of promoting freedom of religion or belief and media freedom no longer specifically appear in the criteria. Will their programmes be reduced? How will the John Bunyan fund and the Magna Carta fund be affected?
This morning, Sky News reported that a memo prepared for Minister Wendy Morton estimates that bilateral funding for water projects in developing nations will be cut by 80%. Clean water, handwashing and good hygiene are critical defences in the fight against coronavirus, which has claimed 3 million lives globally, and today we think especially of our friends in India. Since 2015, the UK has helped over 62.6 million people gain access to safe water and sanitation. That is something to be incredibly proud of, not to curtail.
Ahead of Glasgow’s COP 26 summit on climate change, we must not lose focus on water security. My noble friend Lady Hayman will doubtless remind us of this and how our ODA contributes to the defence of the planet. The Royal Society says that we are weakening those defences, with global programmes in science cut by—in its figures—well over £500 million and the UK no longer regarded as a reliable partner.
Meanwhile, Devex reported yesterday that funding for polio eradication will be cut by a catastrophic 95%. David Salisbury from Chatham House also warned that the slashed funding
“could threaten the eradication initiative.”
In 2019, the former International Development Secretary Alok Sharma rightly said:
“If we were to pull back on immunisations, we could see 200,000 new cases each year in a decade. This would not only be a tragedy for the children affected and their families, but also for the world. We cannot let this happen.”
So, why are we now letting it happen? In Questions earlier this week, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked for details of how much ODA will be dedicated to the polio eradication programme, the Gavi vaccine alliance, the Global Fund and nutrition programmes. I hope he will be answered today. The race to buy up vaccines has merely underlined gross inequalities worthy of Lazarus and Dives.
My noble friend Lord Crisp, a former Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health, will remind us that many British clinicians voluntarily provide support to their colleagues in low and middle-income countries such as Myanmar. It is essential that the FCDO holds to its commitment to support this vital work at this awful time in a country where, following the coup, medical staff are themselves targets for assassination. In addition, we should significantly improve arrangements for diaspora to send remittances from the UK to developing countries.
Voluntary giving is personified by our flagship Voluntary Service Overseas, which, thanks in part to the efforts of my noble friend Lady Coussins and an intervention by the Select Committee, will receive a welcome extension of the V4D grant. However, it will still sustain a 45% cut in funding with, as it states, over 4 million people losing access to VSO services and with no ability to plan for the future of international youth volunteering and its International Citizen Service.
There are other extraordinary UK flagships, such as the increasingly emasculated British Council and the courageous BBC World Service, whose journalists are persecuted and vilified in Iran and driven out of China for exposing genocide against the Uighurs and breaking information blockades in North Korea and Myanmar. BBC World and the British Council, like VSO and our championing of the rule of law—which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, will doubtless speak about—combine our values with global reach. They are fine examples of soft power, or what Joseph Nye dubbed “smart power”.
The review describes the UK’s soft power as
“rooted in who we are as a country”
and
“central to our international identity as an open, trustworthy and innovative country”.
The review also states:
“It helps to build positive perceptions of the UK”
and to
“create strong people-to-people links”.
Yes, but how will we be perceived if we break commitments and carefully nurtured relationships, are seen to disregard our own laws and foolishly allow other actors, such as the CCP, to replace a country committed to the rule of law, human rights and democracy with its authoritarian economic coercion and its use of debt bondage, suborning countries and multilateral institutions through its $770 billion belt and road projects?
While I welcome the Government’s decision finally to cut aid to the regime of the Chinese Communist Party by 95%, I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to today’s report from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. It says that, last year, opaque arrangements and pockets of public money in multiple departments, described as a “complex mosaic”, led to a record £68.4 million being used as aid to China, up from £44.7 million in 2015. Why have we been doing this, not least while the CCP is identified in the review as a “systemic” threat to the UK and its interests?
To conclude, yesterday, the Foreign Secretary emphasised the importance of transparency, an integrated approach and value for money. Transparency will be assisted by a commitment today from the Minister to publish all planned spending of UK aid in 2021-22 and to resist the usual default that we will learn more in due course. Programmes cannot be planned and implemented on that haphazard and erratic basis.
The integrated review insists that we are
“one of the world’s leading development actors, committed to the global fight against poverty, to achieving the SDGs by 2030 and to maintaining the highest standards of evidence and transparency for all our investments.”
It promises a “new international development strategy” that, from next year, will realign UK aid with what it calls a strategic framework, about which we will hope to hear more. To achieve all that, it will be crucial to restore the commitment to 0.7%. We should do this because it is in our national interest but also because it is morally the right thing to do. Generous altruism and self-interest are two sides of one coin. All five of the UK’s living former Prime Ministers have called on the Government to think again. I hope that this debate, with such an impressive array of formidable speakers, will reinforce that call. I beg to move.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and leading it in such an outstanding and comprehensive manner. He deserves, and we deserve, answers to the questions that we have been posing and will pose again this afternoon.
This is a political decision to reduce funds that were already going to be reduced. It will damage our country’s interests, threaten our security and cost lives around the globe. It shames our country at a time when other countries nearby are stepping up to the mark and going in the opposite direction.
We know that conflict and violence sets back development; we know that development is essential for conflict prevention and conflict resolution, and we know that there is already tension in countries around the world as a result of vaccine inequity and of the other pressures resulting from the pandemic over the past 12 months. Surely the Government must know that a sudden withdrawal of funding from vital, life-saving projects and development work around the world will increase tension, division and hopelessness and create further instability.
Will the Minister tell us whether the Government evaluated the impact on conflict and violence of the cuts that have been agreed and are about to be implemented, even this early in the financial year? Will the Government commit to continuing their funding for the UN Peacebuilding Fund and the many other peacebuilding projects around the world that are trying to guarantee stability, protect our interests, save lives and prevent violent conflict in some of the most difficult and dangerous parts of our world today?
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this vital debate and enabling us to demonstrate how wide and deep the concern is about this matter. I am very proud of the agreement that we made with our partners in the coalition Government to meet the UN target of 0.7% for aid. It was both right and in our self-interest, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. My colleagues Michael Moore in the Commons and my noble friend Lord Purvis took through the Private Member’s Bill to enshrine that commitment into law with cross-party support. I had the privilege of being a DfID Minister, and saw what a difference our aid programme made.
Many speaking in this debate have played a stellar role in that achievement. We were recognised as a development superpower and had influence beyond our own programmes. We shaped the EU’s programme, which was the largest in the world. We played a central role in multilateral organisations and the huge and vital extension of family planning provision was carried out with them, and with new players, including Bill and Melinda Gates. The key public health measure that transformed British lives in the 19th century—the provision of clean water and sanitation—was carried forward with companies such as Unilever. This has now been drastically cut.
ODA went beyond DfID—for example, to the City of London enforcement agencies to counter corruption, and to our universities for work on R&D. The Jenner Institute’s work on the Ebola vaccine translated into that on the Covid vaccine, to our benefit. The right hand clearly did not know what the left hand was doing when the Government decided to cut aid. That cut fundamentally undermines the integrated review. How can we be a science and tech superpower while we cut the research budget? How can we build on our soft power while, for example, forcing the closure of British Council offices? If anything shows that we are all interlinked, it is the pandemic and climate change. We are destroying our reputation in this area and as a trusted partner. I hope that the Minister will not use the phrase “restoring this when possible.” It should not have happened, and it needs to be reversed now.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, the decision to break the commitment to spend 0.7% of our GNI on international development undermines the objectives outlined in the integrated review. This year the UK is hosting three crucial summits. We have high ambitions to use the G7 to lead the world’s efforts to build back better from Covid-19, yet we are the only G7 country that is not increasing development spend in the midst of a global pandemic. We are using the GPE summit to galvanise investment into education, yet we are cutting our investment into education by 25% from last year—40% on average in the last four years. For COP 26, surely the most crucial summit of our time, while we are keeping our ICF commitment, we are cutting climate and other bilateral programmes in the very countries that we are trying to encourage to come forward with ambitious plans on climate.
We are now starting to see the real-world consequences of these cuts. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, highlighted many of these in his excellent opening speech. To them I would add the consequences to family planning and voluntary contraception. These might be cut by up to 70% to 80%, taking away the ability of women to have control over if and when to have children and how many children to have. The scales of these cuts and the impacts they will have are difficult to comprehend. One gender expert to whom I spoke yesterday described these cuts as acts of violence against the world’s poorest women and girls.
Now that we have seen this reality, I hope the Government will set out a clear timetable for when they will return to the manifesto commitment to spend 0.7%, which, let us not forget, is enshrined in law.
I have three questions for my noble friend the Minister. Last week’s WMS did not give the information that Parliament needs to carry out its role of scrutinising the Executive. It was in no way an improvement on what we have had before; DfID routinely published geographic and thematic budgets at least one year in advance, in detail. We are now into the new financial year. These budgets obviously exist and they need to be published. Will my noble friend commit to publishing full details of country and thematic breakdowns by the end of May? Secondly, organisations still have not received funding confirmation. Can my noble friend provide a clear deadline for when these final decisions will be communicated? Finally, can he tell me when the Government will introduce legislation to ensure that they are acting lawfully?
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, UK aid is important because it works. This is not money that is wasted; it is well targeted, well managed and, some of our history notwithstanding, not exploitative. Yes, there have been well-publicised scandals in some aid organisations and some aid may be misapplied, but the overall picture is of effective partnerships and fruitful work. Because UK aid works, its reduction will have tangible effects.
My diocese has close links with the dioceses of Mpwapwa and Kondoa in central Tanzania; I should have been there next week. We work with our colleagues on various small-scale development projects. When there, I also see the importance of other projects funded in whole or part with UK government funding. Over the years, British aid has been of great significance in Tanzania.
But—and this is where this links with the other strands and objectives of the review—others are very clearly seeking to increase their involvement and hence their influence. For most of the years of my visiting, a building site has run right through the diocese of Kondoa: a key stretch of the pan-African highway from the Cape to Cairo. While the workers have been local, the engineering oversight and management has been very largely Chinese. My point, I hope, is clear: when we withdraw, others are poised to come in. We take care that our involvement is well motivated and for the good; that of others may be less so. The Chinese ambassador to Tanzania has been very clear about his country’s aspiration to expand its involvement there. Reference has already been made to some of those initiatives.
I dare to hope that Her Majesty’s Government might increasingly realise that reducing aid will turn out to be a false economy. What is lost could far outweigh the relatively small financial gain. I therefore urge Her Majesty’s Government to take the earliest opportunity to reinstate the 0.7% commitment. I note that the noble Baroness the Leader of our House restated this at various points a few weeks ago in another debate. I hope that it will be done very soon.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, this weekend, the Defence Secretary, in anticipation of the first overseas tour by the Royal Navy’s new flagship carrier and six other Navy ships to tilt at the Indo-China region, stated:
“When our Carrier Strike Group sets sail”
next month,
“it will be flying the flag for Global Britain—projecting our influence, signalling our power, engaging with our friends and reaffirming our commitment to addressing the security challenges of today and tomorrow.”
No, Mr Wallace: this is the very week that, after 20 years of a wasted war in Afghanistan, US and UK troops start their weary journey home—trillions spent and no victory. It was Hillary Clinton, when US Secretary of State, who, in despair at ongoing defence deployment, stated that if we had wanted to win the war with the Taliban and liberate Afghanistan, we would have been building schools for girls and boys, and empowering excellent global education from the 1970s onwards.
Truly, to project power and soft power, influence is not in bombs and ships. As Nelson Mandela once said:
“Education is the single most powerful weapon … to change the world.”
That is why it is scandalous to cut education aid by 40% over four years. As one of the many ambassadors here for the Global Partnership for Education, I say: if we want security, we need to invest in minds, not mines in the ground; in subjects, not submarines; and in war history, not war machines. Learning is the vaccine to the pandemic of ignorance and injustice that our world suffers.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sure the Minister has registered that this well-attended debate secured by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is the third time in the past week that your Lordships have raised deep concerns about the cuts to ODA. This is a profoundly serious matter of policy and reputation, and I am very proud that the House is pursuing it so vigorously.
This is also my first opportunity to pay tribute to my friend Lord Judd, whose clear and firm voice on development we miss today. He was always my important mentor when I was chair of the Overseas Development Institute and he was enthusiastically involved in all the NGOs and aid charities that exist. This is a crucial sector in development and I particularly mention the work of VSO, of which Frank Judd was the onetime director.
VSO is now 50 years old and has continuously delivered vital programmes to the world’s poorest people. It has played a constant, central role in making the UK what the integrated review calls “a soft power superpower”. But on 23 April, VSO was told that its funding is to be cut by 45% and will be given for only one year. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned, it is now reckoned that 4 million people will lose its services. I have been a short-term VSO volunteer in Africa three times and can vouch wholeheartedly for those services. They chime precisely with the Government’s priorities on girls’ education and health security, especially in the pandemic.
To be successful, these services must have consistent and predictable funding—the “thoughtful investment” that the integrated review has called for. Short-term erratic growth will undermine decades of careful work on projects which cannot be revived instantly if ODA levels are sometimes restored. I fear that this policy will prove as practically short-sighted as it is politically indefensible.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for bringing this debate and to Bond and the other NGOs, which have provided such excellent briefings on the issues. The £5 billion saved from this savage cut to our aid budget will have a negligible impact on the UK economy. It will, however, have a huge impact on those dependent on this life-saving support. Many will die.
The pandemic has caused a drop in GNI, and a resulting drop in the aid budget, but also a dramatic increase in need. Over 100 million more people were pushed into extreme poverty in 2020. This is a global economic and health crisis. The virus is no respecter of international borders and while one country is at risk, all countries are. Cutting the aid budget undermines the UK’s ability to tackle this international crisis and strengthen global health systems, reducing the risks of further pandemics.
Last year, the FCDO halved its human rights budget to £28 million. Some human rights projects will be ended prematurely. Such stringent cuts to human rights funding can only undermine the Government’s aim to be a global “force for good”. The ODA allocation for 2020-21 for human rights, democracy and the rules-based international system programme is £8.5 million—a huge cut from the £19.5 million of the previous year. The funding for a newly formed open societies and human rights directorate is set to fall by up to 80%. This directorate is primarily focused on promoting human rights, anti-corruption efforts and media freedom in some of the world’s poorest countries.
At the London CHOGM, which was in many ways a great success, the Prime Minister embraced the UK’s commitment that every girl in the Commonwealth would receive an education: “No girl will be left behind”. Under the cuts, the budget has been slashed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Herbert of South Downs, has withdrawn so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare the interests that I have set out in the register. The devastating human costs of the Government’s decision to renege on their manifesto commitment to maintain ODA spending at 0.7% of GDP have been clearly articulated throughout the week in your Lordships’ House, and already today in this debate. But my noble friend Lord Alton asks us to examine those cuts in relation to the Government’s strategic review and their stated aims. I shall focus on two of those: the aim to be a science superpower and the aim to be “a soft power superpower”.
Covid and global health are the crises of our times. Climate change is the crisis of our age. Yet these cuts threaten our ability to influence either. In particular, the cuts to UKRI from ODA funds are undermining our efforts in both areas. UK research organisations are seeing cuts in the exact areas where spending in previous years built the capacity in Oxford and elsewhere to produce Covid vaccines at speed. The Royal Society said:
“These are programmes, and relationships, that have taken years to build, and such deep cuts send a message that the UK is a not a reliable partner in long-term science advancement”.
The way in which the cuts are focused on bilateral funding means that the sense of our not being a reliable partner will be felt in many countries, including those worst affected by climate change and those we most need to influence to join our efforts to combat climate change in the year in which we host both the G7 and COP 26. As one commentator put it:
“This decision is the single worst self-inflicted injury in this kind of diplomacy … for a very long time.”
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Jay in paying tribute to Frank Judd, whose voice we miss today. Not only was he the director of VSO, he was also chief executive of Oxfam, to which he remained committed throughout his life. My wife was chair of Oxfam in his last few difficult years; he was a great support to her.
No one can compete with the eloquence of the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in two minutes—he set out the case perfectly—but I want to look at what my noble friend Lord McConnell said: why has this political decision been taken? It seems totally inconsistent with the concept of global Britain. It seems quite unjustified in the present circumstances, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Sugg and Lady Hayman, outlined. Why has the Conservative Party—this question must be directed at the Conservative Party—which so bravely supported increases in overseas aid in the worst decade of austerity we have seen since the Second World War, now ratted on that commitment? I would like the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to give us an explanation and tell us how much money has been spent on focus groups and opinion polls to test this decision. I suspect that this Government want to pander to people’s worst instincts when our business in politics is to try to appeal to their better ones.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chancellor of Cardiff University.
It is obviously morally wrong to turn our backs on existing commitments to the poorest parts of the world at what is a desperate time for many countries. It is also a spectacular own goal for the UK. Following Brexit, the Government are searching for friends across the world. These cuts are alienating emerging economies, including many Commonwealth countries. Where we are withdrawing, China is already fast stepping in to fill the gap. In South Africa, Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, Tanzania and Kenya—Commonwealth countries to which we owe a special obligation—China is offering infrastructure funds, health support and R&D funding for universities. The impact of the sudden and significant withdrawal of aid funding, in many cases in the middle of projects with contractual obligations, will do significant harm to our international reputation.
The ramifications of these cuts were not thought through. The level of cuts to some sectors, including the successful Global Challenges Research Fund, has been disproportionate. The GCRF supports 400 partnerships in 85 countries which are to be cut forthwith by about 50%—£120 million. Successful ongoing projects are being abandoned mid-term. Research staff in UK universities will lose their funding. That is an own goal from a Government who say they want to increase research funding, but of even greater harm is the sudden loss of funding and jobs affecting universities in Africa and Asia. I urge the Minister to commit to a review of this damaging policy.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and introducing it so ably. I draw attention to my registered interests in this regard. The pandemic has had devastating effects everywhere, including on economies, with millions more people being pushed into poverty globally and environmental degradation accelerating as a consequence of people just seeking to survive. Fundamentally, the integrated review is about keeping Britain safe and bringing peace, yet it does not recognise that cutting aid on conflict prevention is surely a false economy, especially now when there are more than 75 million displaced people in the world, who are fertile recruiting grounds for terrorist groups, and when poverty is too often the underlying cause of conflict.
Tragically, women are disproportionately affected by the pandemic. While I welcome the development focus on girls’ education, it should be recognised that it cannot succeed without development input on women’s health, contraception, security, addressing violence against women, access to justice and women’s empowerment. Does the Minister agree that gender must remain integral to all FCDO policy decisions? UK work around the world on women, peace and security and on preventing sexual violence in conflict are two initiatives where the UK has led the world. They were always going to be a marathon, not a sprint. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that they will remain front and centre of security and conflict work. We live in a globally interconnected world. War zones are poor zones. The Institute of Economics and Peace estimates that $1 of peace-building would lead to a $16 reduction in the cost of armed conflict. The pandemic has made us make some harsh choices, but surely now is not the time to abandon our commitment to the world’s poorest. I fear that our aid cuts will damage the vision of a global Britain being a force for good as set out in the integrated review.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, like other speakers, I share the ambition of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to see these cuts reversed. I want to tease out from Her Majesty's Government what is the scope of their ambition. In his foreword to the review, the Prime Minister writes of our deepening engagement in trade, security and mutual values in the Indo-Pacific. The noble Lord, Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick, spoke of the UK carrier fleet, including HMS “Queen Elizabeth”, which will be heading to the Indo-Pacific next month. I note that it will include Dutch and US vessels, emphasising precisely the sort of partnerships that the Government espouse. However, as a frequent visitor to Zimbabwe and the Middle East, I would like to hear from the Minister, in the light of the unprecedented cuts in aid, how Britain will make a positive impact in these areas as well increasing our economic and security presence east of Suez. How do we project ourselves with greater effect around the globe if we cut aid, have a historically numerically small military force, have a reduced diplomatic presence, and operate one of the most expensive immigration and nationality systems in the world?
As other speakers have mentioned, the stated commitment in the paper to Africa needs to recognise that a good deal of help remains necessary in, for instance, a country such as Zimbabwe, where food programmes are essential, as is the Government’s priority around the education of girls, although even here cuts are projected. I shall make one additional point: the review speaks of the BBC as a trusted broadcaster, yet while China and Russia invest in expanding overseas broadcasting we ask the BBC to shoulder costs formerly borne by the Government. I hope that in his summing up the Minister will reflect on whether the resources are available to meet the scope of the Government’s ambition, not least in the tilt to the Indo-Pacific.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey. No? I am afraid that I will have to move on and call the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I want to ask about two important organisations. The first is VSO. The Foreign Secretary claimed that he would protect VSO but, as we have heard, the one-year extension of its V4D grant amounts to a 45% cut. Short-term funding is not good enough and VSO is having to pull programmes in dozens of countries, including in areas which the Government claim are their top priorities, such as gender-based violence. Will the Minister explain how this is compatible with the integrated review’s statements on soft power, and commit to a further review of VSO’s grant?
The second organisation is Translators without Borders, or TWB, which has received funding through the H2H Network to provide language services in refugee camps, disaster zones and conflict areas. It has helped Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh with accurate information about Covid and played a vital role in tackling the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone, using local languages rather than the official but relatively useless French and English. H2H funding supported its rapid deployment to support people in Tigray. However, like VSO, TWB faces operational wipe-out if its funding via H2H cannot be restored. It says that the UK Government were the first major funder to recognise the fundamental impact of language on the reach and impact of humanitarian action. Is the Minister not proud to hear this, and will he not be ashamed if this work cannot continue with our help?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey (Con) [V]
My apologies for not being able to find the appropriate button to press earlier.
Perhaps I may begin by saying that not only will members of his own party greatly miss Frank Judd—Lord Judd—but so will those of us who debated with him over many years in another place.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his clear demonstration of how deeply misguided this proposal to reduce UK development aid is, even if only for one or two years. That is because most of the programmes that we run in overseas countries are for five years. If you are going to do the sort of research which is absolutely critical, particularly for health improvement, you need four-year or five-year programmes; you cannot switch it on and switch it off. As vice-president of WaterAid and a former chair of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine for eight years, I see how we have changed the situation in many countries by consistent research programmes, particularly in the past four years. We have benefited millions of people in the developing world.
When people are healthy, they listen to positive arguments for change. We would be committing a very serious mistake if we were to continue with the suggested cuts in development aid.
The cuts to the Global Challenges Research Fund will disrupt vital global health research. They would damage not just the research itself but the UK’s research base, and the capacity of research partners in developing countries. Given the partnerships that we have embedded already in awards, it is likely that at least 50% of the consequences of this government decision will be borne by low and middle-income country researchers and institutions. That would have dire consequences for the livelihoods of the researchers and the field staff. I beg the Government to think again.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, has withdrawn, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Helic.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
My Lords, at this point in the debate the harm that these cuts will do, and are already doing, is well established. In many critical areas, this comes on top of existing underfunding and neglect. Preventing sexual violence in conflict is one such area and it is as urgent today as ever. Horrific accounts of rape, sexual assault and torture have been coming out of the conflict in Tigray. Over the past few years, we have heard similar reports from the DRC, Sudan and Myanmar. These are situations that the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative was established to help address, yet the Government are not using the tools they have.
Worse than that, they are starving them. Funding for PSVI has fallen from more than £15 million in 2014 to about £2 million today. Staff numbers have been cut from a peak of 34 to four and have, at times, been even lower. That is before we know the impact, as yet unannounced and unqualified, of these new aid reductions.
We should be leading the world in preventing sexual violence. With President Biden’s election and the upcoming G7, we had a tremendous opportunity to breathe new life into efforts to end impunity. We have not taken it. Yet there is still time. The integrated review lists efforts to prevent sexual violence in conflict as a priority action. I welcome that but there is a clue in the word “action”. Words in a review are not enough. We need to fund existing efforts and make use of existing tools. We need to put sexual violence back on the agenda, including with G7 leaders. We need to think about how to keep driving progress forward, including through new approaches and mechanisms. These aid cuts will not help but, if the Government are determined, they can make real progress. I hope they will.
Lord Crisp (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak about a specific that illustrates the bigger problem. On Monday I chaired a meeting of clinicians in Myanmar and the UK, attended by the Health Minister of the national unity Government. British clinicians are providing vital support to their counterparts in Myanmar. The situation is desperate, with many doctors and nurses unable to access their hospitals and clinics and having to treat people in homes and the community without specialist support, equipment and knowledge. Some have been targeted for assassination. Services have deteriorated and Covid-19 is spreading fast.
British clinicians are actively supporting clinicians in Myanmar by establishing websites with treatment protocols in Burmese, providing training, being available for advice and consultation at short notice—setting up rotas to do so—and helping to record the atrocities. In March the Government committed to support this activity. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will indeed provide financial and other support for this vital work?
More generally, this is just one example of international health partnerships. Many hundreds of volunteers and doctors in training work overseas every year. I declare an interest as patron of THET, which organises such schemes. They bring benefits to the NHS as well as to other countries. Every one of those doctors, nurses and others is a fine ambassador for global Britain—through their actions, not their words. During Covid they have provided vital expertise in infection, prevention and control, treatment of Covid patients and the use of personal protective equipment. Do the Government really want to stop this essential work and crush the enthusiasm and passion of these clinicians by cutting these schemes? Are they prepared to meet THET, royal colleges and others to consider how to provide continuing support for these vital partnerships?
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday, I had the great pleasure of attending the Lord Speaker’s lecture. In his concluding remarks, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, described it as shocking for the Government not to put these UK development aid cuts to a vote. The reduction in direct aid spending on water and sanitation in the world’s poorest countries by 80% of spend is catastrophic. Our UK public views water, sanitation and hygiene as a priority area for UK aid because hand hygiene is widely recognised as a critical intervention to counter the spread of Covid-19.
It is beyond belief that this should happen just months ahead of the G7 and COP 26 climate summits, at which the UK wants to show global leadership. The cuts mean that a staggering 10 million people stand to lose out on gaining access to clean water, sanitation and hygiene facilities this year, in the midst of a pandemic, according to WaterAid UK, the leading British charity in this area.
Providing clean drinking water to the world’s poorest has proved to be one of the most cost-effective ways of improving health and productivity across the developing world in recent decades. Does the Minister agree with Pauline Latham, MP for Mid Derbyshire, who warned Ministers not to balance the books
“on the backs of the poor”?—[Official Report, Commons, 16/3/21; col. 176.]
There is never a good time to cut aid for life-saving water and sanitation, but the middle of the worst pandemic for 100 years must be one of the worst. As the only G7 nation to cut aid, we are retreating from our moral duty by doing this, recklessly putting us out of step with our closest allies and making a joke of the fact that we are an internationalist and outward-looking country.
The Minister and I share a passion for visiting schools and trying to inspire the next generation. How can we look these young children in the eye when they ask, “Why are you cutting the global education budget, which affects our brothers and sisters across the world?” The noble Baroness, Lady Chalker of Wallasey, referred to pressing appropriate buttons: with this decision, the Government are pressing all the wrong ones.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this timely and important debate and to follow the thoughtful contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Khan. I am committed to delivering the 0.7% spending target but recognise that not only are these unique times but there is an imperative to maintain public consent for our aid spending. It is because of this latter point and with the firm proviso that the cut is temporary that, on balance, I support the Government’s current approach.
Having worked at DfID during my time in the Commons, I was privileged to see the impact that the world-class delivery of UK aid had around the globe. In the context of this debate and the importance of the integrated review, I can only reinforce comments from other noble Lords in saying that bilateral aid is at its most effective for both nations when an integrated departmental approach is taken.
One such example that I experienced first-hand during my military service in Afghanistan was the so-called “comprehensive approach” delivered by the provincial reconstruction teams in Helmand and other provinces. Here, security, diplomacy and development were delivered together, and, rather like three strands of a rope, the sum was far stronger and delivered far more than the component parts. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, considers my service in Afghanistan, and that of other members of the Armed Forces, to be wasted.
Another such example of a successful “one-HMG approach” in action is Nepal, and I declare my interest as colonel commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas. For over 40 years, the Gurkha Welfare Trust has, on behalf of the UK Government, delivered a rural water and sanitation project in some of the most remote parts of the country. It has been a key contributor to the continued strength of a bilateral relationship that has spanned over 200 years, since the first Gurkhas were recruited to serve the Crown in 1815.
While interest in joining the Brigade of Gurkhas remains as strong as ever, with over 12,000 applicants for just 300 places, this vital and long-standing programme is just one way that the benefits of Gurkha service are felt by all members of the wider community. I simply seek reassurance from my noble friend that this valuable project will continue to be supported, albeit likely at a reduced rate.
Lord German (LD) [V]
I refer to my interests in the register. Today’s news that the Government’s global health priority is virtually excluding water, sanitation and hygiene projects shows the impact of the cuts to international aid. Good public health is an essential element of community resilience to disease and infection —just look at the health impact on schools with no running water, where toilet and eating activity is undertaken without any handwashing.
The sad reality is that we now have a smaller pot of money for global development, and added to that is the other reality that big international long-term commitments will take the lion’s share of this smaller pot. This means that smaller charities in the UK will be squeezed out of delivering much-valued projects that are closer to the communities they serve. These are the smaller charities that deliver better value for money than large organisations.
The latest round of Small Charities Challenge Fund and community partnership grant applications has been paused indefinitely. Without confirmation that successful grant applications would be honoured, many charities face having to make immediate decisions on staffing and resources, including redundancies.
These are projects where small charities have invested hundreds of hours in the development and preparation of projects approved by the Government but now in limbo. Pulling the plug on approved projects is costly and damaging to small charities; it is also damaging to the communities they serve in the poorest parts of the world. They now have no hope of recovering the nugatory work they have put into developing projects that the Government determined were valuable. This has devastatingly dashed the hopes of the people who were to be the beneficiaries of these projects.
What reassurance can the Minister give on the future of the Small Charities Challenge Fund and the Community Partnership grant scheme, including those projects that have received approval but no payments as yet?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for providing the occasion for this overdue and necessary debate about the swingeing cuts Britain is making to its aid budget. It is shameful that we are not holding this debate in government time and on the Floor of the House, although I understand why the Government are in no hurry to defend the indefensible. If these cuts are defensible, is it not a trifle odd that we have now heard from 20 speakers and only one has attempted to defend the Government’s decision?
I will make one critical point to be clear at the outset. What is at issue is not whether to cut Britain’s aid budget at all during the economic contraction caused by the pandemic. The 0.7% commitment, which is in our domestic law, contains a self-correcting mechanism. If our economy shrinks, as it did last year, our 0.7% commitment does too, since it is linked to our GNI. Last year, that automatically cut our aid budget by £2.9 billion or thereabouts. It is the second massive, additional cut, made by switching from 0.7% to 0.5%, that is at issue.
It is too easy to think of these figures as abstract. They are not. These are cuts in food for starving people, cuts in girls’ education, cuts in support for primary healthcare provision and cuts in scientific research programmes, which also bring benefit to our own universities. When will the Government come clean about the detail of the consequences and try to defend them?
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, posed the question of whether the cuts will damage our worldwide influence—that is, our soft power. Frankly, anyone who denies that effect is inviting ridicule. Of course they will. We will lose bilateral influence around the world. It will also show up in loss of support as we compete for multilateral influence in the great aid-giving agencies and in elections at the UN.
I note in their integrated review the Government’s
“commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on development when the fiscal situation allows.”
However, that formula is pretty meaningless. Could not the Minister mark this debate by giving one simple undertaking: that Britain will return to full 0.7% compliance in the year following our economy’s return to growth?
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I dedicate my speech to the late Lord Judd and agree with what my colleagues have said about him. I knew him for many years and he gave us great leadership on these issues.
I am also upset by the way the Government have handled these cuts at a time when countries around the world need us and Britain is pretending to be a world leader. By making these cuts, we can no longer see ourselves as a leader, especially in soft power.
I want to continue the discussion started by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, on PSVI. I want a commitment from the Minister that we will continue to work on these issues and be supportive of women at the peace table in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, the DRC and other countries. We made a commitment to supporting women at the peace table, as well as to providing training for the military to ensure that women and boys are not raped. Along with America, we were one of the foremost countries to sign the commitment to PSVI. Why are we going against that now?
I ask the Minister to promote our continuing with our funding for this scheme, as well as with our funding for women and girls. How can we see ourselves leading the G7 and the G20 while asking other donors to pay for something that we have committed ourselves to over the next five years? I ask the Minister to reinstate these figures now because there are other cuts that the Government could make.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register, particularly my role on the LGBT APPG. I do not support these cuts to ODA, which will devastate the lives of those most at risk and most in need. It will put in jeopardy years of work on democracy building, stability and security, and will ultimately see our borders under further strain as migratory flows increase when people flee famine, deprivation, conflict and repression.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, stated, there are currently drastic cuts to the ODA budget. We contribute on the basis of a percentage of our gross national income; therefore, as income has reduced, so too have our financial commitments. A further cut to 0.5% will wreak humanitarian damage of which our country should be deeply ashamed. I do not believe that these cuts represent the decent majority of people in this country. I urge the Government to abandon them and thereby the humanitarian carnage that would follow them.
Women and minorities already face discrimination and repression; they are being abandoned. I make no special pleadings, but the UK Alliance for Global Equality, a coalition of 16 UK-based civil society organisations working together to promote and protect LGBT+ rights around the world, is increasingly concerned about the precarious status of funding for global LGBT+ rights, as the Government have not made clear any funding commitments for this area for the financial year 2021-22.
Therefore, I ask the Minister: will the Government provide the same level of funding for basic essential LGBT+ human rights work in 2021-22 as in the previous financial year, make a further funding commitment for 2021-22 at the July ERC conference and allocate this through the FCDO and the LGBT inclusive societies department?
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, I am a big fan of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and agree with the broad consensus across your Lordships’ House that we must return to the 0.7% commitment as soon as we can. However, I am also happy to become the second speaker to sympathise with the Government’s difficult decision.
When thinking about our development footprint, one entity sometimes does not get the love it deserves. That is the CDC, our development finance institution, which is flying our flag across the world. Its portfolio supports 875,000 jobs across Africa and south Asia. Its investing companies pay over $3 billion of tax to national Governments and invest where nobody else wants to. While it is very sensible for the CDC to operate independently of government, it is 100% owned by the FCDO and will always be perceived as a component of the one HMG overseas strategy outlined in the integrated review.
We need to take more ownership of and credit for the CDC’s efforts globally. Whether pioneering the 3D printing of entire schools in Malawi or guaranteeing supply of syringes in Ghana, it is not just the CDC at work—it is the UK at work. We are very lucky that the CDC has extremely capable leadership, which has reshaped the investment strategy over the years and delivered an impressive annual portfolio return of 7.4% since 2013.
There is always more to do, however. If we are to become the global science and technology superpower that we aim to be, the CDC will need to be encouraged to work directly with the most innovative businesses in emerging markets—even if they are early-stage. To do this, we need to support the CDC and increase its appetite for risk-taking. This is in line with item 1.1 in the strategic framework, which states:
“We will accept more risk in our public investments, supporting the most creative, innovative and radical ideas for future development.”
The CDC could also be encouraged to partner more with innovative businesses here in the UK, to help them lend in global markets.
I would be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister could share what the future of the CDC might look like in light of the review. Does he agree with my enthusiasm for the role that the CDC can play in its implementation?
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, fiscal criteria and for what purpose we apportion two key elements of aid assistance go to the core of my remarks. Humanitarian ghastliness in Yemen, Syria or Iraq is apart from strategies for countries in poverty. This enforced reduction could be an opportunity.
Making trade work for everyone must become our mantra. As a bonus for doing so, emigration would be stopped in its tracks. The UK must lead by example and move the dial on the world stage.
What we never debate is what we are prepared to give up. Governments should consider what is needed and what is not working. Throwing cash at the problem for our new-look world is not the solution.
Resolving the major contributory factor to trade reform by failing to implement the WTO Doha round offers a lifetime opportunity. Reductions in government spending on subsidies and agribusiness, which were held hostage by the United States and the European Union to the detriment of developing economies, ended the Doha round. That was regrettable.
First, we must prioritise the issues that erode developing countries’ tax bases as a means of improving the overall effectiveness of international development and tax co-operation. International tax rules, especially manipulation by multinational companies to avoid paying their appropriate level share of taxes to the right quarter, should be prioritised, with a taxed-at-source mechanism.
Secondly, Governments should support broader economic goals with market reforms, the promotion of private sector investment and industrialisation by revamping incentives and development agreements for a broad range of countries. Major benefits would come from freeing economies with a package of zero-tariff regimes that would create wealth in developing and impoverished nations, and much-needed employment. This would provide a range of new participants to the supply-chain cycle, providing new sources of supply from the developing world.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot claim a fraction of the expertise on aid that noble Lords have displayed this afternoon. My knowledge, such as it is, was gleaned during the Economic Affairs Committee’s inquiry into overseas aid in 2012, and my subsequent unavailing efforts to promote a Bill to make the 0.7% of GDP target for aid apply over five years rather than for every single year within it. Incidentally, had that Bill gone through, the Government’s arguably illegal effort to cut aid this year would have been possible without reducing aid over a five-year period by a single penny.
I am not here to cry over spilt milk. I will make one point and one point only. The debate on aid is overpolarised. On the one hand, there is an anti-aid lobby—we do not see it in our House, but we do in the popular newspapers—which paints a vision of resources being poured into land cruisers, sexual predators, bribery and corruption, instead of being given back to the British people. There is a fraction of substance to some of that, but it is hugely exaggerated. It is a way of disguising what are basically right-wing, free-market doctrines about subsidies and free markets. On the other hand, there are those who are against any critical examination of aid at all—all efforts, they think, to snatch food from the mouths of babes. They rose en masse against my Bill, although it was designed to secure one thing and one thing only: a more effective and rational planning of aid to maximise its benefits. Perhaps the Minister, on the ropes as he is this afternoon, will reconsider the case for my proposal.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I wish to say how sad it was to hear about Lord Judd’s passing away. I have lost a mentor, a good friend and a good support. It is also sad to see the cuts that have been made by the Government to their manifesto commitment. It seems that we have lost our moral compass. Millions of women and children will die as a result of these cuts. I fully support the manner in which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, alerted us to the consequences.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
I suggest that one of the places that will suffer most from this cut will be Yemen. We see what has happened there, the 85,000 children who have died from starvation in the last two years and the 20 million adults who are on the verge of starvation. We have to think again—for instance, in the light of the virus. There are 30 million people in Yemen and 300,000 vaccinations possible this past week. That need is not being met. If we have an ounce of compassion, we should look at that and somehow ease the situation in Yemen.
One of the things we could do is to reduce the armaments being sold by the UK to Saudi Arabia and make sure that we have the proper level—0.7% or even more—of our GDP. I ask that we do this and that we get our priorities right. Over these last few days, we have been speaking of the cost of renovating the flat at 11 Downing Street. We have been talking of a situation room, for the press and so on, which will cost £9 million. All these things need to be prioritised. We need to understand our moral obligation, and it must be to make sure that there is no reduction in the aid that we offer. Let us change, and let the Government show an ounce of heart at this very difficult time in the history of mankind.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his succinct and passionate opening speech. I always greatly valued his support in the past, when I chaired the all-party group on the Sudans and, before that, when I served as the FCO Minister for Africa in the coalition Government. The integrated review is an excellent document, and I am probably in the minority in the Committee in supporting the integration of the FCO and DfID. There is compelling logic in having one platform. The UK can deliver its aims and aid programmes more effectively by combining the two in that way, but the Minister for Development should be a senior Cabinet position and should be the deputy Foreign Secretary.
I have always maintained that the key to the overall aid budget is not the inputs but the outputs; it is the impact and the success of programmes. I have the opportunity to visit probably every African country bar about four, and in many I have seen small high-impact programmes doing the most phenomenal good on the ground. At the same time, I have seen much larger, more bureaucratic programmes in which waste was endemic. What is important is not just the money going in; it is how it is spent.
For this reason, I have always been in favour of clear consistency, so I support what has been said by noble Lords such as the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker: we need consistency. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, made this point as well. I am not in favour of 0.7%, because it leads to inconsistency. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, when the economy declines, we have a smaller aid budget and, when it grows rapidly, we may not be able to find the programmes to spend the aid.
As I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier is going to point out in a moment, the Government should not break the law. They should bring in a Bill and explain very clearly that we live in extraordinary times, with the £300 billion deficit. They should explain to the public why every department will have to make changes to its budget in the future. If they do that and win their vote on this Bill, with my support, so be it. If not, I would not support a break in the law.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this important debate. He works hard to address various issues relating to humanitarian rights, education and poverty, to name but a few. I shall focus on the education of girls in developing countries. The reduction in development aid from 0.7% to 0.5% this year is justified, due to the aftermath of Covid-19. However, the FCDO must honour its commitment, as agreed with the UN, to revert to 0.7% as soon as the UK economy improves.
The Foreign Secretary has recently admitted that the budget for the education of these girls has been cut. It is a drastic reduction when you think about the importance of girls’ education. It is every child’s birthright to be educated, and this is more important for girls, as it will benefit not only the girls but their families, communities and countries. Educating girls will increase literacy, reduce poverty and eliminate inequality. Former President Obama has said:
“It must be shaped by girls who go to school and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.”
Does the Minister agree that the education of girls in developing countries is important and can he assure us that the UK Government will increase the budget for it as soon as possible?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on a masterful introduction to this debate. This is a very serious problem. As my noble friend Lord McConnell said, this cut shames our country. The government document Global Britain in a Competitive Age talks about international engagement in the introduction. How are the Government doing it and by what means? Is it engagement or is it threat? Engagement, to me, means friendly working with the needs of the less favoured countries by giving them some aid and helping them with research, not cutting the aid budget by £4 billion. According the Royal Society, part of that cut is a £500,000 cut in the relevant research budget. This is the ultimate engagement for further international research more widely, so why are they cutting it?
I see the Government instead going for the threat—sending an aircraft carrier to the Far East to rattle their sabres. I do not think it has any planes on it, but that does not seem to matter to them. We do not see so many nuclear submarines, but they cost even more of the £38 billion defence budget. Much of it is a threat. I suggest to the Minister that the Government need to reinstate the 0.7% funding. If they are short, they can reduce the defence budget from £38 billion to £34 billion. That would enable the aid budget to be reinstated. The Prime Minister, in his introduction to this document, talks about international engagement in the decade ahead. I suggest that that is better done by engagement, helping other countries with research, development economics and other advice, and reinstating the funding, rather than by pretending that we are a world power by sending aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines around the world. They do not help much in Yemen and other war zones.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and to agree with his suggestion of a source of replacement funding. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for securing this debate and join him in marking the principled position of the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, who is here today as Back-Bencher because she stood up for her principles. It would be nice to see some more of it.
In my brief slot, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, want to highlight, of all the disastrous cuts to the UK overseas development assistance, the slashing of aid to Yemen—poor, war-wracked, famine-tormented and Covid-plagued Yemen. We are, as a nation —or, at least, a handful of multinational companies based in our nation are—making huge profits from selling arms to Saudi Arabia, helping it to continue the disastrous war in Yemen. Here in Westminster, we often see those arms dealers and makers promoting their trade with billboard advertising, which is just a small sign of their lobbying muscle. The starving children of Yemen sadly lack the same vehicles of influence. That shows in the Government’s priorities. Lobbying is about much more than Greensill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, rightly said that these cuts are destroying our reputation in the climate change arena. That matters. As chair of COP 26, the Government need moral authority. The world, and the future, are depending on us. How can we preach the rule of law around the world, or be chair of COP 26, demanding transparency, honesty and practical action from other nations, when we are not following our own laws on overseas development assistance and subjecting government decisions to parliamentary scrutiny or making the promised aid payments that represent scant reparations for centuries of colonial and post-colonial destruction?
The integrated review proclaims our Government’s supposed commitment to the rule of law. In the light of the Government’s actions, it is not worth the energy taken to upload it. I say “upload” as a reminder that the whole world has access to and knowledge of what is happening in the UK. Shouting the words “world leading” means nothing. What counts is action, and the world understands the UK Government through their actions all too well.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Foreign Secretary said that ODA is important for boosting international research. Cuts to the development assistance grant of more than £120 million over a year will have a devasting effect on established research and development projects in middle and low-income countries. The cuts will affect 800 UK-led projects in 69 countries funded through the Global Challenges Research Fund. For example, there are the Royal Veterinary College’s projects in 10 countries involving 144 staff researching zoonosis and antibiotic resistance in poultry production. There is a cut of 67% in funding for projects in Jordan on understanding vaccine development for MERS-CoV, and a 73% funding cut to Royal Academy of Engineering projects in 17 countries involving hundreds of people that will affect leadership development programmes. The Royal Society’s Future Leaders: African Independent Research fellowship programme, which helps develop future academic science leaders, has had its funding cut by 67%, leading to the immediate termination of jobs.
The cuts are halting research in scientific collaborations and will undermine the Government’s ambition for the UK to be a science superpower and their pursuit of new forms of global relationship, giving the message that the UK is not a reliable partner. Global challenges require global partnership. With the UK at the helm of G7 and COP 26, now cannot be the time for the Government to row back on their ambition. Science is the heart of many solutions in health and climate that we desperately need right now. The Government having built relationships and leadership now want to step back. In financial terms, the cuts may seem modest, but their impact is huge. Once lost, research capacity takes time to build and, in the meantime, the UK will cede ground to other countries. What plans do the Government have for the global partnership in science, research and development with middle and low-income countries? Is there an understanding in the Government of the damage being done by these cuts?
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for this debate. Unfortunately, it is in Cross-Bench time; I would have wished it to be in government time because, frankly, there are questions to be answered. One of them is: why have only two and a half speakers supported the Government, when I am speaker No. 36?
I want to pay tribute to my good friend Lord Judd, who I had known for almost 50 years. He was a great man in many ways.
We have had an unprecedented increase in public expenditure in the past year. There has never been more money spent. This is a petty cut, of which we should be deeply ashamed. It is not something we can justify; we are not up against it; we are not cutting everything. It is not something to be proud of; it is a petty decision. I pay tribute to my good and noble friend Lady Sugg for her willingness to make this an issue of principle, because that is what it is.
I feel that we are just playing to the gallery. Yes, it probably is popular to cut overseas aid. It would also be quite popular to bring back hanging. I recall once sitting next to Ted Heath at dinner and talking about hanging. He said, “Look, there’s some questions you just don’t ask.” This is a question we should not have asked. We should not have asked people whether they wanted to cut aid to the poorest, and we should not go along with it.
I want the Government to come clean and tell us what they plan to do to restore this spending. If there was one proud moment in David Cameron’s premiership and leadership, it was this. As someone who worked for David and who, as I have said, is still willing to say a nice word about him, I want to see it back again.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
I join today’s repeated expressions of total dismay. I too am sad that Lord Judd, my mentor and great friend of many years, is not here to make one of his impassioned speeches. He is a great loss.
Two questions underpin this debate. Why was there no proper evaluation of the impact of this reduction beforehand? Or was there? Can the Minister help us? No business enters into some new policy or new programme of any kind without a risk assessment. Was this not done? Secondly, why do it at all? That question was raised earlier. I am afraid that I see it as a display of rather unpleasant populist politics, with the dog-whistle message that charity begins at home. There has been no explanation to the public that the best way to create our own security in a globalised world is to prevent the blowback that comes from failing to help the poor, underdeveloped nations, riven with conflict and disease and suffering the worst effects of climate change. Conflict, poverty and persecution are why mass migration is an increasingly serious issue for the West.
This is not just about money. The UK’s expertise has led the world. DfID knew how to do development and understood that institution-building is the foundation of real change. I have seen it first hand in my own work on the rule of law. Helping draw up law to end child marriage and FGM, which has a huge impact on infant and maternal mortality; working on programmes of police and judicial training; helping to establish specialist courts to deal with gender-based violence; training prosecutors in sexual violence in conflict; working on the law on anti-corruption; developing legal systems and media freedom—all those things are done by the UK using our money in the interests of developing nations.
Development requires a package of overlapping mechanisms. That means fostering democracy, human rights and open government. This is soft power, and it works. How could we possibly think of sacrificing it? I hope the Government reconsider.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and to the late Lord Judd, who inspired so many of us over the years.
When we discuss development aid, we are not talking solely about an act of charity by the UK for people in less well-off nations. By not investing sufficiently in such aid, especially in the area of public health, we undermine our own national security and, indeed, our public health. At a time when we have participated in such a successful vaccination programme, it is a tragedy to cut development aid funding, which strengthens work on clean water and other public health initiatives. These cuts could impact on poorer countries’ fight against Covid-19 or allow an even more deadly virus to take hold, putting everyone in many countries, including our own, at risk.
I want to highlight another recent change that may also impact on our delivery in this area. In 2020, the Department for International Development was moved into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Also, the Government Equalities Office has recently been moved from the Home Office to the Cabinet Office. The rationale for these changes is not clear. The organisation Widows for Peace through Democracy has raised further concerns that they could weaken this country’s leadership in championing women’s rights, particularly widows’ rights, as previously well-resourced teams run by experienced civil servants will not be funded or supported as well in future. Does the Minister have any more information about this?
I also wish to highlight the Government’s decision last week to cut £143 million from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office research budget. This year, the UK will host the United Nations Climate Change Conference—COP 26. Yesterday, I attended a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Corporate Responsibility Group, which I co-chair. We heard about efforts made by the Bank of England to take leadership, both nationally and internationally, to move the climate change agenda forward. It is extremely disappointing that, while we see this sort of leadership from organisations such as the Bank of England, we see this decision regarding FCDO research funding, which is likely to have—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to cut the noble Baroness off but this is a time-limited debate and we have to be quite strict with the two-minute speaking limit.
Lord Polak (Con)
I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his thoughtful introduction and remember fondly my friend Frank Judd. I pray that his memory will be for a blessing.
I supported the 0.7% commitment made by David Cameron. I still support the 0.7% target. However, I am a pragmatist and a realist. I understand the constraints and welcome the Government’s assurances that we will get back to 0.7% as soon as possible.
I believe that this is a good time for a reassessment of how our donations are spent, with a move from supporting large industrial-type institutions—with the accompanying waste—to supporting on-the-ground, smaller, nimbler organisations that ensure that those in need and who depend on support receive it directly. We have been told that water projects have been cut, but there are answers. I have raised the work of Innovation: Africa on previous occasions. Over the past 10 years, led by the inspirational Sivan Ya’ari and via Israeli solar technology, it has given more than 500 remote villages in Africa and more than 3 million people fresh running water, electricity and light. They have been given hope and dignity, paid for by philanthropists. This philanthropy should be supported, not relied on. It is time to reassess. I appeal to my noble friend the Minister, who understands the concepts of value for money and spending wisely, to take a good look at how our money is spent. Supporting programmes such as Innovation: Africa helps people on the ground.
Ten billion pounds is a lot of money. We are generous, but our generosity should be managed and targeted far better. As a result, it will go further. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the time is right for a serious appraisal of how taxpayers’ money on aid is spent?
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for securing this debate and for the way he introduced it. Since the enactment of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, the Secretary of State for International Development—and now the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Secretary—has been under a statutory legal duty to ensure that the United Kingdom hits the 0.7% of gross national income, or GNI, for official development assistance every year. That target is a relative figure, not an absolute one, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out.
The Secretary of State also has, by law, to make an annual Statement to Parliament reporting on the previous year’s performance. If it turns out that the 0.7% target has been undershot, the Statement must retrospectively explain why, referring if relevant to the effect of changes in economic and fiscal circumstances of any substantial change in GNI and the likely impact of meeting the target on taxation, public spending and public borrowing, or to circumstances arising outside the United Kingdom.
Until Parliament changes that law on the statutory duty, the Government must aim to hit it. They cannot deliberately aim off or fire blanks. They can say they intend to change the law or substitute another target, but until the statute is repealed or amended the Government are subject to that law. They cannot legitimise failure to hit a target by announcing in advance their intention to fail.
The Government, of course, know this. Speaking on the Statement on the recent spending review, my right honourable friend the Chancellor told the other place that, since the Government
“cannot predict with sufficient certainty”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/11/20; col. 870.]
what the “fiscal circumstances” will be, they will have to legislate to change the law. The Foreign Secretary said the same thing from the Dispatch Box the very next day. My noble friend Lord Ahmad recognised those obligations in your Lordships’ House and expressed the Government’s intention to remain within the law.
While accepting that for the Foreign Secretary deliberately to breach his statutory duty to meet the 0.7% target will not lead to his prosecution, it would none the less be unlawful and something for which he would be held accountable by Parliament. It would do neither his reputation as a lawyer nor the Government’s domestic or international standing any good to be seen once again to be flouting a clear legal obligation.
If the Government disagree with Prime Ministers May, Cameron, Brown and Blair and are not concerned about: sacrificing the United Kingdom’s moral authority; breaking a promise we do not need to break; presiding over the G7 while breaking one promise to meet another; or whether the 0.7% target is enlightened self-interest, the way forward is clear. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bellingham; the Government should change the law through Parliament and not break it out of convenience. I respectfully disagree with my noble friend Lord Balfe and the late Sir Edward Heath. We not only need to ask these questions, but to be—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend, but we must again be strict with the time limit.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I call the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Lord Desai?
For a third time, I will try to call the noble Lord, Lord Desai. Perhaps the noble Lord needs to unmute? If he is not here, I will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl) [V]
I am trying to unmute. Someone has to unmute me, I am sorry.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We can hear you, please speak now for your two minutes.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl) [V]
I want to quickly say that, while I deplore the cut, I think we should not be giving money for our soft power or anything else. We should give money only for the betterment of the poorest people. The way to do that is a direct cash transfer to the poorest people. It is possible now with the machinery that many Governments have set up to pass money directly to them, and let them use it for their own development. We should not be setting the agenda for development in our interests. This money is for the poor; it should reach the poor and the poorest. If we cannot do that, we should really examine how we can improve the performance of our development policy and get the money to the poorest.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Alton: over many years, he has shown consistent creative thinking and action on aid, so I thank him. He highlighted Yemen and was so right; dear old Aden was part of it—that is possibly the worst problem area there is at this point in time. If the UN is worth anything, it should do more than it is doing there, and we should look at that again. He highlighted evidence on water security and was so right, as too was my noble friend Lord Polak, when he said that it is time that we reassessed the impact of the way that we are spending our money. I put forward that organisations such as Amnesty International, which stepped over the line in India and Sri Lanka, Freedom from Torture and others should all be looked at closely.
I understand the possible need for a temporary cut; I accept that it is a requirement at this point in time. However, I urge Her Majesty’s Government to make it absolutely clear exactly when they are coming back to 0.7%, and how.
I move on to the situation in the integrated review concerning the “Indo-Pacific tilt” and this axis of trade, with its choke points for navigation. This means the bottom end of India and Sri Lanka. We miss an opportunity with India: what is our high commissioner in India doing? He or she must have known that there was a huge problem blowing up, so why did we not stand by with emergency facilities ready at Brize Norton? We should follow that up now, as they are real friends and need help. The same is true of Sri Lanka, which was ignored by the West over the Tamil Tigers. It needed help to defeat these terrorists; it needs understanding on human rights and does not need to be chased with bogus evidence that is kept secret for 20 years in the Darusman report.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, Afghanistan is the most aid-dependent country in the world: aid is 60% of its budget. Reducing aid to this benighted country, in addition to the proposed departure of military personnel, will damage an already fragile state and increase widespread deprivation. This is one of the conclusions of the excellent and comprehensive report of the International Relations and Defence Committee. A likely result of these combined factors will be to ease the passage to a Taliban takeover and a consequent further destabilisation of the entire region.
If the UK Government are serious about pursuing their stated objectives of girls’ education, humanitarian response and preparedness, open societies and conflict resolution, among others, then surely they must think again about how best to achieve these priorities. The total ODA budget, dependent as it is on GNI—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we will resume. Would the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, continue her speech from where she was interrupted?
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
As I was saying, the total ODA budget, dependent as it is on GNI, will be substantially lower anyway. The added cuts will affect those programmes that can least withstand budget cuts. This includes the support of women and girls in those countries most severely threatened.
Despite the astonishing gains made by women in Afghanistan over the last 20 years or so, the Taliban has made it clear that there is little change in its worldview, belief systems and patterns of ruling. What is at stake is not only a return to violence, terror and, above all, savage repression of women but the potential for ethnic division. In the current context in Afghanistan that will mean a war against all non-Pashto-speaking or non-supportive groups by the Taliban. A civil war on this level would be devastating and set Afghanistan back several decades—a religious war engulfing south Asia and probably well beyond.
The UK, which, in supplying some of the more hard-line mujaheddin groups with arms in the 1980s, contributed to the formation of the Taliban, surely would not wish this kind of legacy. While the UK, even working with its allies, will not eradicate the Taliban, its consistent commitment to building the institutions of democracy has definitely had an impact. It would be heartbreaking and irresponsible to see these gains lost in a matter of months.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is customary in these debates that there is a gap on the speakers’ list before the Liberal Democrat Front-Bench speaker. Today, the gap is that Lord Judd is not with us. We on the Liberal Benches pass on our commiserations. Many noble Lords, and those on the Labour Benches in particular, have lost a friend—a very noble one at that—who would have made a major contribution to this debate. He is missed. A colleague who is not missed is the noble Lord, Lord Alton—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I think noble Lords have not interpreted that as I intended. The noble Lord will not be missed for a very long time to come. He is to be commended on bringing this debate to the Grand Committee and on the very powerful way in which he introduced it. It is a commendation to him and to his work in this House.
The whole House was united yesterday in support of the Government providing additional medical equipment and support to India. The Government chose not to deny extra support because of the fiscal situation here at home and instead provided it because of a medical emergency abroad. So, when it is in the Government’s choosing, additional humanitarian assistance is provided. But it is also in the Government’s choosing to halve support for children and mothers in conflict-afflicted Yemen, which is suffering the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. It is in the Government’s choosing to halve health centre and medical provision in South Sudan, which is literally a lifeline for millions. It is in the Government’s choosing, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to cut by 40% UK funding for girls’ education after saying that it is a priority, but then to refuse, as the Foreign Secretary did to the International Relations and Defence Committee yesterday, to be transparent in so doing because it would embarrass the Government during discussions with the Kenyan Government on us jointly hosting an international conference on the subject in the summer. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, who will reply to this debate, told the House on 16 March:
“We will use our G7 presidency this year to rally the international community to step up and support girls’ education”.—[Official Report, 16/3/21; col. 179.]
How grotesquely hollow this sounds one month on.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, told the House last week that the economy has seen a shrinkage of 11% owing to the pandemic. The law allows for such a reduction in ODA to reflect this, painful as it would be, but it is the Government’s political choice, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, indicated, to cut bilateral aid by 50%. They believe that it is popular, but no one seems—or rather very few seem—to be speaking up for it with confidence. It is a political choice of the FCDO and its Ministers, as the noble Lords, Lord Khan and Lord Alton, indicated, to cut by 80% bilateral water, sanitation and hygiene projects in the height of the pandemic, when the Government themselves paid for advice on handwashing and clean water to be the first line of defence on Covid. These are political choices, because we knew what the extent of the impact on the economy was likely to be by the end of October last year.
Some called for the Conservatives to cut ODA at that stage. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said in response to one of those calls on 23 October—I quote directly from his tweet—
“You couldn’t have got this more wrong. It was the Conservatives under @David_Cameron who put the 0.7% aid commitment into law. And of all the countries who made the same commitment, just 5 (including the UK) have honoured it.”
The Government are dishonouring this commitment, and their 2015, 2017 and 2019 manifesto commitments likewise.
I care less about the Conservatives’ manifesto commitments than I do about the law. The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, told the House on 17 March that
“we have had to make some hard choices, including temporarily reducing the ODA target from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI”.—[Official Report, 17/3/21; col. 302.]
This addresses the exact point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, mentioned in his very effective contribution to this debate. It is a breach of the law to set a new target. This is prohibited by the 2015 Act and the duty remains to meet 0.7%. If, however, in the course of honouring that duty, because of unplanned internal or external circumstances, during the reporting year 0.7% had not been met, Section 2 requires a statement to be laid before Parliament. Section 2 does not permit a proactive missing of the target in a forthcoming year, as the Government have announced.
Critically, the element of the law that the Minister chose to ignore when he answered questions on 16 March, and that Ministers have deliberately ignored since November, is that Section 2(4) requires:
“A statement under subsection (1) must also describe any steps that the Secretary of State has taken to ensure that the 0.7% target will be met by the United Kingdom in the calendar year following the report year.”
This Government have announced proactive and deliberate moves to renege on the duty to meet 0.7%. That is not provided for by the second provision and they have not stated how it will return.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we will now resume and continue with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the second major part of this debate refers to the Government’s assertion that we will return to this duty, which they are reneging on, when the fiscal situation allows. This is what the Minister told the House on 16 March. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, three times in the Chamber what those fiscal criteria are and I have not received an answer. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, specifically asked the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the same question today and I hope that there will be a reply. As I said in our debate on the integrated review, the Government either know what the criteria are, and are actively and deliberately withholding them from Parliament, or they are simply using disingenuous language. The Minister must tell us which it is today; he has 20 minutes and there is no reason not to spell this out in his response to the debate, because he has been asked that specific question.
There are, then, two areas of unlawfulness. One is the setting of the new 0.5% target that the Minister has referred to. Can he also state where in legislation it allows the Government to set a target at 0.5%?
One of the themes of this debate, which has been heartbreaking, is that the Government have not carried out humanitarian impact assessments for the extent of the cuts that they are making. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, also refused to answer a question from me about whether the cuts for Yemen came after an impact assessment. Chris Bold, the development director for Yemen, admitted to a House of Commons committee:
“We have not done an impact assessment.”
If the Government believe that the cuts are popular—though not based on evidence and without having carried out an impact assessment—why are they not simply being honest and straightforward in telling us what the criteria are, and what the impact is likely to be?
I said at the outset that I would not cite the broken Conservative manifesto commitments, but I will cite another manifesto, if the Committee will allow me:
“we wish to see the breaking down of barriers to international trade. Greater freedom in international trade will assist the underdeveloped countries who need markets for their products. We support the principle that in accordance with the Pearson Report Britain and other countries should contribute 1 per cent of Gross National Product of official aid to developing countries as soon as possible. We are totally opposed to all forms of racial and religious discrimination.”
That was the Liberal manifesto for the June 1970 election, which predates the UN resolution of October 1970. I cite it not because I am proud that my party has stood the test of time with this commitment but because it was a global consensus on which, after many years, there was a political consensus in the UK between the parties and beyond parties, with Gordon Brown as Chancellor and Tony Blair as Prime Minister, and later under David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Theresa May, which has now been dashed by this Government.
A journalist reported in 2019:
“Penny Mordaunt gave a presentation on foreign aid in which she said 0.7% in the current form is ‘unsustainable’.”
On 29 January 2019, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, replied:
“I hope this is incorrect. The 0.7 per cent commitment isn’t simply about charity. Spent properly, foreign aid makes the world safer, more sustainable and more stable. It benefits us all.”
Our contribution to making the world safer, more sustainable and more stable is being reduced, by an unlawful cut, by one-third this year and next, and there is no transparent commitment for the year after. As was said recently in a meeting chaired by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, which I attended, we are not cutting aid, we are cutting co-operation. We are not a lesser donor, we are a more unreliable partner—but not in my name or that of my party.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly referred to the development of a cross-party political consensus over decades, and here I would like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Judd, who was part of building that consensus. As we have heard today, he worked across all parties for that end. That cross-party consensus has secured for the United Kingdom a very strong international reputation for saving millions of lives. That is the important starting point for today’s debate.
I also want to reinforce the point made that sustainable development is in everyone’s interest, including that of the United Kingdom. That is why a decision to cut aid by such historic proportions is a such a reckless idea. It is an enormous mistake to think that we can stop supporting initiatives on the scale proposed by the Government and assume that it will not have consequences for us in the United Kingdom. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, extreme poverty, hunger, inequality and the absence of basic services are all root causes of violent conflict, yet the Government will be cutting programmes in each of these areas. It is inescapable that more people will suffer without the United Kingdom’s support and that same suffering over years and decades will manifest itself as a danger to us all.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, my noble friend Lord Cashman and other noble Lords have said, we must remember that even if the Government had continued to spend 0.7% of GNI, that would not have avoided cuts, given the shrinking economy.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we will now resume. We will continue with the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
By bringing down the budget to 0.5%, the Government will be making it impossible to maintain the order of priorities to deliver the objectives of the integrated review. However, the reason these cuts are so dangerous is not just because of their size: it is also because of where they will fall and their speed.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, in his excellent introduction, mentioned the leaked memo. Other noble Lords have mentioned the cutting of funding for life-saving access to clean water by 80%. However, the Power of Nutrition, of which the FCDO is a founding partner, is set to have its funding slashed by more than 50%—I declare an interest as co-chair of the Nutrition for Growth APPG. Nutrition represents the biggest multiplier in development. We have been a leader around the globe on nutrition; it is appalling that these cuts are taking place. UNAIDS, which is at the forefront of tackling HIV globally, has had its funding cut by 85%. The Global Polio Eradication Initiative has been told that it will receive just £5 million from the FCDO this year, a cut of 95%. Save the Children estimates that last week’s announcement will result in 3 million fewer people receiving life-saving assistance. Is this really the kind of country that we want to be?
I hope that the Minister will be able to answer questions this afternoon. Can he assure the House that he will honour the financial commitments that his department has made to multilateral organisations, such as Gavi and the Global Fund? Will he, if he intends to give just £5 million to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative this year, make up for the shortfall in subsequent years? Will he commit today to honouring his Government’s commitment of £400 million by 2023? Can he tell us the budget allocated for nutrition programmes over the next year and, if he cannot today, when will he be able to tell us?
The speed of these cuts is also dangerous. It seems incredibly unlikely that the department would have had sufficient time to consider their impact and prioritise effectively. We have already received confirmation—my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws raised this—that no assessment had been made of the impact of aid cuts in Yemen. Without effective exit strategies, there is now a huge risk that the previous achievements will be thrown away. The speed of these cuts has meant that the Government have been unable to consult civil society and the aid sector properly. As a result, organisations have been unable to plan effectively to respond to the cuts. Can the Minister detail how the Government are engaging with the aid sector, and what representations have been recently received?
To think that our reputation will be intact after the Government ignore their own manifesto commitments and their own laws in breaking the 0.7% is absolutely ridiculous, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has said. Our closest allies—the US and the rest of Europe—all accept that a global crisis requires more support, not less. My noble friend Lord Khan has made this point. President Biden announced an increase of more than $5 billion for USAID. In the past year, France and Germany have increased development spending by 11% and 14% respectively. Japan, which the review refers to as
“one of our closest strategic partners”
is also spending more on aid than ever before. If the Government are serious about strengthening our alliances, then the answer is not to move carelessly out of step on development. The Government must offer a positive vision for international development.
The greatest framework for this is the UN sustainable development goals. I too pay tribute to David Cameron: his leadership on the SDGs was vital, building on the leadership of Gordon Brown on the millennium development goals. That leadership has, I am afraid, been abrogated. We must provide that positive agenda. The 2030 agenda, if achieved, will end extreme poverty, hunger and gender-based violence, and ensure that every individual has access to rights including safe drinking water, quality education and clean energy. But the Government have abandoned those previous efforts to lead on the SDGs; the drastic reduction in development aid is only further evidence of that.
The integrated review is welcome, and I hope the whole House would support the idea of the UK being a force for good. But the Government will not achieve this for the UK by withdrawing from the world, reducing UK development aid and making cuts in all the worst places. There is no question that by following this path, the Government will make the world a more dangerous and less predictable place, making the review’s emphasis on security and resilience completely meaningless. We all want Britain to succeed on the world stage but for the integrated review to be worth the paper it is written on, the Government need to end the contradictions and inconsistencies between their words and actions. That starts with supporting once again the principles of sustainable development.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I start by echoing the remarks of so many noble Lords about the late Lord Judd. I did not know him personally but it is clear from the tributes that have been paid that he had a significant impact.
This is a landmark year for UK leadership on the world stage. As countries around the world continue to grapple with the profound economic and social consequences of Covid, the UK stands with them as an active, confident, internationalist, burden-sharing and problem-solving nation—as a force for good in the world. We are setting this tone through our G7 presidency in June, co-hosting the Global Partnership for Education pledging summit with Kenya and hosting COP 26 in November, a truly critical moment in the global fight against climate change.
In this year of global leadership, we have produced the most comprehensive articulation of UK foreign policy and national security that has been published by a British Government in decades. The integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy sets out the Prime Minister’s vision for a stronger, more prosperous union in 2030. It has, at its heart, the protection of the interests of the British people, of our sovereignty, our security, our health and our prosperity.
As my noble friend Lord Ahmad told the House only last week, the integrated review identifies the key trends and challenges that will guide UK foreign policy for the decade ahead. It covers: the geopolitical and geo-economic shifts that will define our new alliances and partnerships including, as a number of noble Lords noted, in the Indo-Pacific region; the increasing competition between states over diverging interests, norms and values; the consequences of rapid technological change in areas such as artificial intelligence, cyber and data; and, perhaps most importantly, the transnational and existential threats to our shared climate, biodiversity and health—truly global challenges that already affect every person on this planet, illustrated so acutely by the Covid-19 pandemic.
A strong and credible UK offer on international development will be fundamental to delivering the objectives of the integrated review because the UK’s sovereignty, security, health and prosperity do not exist in a vacuum. With respect, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and agree with, among many others, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury: our interests are bound up with the sovereignty, security, health and prosperity of people living many miles from our shores. We know that poverty, marginalisation and exclusion, in Africa and Asia and elsewhere, sow the seeds for challenges that affect us here at home, including illegal migration, conflict, terrorism and the spread of disease. That is why the UK will continue to act in the interests of the world’s poorest people. Providing hope and opportunity is not just the right thing to do; it is firmly in our national interest.
We will deploy our diplomatic network to promote UK values on freedom, open societies and human rights around the world. We will be a voice for the poor and marginalised in multilateral fora such as the UN Security Council and at global summits such as COP 26. I say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that that includes the use of soft power. He mentioned the important work of the British Council, which is, as he said, a key soft power asset. I can reassure him that the council will receive £189 million of grant in aid for 2021-22, an increase on the £149 million it received in 2020-21. That point was echoed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who rightly added that, where UK aid withdraws, that void can, and likely will, be filled by those with less benign interests. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, delivered the same warning.
We will continue to provide lifesaving aid and basic services in the world’s poorest countries through our overseas development assistance spending, because, despite the unique and extreme financial pressures imposed on us by Covid, the UK remains, in both percentage and absolute terms, one of the world’s most generous aid donors. In 2020, we spent more than £14 billion fighting poverty and helping those in need, including £1.3 billion of humanitarian support to famine and conflict-affected regions. We have pivoted more than 300 of our existing ODA programmes to respond to the economic, social and health consequences of the global pandemic. For the eighth year running, we have proudly met the 0.7% ODA target.
Clear interest has been expressed today in UK aid spending for the year ahead. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer set out to Parliament on 25 November, we cannot ignore the seismic impact of the Covid pandemic on the UK economy. Notwithstanding the swift action we have taken to safeguard jobs and livelihoods, this is the biggest economic contraction in 300 years. It has caused a budget deficit of almost £400 billion, which is double the level of 2008. We must safeguard the public finances. For this reason, the Government have taken the tough but necessary decision temporarily to reduce the UK’s commitment to spending 0.7% of gross national income on overseas development assistance. This year, we will instead spend 0.5% of GNI.
I must reiterate—this point was driven home by my noble friend Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton and raised by my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lord Naseby—that this is a temporary reduction, driven by prevailing fiscal circumstances. My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier cited the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. My noble friend Lady Sugg also raised this issue. The Government have been clear that they will act in line with the Act, which, as noted by a number of noble Lords, explicitly envisages that there may be circumstances where the 0.7% target is not met. Despite the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, it is not a decision that we have taken lightly.
Of course, the shift to 0.5% will not be pain free. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Hannay, that I know that there will be real-world impacts on some of our activities. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, noted the polarised nature of the debate. I agree with him. The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, said that millions would die because of this policy decision. There, I disagree: let us not forget that millions of lives are saved, and will be saved this year as every year, as a direct consequences of our interventions and our aid. My noble friend Lord Bellingham made the point that the output is more important than the input. Although I am determined, as I believe he is, that we return to 0.7% as quickly as we can, he is nevertheless undoubtedly right.
We are focused on ensuring that every penny of ODA brings maximum strategic coherence, impact and, in answer to my noble friend Lord Polak, value for the taxpayer, now more than ever. I thank my noble friend for bringing to our attention his examples of highly effective, Israeli-backed charities working in Africa, which I will look into in more detail in due course.
A number of noble Lords raised specific programmes, concerned that they may have been caught up in the cutbacks. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, mentioned the volunteering for development, or V4D, grant to Voluntary Service Overseas, or VSO, and funding via H2H for Translators without Borders. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, also mentioned VSO. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, raised a range of important programmes in addition, as did the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and other noble Lords. I am afraid that all I can say at this point, which I know will be frustrating, is that FCDO programme managers are working with their suppliers and delivery partners to determine the precise implications for each programme. However, we have protected UK civil society organisations from cuts wherever possible.
My noble friend Lady Sugg asked for more transparency. I can reassure her that, as is usual, the full official development assistance budget per country and business unit for 2021-22, along with final audited spend for 2020-21, will be published in the annual report and accounts in due course.
The UK remains a world leader in international development. We will spend £10 billion on ODA in 2021, meaning that, this year, the UK will still be the third-largest ODA donor in the G7 as a percentage of GNI. With respect, I therefore cannot accept the suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, that we are no longer taken seriously. The Foreign Secretary recently concluded a thorough review to ensure that our ODA marks a strategic shift, putting our aid budget to work alongside our diplomatic network, our science and technology expertise and our economic partnerships.
In helping to tackle global challenges, we will focus on core HMG priorities with the overarching objective of poverty reduction. The integrated review has helped to guide the process by setting out how, as an independent and sovereign global Britain, we will act as a force for good and use our influence to shape the future international order. This, I believe, answers the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, about DfID and the FCO merging to become the FCDO.
To deliver this vision, resource has been allocated to the seven priorities that the Foreign Secretary set out to Parliament on 26 November. The first is climate and biodiversity, our top international priority. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, one of the great injustices of climate change is that the world’s poorest countries—the lowest emitters—will be most heavily hit by its impacts. The UK is the first major donor nation to commit to making its entire ODA portfolio compliant with the Paris Agreement—something we are encouraging all other donor countries to emulate. Likewise, we have committed to ending all direct UK Government support for the fossil fuel energy sector overseas, encouraging as many countries as possible—all countries, ideally—to commit to the same.
In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Khan of Burnley, let me say that, in this COP 26 year, we are spending £1.4 billion of ODA on international climate finance, thus starting the trajectory towards doubling our ICF commitment to £11.6 billion by 2025, as promised. Also, on nature, the Prime Minister recently announced that the UK will commit at least £3 billion of our international climate finance to protecting and restoring the natural world and biodiversity over the next five years. This is a world-leading commitment, harnessing the power of nature to trap carbon and support some of the world’s most vulnerable communities that depend most directly on the free services that nature provides, which we are desecrating globally at an appalling rate. This policy is good for the poor, good for the planet and, by extension, good for all of us. We hope that other donor countries will follow.
Our second priority is global health security. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, will be reassured to hear that the FCDO will spend more than £1.3 billion on global health this year. I say in response to my noble friend Lady Hodgson of Abinger and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that we have very much been at the forefront of the international response to Covid-19 through our commitments to COVAX, Gavi and the World Health Organization, as well as through bilateral spend where the need is greatest, particularly in Africa. I hope that this also reassures the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, and my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey, who asked the same question.
To go back briefly to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about whether our commitment to Gavi remains, the answer is yes. As agreed previously, we will maintain our commitment to support Gavi at the current levels.
I say in response to my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey that UK expertise in science, research and development has led to one of the first effective and affordable Covid-19 vaccines. In September, the Prime Minister committed £548 million to the COVAX Facility to ensure that these vaccines can reach the world’s poorest countries. We have also pledged up to £1.65 billion to Gavi over the next four years to support millions of routine immunisations, and we recently announced a further £340 million between 2020 and 2024 in core contributions to the WHO; that is additional to our £120 million annual average commitment. This will provide technical guidance and operational support to maintain health services in poor and developing countries.
Our third priority is girls’ education. This issue was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I can tell him that the FCDO will spend £400 million on girls’ education this year. We will invest directly in more than 25 countries, helping to achieve the global target to get 40 million girls into school. Of course, we will also demonstrate our leadership by co-hosting the Global Partnership for Education summit in July; we will announce details on the UK’s contribution to GPE in due course. As co-hosts of the summit, we are using all the means at our disposal to help the Global Partnership for Education to secure its five-year financing target of $5 billion. I hope that this reassures the noble Lords, Lord Loomba, Lord Hastings and Lord Chidgey, who all raised this important issue during their speeches.
The fourth area is humanitarian preparedness and response. We will spend over £900 million this year to maintain the UK’s role as a force for good at times of crisis. We will focus our country’s bilateral spend on those countries most affected by the risk of famine, including—in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno—Yemen, Syria, Somalia and South Sudan. A £30 million crisis reserve will enable us to respond rapidly to new crises. We will use our position as a leading humanitarian actor to drive improvements in how assistance is delivered globally and to project UK values through the humanitarian system.
The fifth area is science and technology. The integrated review clearly outlines that science and tech is an “integral element” of our international policy—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. ODA-funded research by the FCDO has led to the first internationally approved vaccine to prevent Ebola; the world’s first anti-malarial drug, saving more than a million lives; and micro-nutrient-rich varieties of staple food crops, feeding 50 million people. That is why this year, across government, we will make £370 million of R&D investments across all seven themes of the ODA strategy.
The sixth area is open societies and conflict resolution. The FCDO will use over £400 million to harness the UK’s unique strengths in conflict management and resolution and to project our support for democratic values, institutions, human rights and freedom of religious belief. This point was made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, and I add in response only that we will utilise the UK’s expertise on conflict management and resolution through the newly created FCDO office for conflict mediation and stability, which will have the central co-ordinating function for all conflict work across government.
In response to the point made well by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, about the critical importance of judicial capacity-building and the rule of law, I say that the IR absolutely confirms that our ODA will support core campaigns in support of British values, standing up for democracy and democratic institutions, the rule of law, media freedom, human rights and freedom of religious belief. I hope that this also provides some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who asked a similar question. We will further drive, impact and support democratic values and institutions through our diplomacy, including our new sanctions policy, which will shortly be extended to cover corruption.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned the grim conflict in Tigray in Ethiopia; I reassure him that, during his visit to Ethiopia on 22 January, the Foreign Secretary pressed Prime Minister Abiy for a political dialogue to bring lasting peace to Tigray and to make clear the need for unfettered humanitarian access. Since 2019, UK aid has provided £19 million of support, ensuring that displaced people have access to food, shelter, water, sanitation and basic health. The noble Lord also mentioned human rights abuses in Nigeria, which are, of course, a major concern of ours as well. The Minister for Africa is in Nigeria this week, and he will continue to make clear, at the highest levels, the importance of protecting civilians—including those from different ethnic and religious communities—and human rights for all Nigerians.
Both the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, mentioned Afghanistan. Since 2001, the UK has provided £3 billion in development and government assistance to Afghanistan. Partly thanks to UK aid, life expectancy increased from 50 years in 1990 to 64 in 2018. There are 8.2 million more children in school since 2002, and 39% of those enrolled are girls. We are working closely with the US, NATO allies and partners, but, for there to be any chance of a lasting peace, the Taliban must engage meaningfully in a dialogue with the Afghan Government. Any change to our security presence will be made in agreement with allies and after consultation with our partners.
Finally, in response to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, I raise the subject of economic development and trade. The FCDO will spend over £490 million to support new trading relationships with developing countries, complementing our wider multilateral and capital investments to build our trade and investment partners of the future. To answer my noble friend Lord Sarfraz, I can say that we will use the CDC and multilateral partners to drive mutually beneficial growth with strategic partners in circumstances where, as he points out, private sector investment is not practicable.
Within this framework, we will focus on exerting the maximum possible influence as a force for good in Africa—and at the same time strategically tilting towards the Indo-Pacific. We will spend around half of our bilateral country ODA in Africa, where poverty and human suffering remain the most acute. We will focus 60% of that bilateral Africa spending on east Africa, to reflect the UK’s unique role and clear national strategic interest in countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and Sudan.
In answer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, I say that we will spend one-third of bilateral ODA in the Indo-Pacific and south Asia, supporting deeper engagement in that region, promoting open societies, reinforcing trade links and promoting collaboration on climate change. Although we are reducing the amount of ODA that the FCDO spends in China, we will continue to fund programmes on human rights and open societies.
The integrated review provides a vision for global Britain; a problem-solving and burden-sharing nation with a global perspective, embracing innovation in science and technology and a beacon of democratic sovereignty. Our leadership on international development —focused on the global fight against climate change, the environment and poverty—is a fundamental part of this integrated approach.
The strategic framework for international development that I have outlined represents a compelling and competitive offer to the developing world that is consistent with our values and interests. I am proud of our aid spending and the huge amount we do every day to support the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people. Even in the toughest economic times, we will continue that mission to deliver the vision of the integrated review and to act as a force for good.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his response to a debate marked by well-informed and wise speeches—many rooted in personal and first-hand experiences. In the absence of government time, the Cross Benches have performed an important service in facilitating this debate. The Minister has just told us what we are doing using our overseas development aid; indeed, it was a compelling speech about the importance of ODA. But he did not address what we will no longer be able to do—which is the point of this debate.
During the debate many noble Lords rightly paid tribute to Lord Judd. He was widely admired and respected. In the Commons, we overlapped by literally a few days—I was elected in a by-election just before the 1979 general election—but a friend put me in touch with him as someone whose brains I should pick. It was a privilege to meet him and subsequently, during my time in your Lordships’ House, we frequently found ourselves on the same side of the argument—as we would have been today. All sides of the House have rightly remembered him today with respect and affection.
Anyone who doubts the purpose or point of your Lordships’ House should read today’s debate. I thought that the arguments deployed, from wherever they came, were arguments that need to be addressed over the long term in the way we think about our development aid programmes. I hope that the Hansard report of the debate will be circulated widely to people who either disparage or do not understand the point of your Lordships’ House.
It is sometimes said that politics is the religion of priorities. In this instance, we have chosen the wrong priorities; we have made the wrong choice. We cannot say that we will be a force for good in the world—which is what I want this country to be—and then take this kind of decision.
These are just some of the headlines from the debate. Noble Lords have succinctly said things like: “This cut shames our country”; “There has been no risk assessment”; “It has been dog-whistle politics”; “We need to be more transparent”; “We can’t turn it on and turn it off”; “It’s a very serious mistake”; “These are deeply misguided proposals”; “We should be leading the world”; “War zones are poor zones” and “It’s particularly short-sighted and politically indefensible”. Another Peer said, “Sustainable development is in everyone’s interest.” We are told to be a “science superpower” and a “superpower in soft power” but these cuts will threaten our ability to influence either. Of course, we were also reminded of what the Minister himself said in a previous incarnation: that foreign aid benefits us all.
We have a clear legal obligation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and many others made that clear during the course of the debate. I did not feel that we had an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to that central question. I hope that a letter will be sent following the debate to those who participated, setting out the Government’s response on the legality and constitutionality of the decision that has been taken. Even though the Minister has tried to address a lot of the remarks that have been made, I hope he will not feel that is the end of this process. Prorogation is about to be on us, but I hope that he and his officials will sit and read Hansard, and respond to that central question and others that have not been answered.
There is a story about two Pre-Raphaelite painters, Rossetti and Morris. Whenever Rossetti saw someone in need, he would pour out everything in his pockets, walk away and never think about that person again. Morris, on the other hand, never gave a penny to anyone, but he said that he would work for a world in which there would be no more need. One was all heart and the other all head. In our debate today, we have heard a combination of those things. Martin Luther King put it well when he said:
“One day we will learn that the heart can never be totally right if the head is totally wrong. Only through the bringing together of head and heart, intelligence and goodness, shall man rise to a fulfilment of his true nature.”
Being a force for good, combining heart with head, surely lies at the heart of what we have been debating. I renew my thanks to everyone who has taken part in this excellent debate and I hope we will not walk away from this Room and forget the commitments the country has rightly entered into and which it must persist with. I thank all who have participated.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5.35 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit is one and a half hours.
Biodiversity
Baroness Boycott
That the Grand Committee takes note of the economic value of biodiversity and the report The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review, published on 2 February.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I thank my colleagues on the Cross-Benches for choosing this debate. I am delighted. It means that many others are as concerned about this issue as I am. Sadly, we live in a society that respects wealth more than issues of contentment and well-being, so much of which is provided by the world around us: our air, clean water, abundant oceans, the minerals from the earth, out of which we make more or less everything we have, and the fertility of the soil, which grows all our food and, indeed, everything else. This is provided entirely for free and is taken entirely for granted, but it is essential for life as we know it on earth. It is often quiet, silent and completely invisible to the naked human eye.
The Dasgupta report was commissioned by the Treasury, which is why it is so important. There is nothing fluffy or sentimental in it. It is not about Easter bunnies; it is about money. For the first time, we are putting a value on nature and asking the hard, tough questions about what natural services we have taken for granted for so long and for free.
Since I was born, just about 70 years ago, the world has changed beyond recognition. The number of people in poverty has reduced from 60% to 10% while populations have exploded. Life expectancy has increased. I do not mourn that, but I mourn the fact that this progress has been at the expense of the world around us. If we are to think of nature and progress as assets, we paid for progress by taking an overdraft out with nature, and we are almost at bankruptcy. Economists often say that we need to live within our means, and this is definitely the case with our biosphere. There is only one. You cannot order another online.
Globally, the pandemic has devastated economies and lives. Its cause was our faulty interaction with nature. Some 96% of all mammals on earth are now either us or the animals we chose to eat—60 billion of them fretting in feedlots and cages, fed on food grown on monocultures. It is not a good system in any way. Some 30% of the world is still hungry, 30% is getting fat and 30% of all the food grown is wasted. In 2019, the global assessment report on biodiversity concluded that 25% of species in animal and plant groups are threatened with extinction in the next few decades and more than 85% of global wetlands, which store huge amounts of carbon, have been lost.
Professor Dasgupta estimated that as a planet we spend about $500 billion a year on environmentally damaging subsidies. He also acknowledges that this is probably an underestimate. In contrast, subsidies considered to be biodiversity positive total just $890 million a year and subsidies considered beneficial stand at just €2.6 billion. If we include other public finance expenditure associated with the conservation of biodiversity, it gets us to just under $68 billion, so, even at a conservative estimate, environmentally damaging subsidies are dwarfing the protection of the environment at a rate of 7.5:1. We are losing this battle. We can still win the war, but we need to act now.
What are the hidden costs? Let me give the Committee a couple of vivid examples. The first has always stuck in my mind. It is a picture of a vast Chinese apple orchard where the workers are laboriously brushing fluffy paint brushes across apple blossoms to pollenate them. They are doing this because they have managed to kill all the bees by the increasing use of pesticides.
In India, which we see so much of right now, vultures used to keep the streets clean, but they have fallen foul of the anti-inflammatory drugs injected into cattle and buffalo. Now, when you drive through villages, there are piles of rubbish; there is more illness. At the towers of silence, where the Parsis bury their dead—they used to have their bodies picked to pieces by the vultures—they have actually had to install solar panels to shrivel and desiccate the corpses.
Closer to home, our vast fields of wheat and cereal crops grow in endless acres. It might look good, but what happens when you smell or listen? You will hear nothing—no birds and no insects—and there will probably be no trees. In short, what you are looking at is a factory—one loaded with chemicals to enable the crops to grow as fast as possible, and in the process destroying the soil beneath them. As that soil weakens, denied the chance to form new life forms in its natural cycle because of the deep ploughing and intensive farming, more money needs to be spent on chemicals to make those crops grow. It is a vicious cycle.
We have always thought that we can do better than nature, that human ingenuity could overcome shortfalls, and that we could bust through the natural limits imposed by nature’s constraints. In the process, we never asked the simple question: “What does nature do for us?” Now is the time for that question. Now is the time when we need to understand that we live in a world which is brilliantly organised and interconnected, full of different life forms which, together, enable species—including us—to flourish. From the act of photosynthesis, which combines sunlight, carbon and water to create the plants we live on, everything—until now—has had a place in this complexity, doing its bit for the community of life. Now we are literally pulling it apart, believing that it is, for instance, more productive to tear down a rainforest and plant a monocrop to feed ourselves. The results are clear: fires, floods, changing rainfall and temperature, and it is getting worse.
The future does not need to be like this. The Government have committed to this being the first generation to leave nature in a better condition, but we need to have policies in place to make this a reality. We could live in a country that does not use chemicals or practice monoculture farming, and which has adopted agroecology and agroforestry. It could be a country with nature corridors between wild areas, where the flora and fauna we have relied on could flourish. We could have communities with local food networks, with clean rivers we could swim in and beaches we could be proud of. Very importantly, it could be a country where children are educated as to the power of nature and the environment, and where citizens are empowered to understand these issues and make the right choices, and, in turn, purchase products safe in the knowledge that no orangutans have been hurt or habitats compromised.
The Treasury has posed three big questions: what are the economic benefits of biodiversity; what are the economic costs when biodiversity is lost; and what practical actions can be taken to enhance economic prosperity and biodiversity. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, said in a debate on biodiversity:
“Ultimately all economic activity is derived from nature.”
I could not agree more. He went on to say that he was,
“absolutely convinced that this can be the year that change begins in earnest.”—[Official Report, 22/4/2021; col. GC 416.]
I hope that this is the case, but if we do not accept this report’s recommendations and we continue running roughshod over nature, this will not be the year of change. Nothing other than a decisive steer off our current trajectory will do the trick. To take this crisis seriously, the Government need to adopt the recommendations of this report to ensure that what the Stern review did for climate change and energy, the Dasgupta Review can do for biodiversity loss.
What can we do? It is a question that I often ask myself: how best can we affect change? Globally, the problems are immense, but that is not to say that there are not huge improvements that must be made here. For many reasons, countries still look to the UK as a bellwether or indicator, so implementing the best policy here at home will have ramifications abroad. We did it with the Climate Change Act and we can do it with this. We must send out a clear message through our foreign policy and our trade policy, and through our financial markets, to lead the world by valuing the economics of biodiversity.
When the Environment Bill comes to this place next Session, we must work together to include a robust and legally binding framework that will ensure that we keep to the targets. Some are calling this a state of nature target. We need to push other countries to do the same. On this, the Minister said last week:
“We are pressing hard for the highest possible ambition and, crucially, we are pushing for inclusion of mechanisms to hold Governments to the promises they make, which currently is lacking.”—[Official Report, 22/4/2021; col. GC 414.]
He is, of course, completely correct, but so far we lack this mechanism, and we cannot ask others to do something we will not do ourselves.
With the competing priorities of government it can sometimes be easy to put something off, if it is not absolutely immediate, but it falls to all of us to hold the Government’s feet to the fire to make the case for policies to stop the twin threats of climate change and biodiversity loss. If the Government are serious, then implementing the report’s contents is too good an opportunity to pass up. This is about saving not just the planet but humans’ place on it. It is 100% in our self-interest to mobilise everything at our disposal to stop what will otherwise be inevitable.
I say to finance ministries around the world: the future is genuinely in your hands. Only you can charge other ministries and create domestic budget oversight bodies ensuring environmental compatibility with spending. If we are to have truly sustainable economic growth and development, or at least a good life, then we have to understand that our long-term prosperity relies on balancing our demands on the planet. We have to account for what our impacts on nature really cost. It is a balance sheet—one in which economics and ecology must stand side by side. Nature is not separate from the economy, a drag on growth or an expensive, luxurious distraction. It is not, as I said, about fluffy rabbits or nice animals on TV. It is, essentially, our economy; it is where we get everything from.
This is such a crucial year. We have the G7 and COP 26 ahead of us, as well as the CBD meeting. It would be a waste and a mistake to confine climate change to COP and biodiversity to the CBD. They both come from the same source: our failure to understand the interconnected nature of our world. They must be solved together. This is the year that we have the chance; please let us seize it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust and as patron or vice-president of several environmental organisations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, outlined, the Dasgupta Review makes it absolutely clear that if we continue to destroy nature at the rate we are, not only will we risk the survival of all species but there will be catastrophic consequences for our economy, our well-being and our very survival. As an example, the Woodland Trust’s recent report on the state of the UK’s woods and trees emphasised the critical role of our native woods and trees in supporting our future prosperity, including in locking up carbon, improving our health and well-being, and reducing pollution and flooding.
It is good to see the Government championing the review internationally. This must be backed by an ambitious approach to its implementation domestically. We have literally a once-in-a-century opportunity post Covid to rebuild the ecological foundations of our wealth and well-being. The Treasury will have a key role in embedding the Dasgupta principles into the UK economic framework for local and national government, and for business. Government incentives, regulation and guidance will be important too. Measurability will be key: we need a clear framework for measuring nature, as clear as we have for measuring climate change and carbon reduction. To prevent further damage to our already precarious ecosystems, we need legally binding targets in the delayed Environment Bill to halt—and to begin to reverse—declines in nature by 2030.
Lastly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, said, let us learn from the hugely influential Stern report on the economics of climate change. Nicholas Stern—the noble Lord, Lord Stern—worked his socks off to see his report implemented nationally and internationally. Whatever he did right, let us see a similar sustained effort for the Dasgupta report.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for her powerful opening speech, articulating the values of this report at a time when the evidence shows that nature’s resilience is being severely eroded, yet our economy, livelihoods and well-being all rely on nature. The Government need to use the opportunities they have this year at the G7, CBD COP 15 and COP 26 to showcase the report’s findings and their framework for nature. To do that credibly, they must respond formally, before the start of these events, and show how they are using all opportunities to deliver, despite the National Audit Office’s report that there is still a long way to go before we can have confidence that the Government have the right framework to deliver on the aspirations in their 25-year environment plan.
There are a number of areas where the reality is not in step with the Government’s stated ambitions. In the short time that I have, I will raise just one: the proposed exemption for Treasury Ministers from having due regard to the Government’s policy statement on environmental principles. This policy statement is a key tool to drive delivery across government of the 25-year environment plan. The duty for Ministers to have regard to it does not give undue weight to the environment but just embeds consideration of the importance of policy on the environment in decision-making.
Professor Dasgupta argued for a new vocabulary to factor the value of the environment into our economy. This exemption shows that the Treasury is not even prepared to open the dictionary. If the Government were to remove it before the Environment Bill returns to Parliament, that would be a powerful symbol of business not as usual. Without that, there is little hope of embedding nature into decision-making and delivering the protection for the natural resources on which we all depend.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, there is a scene in “The Simpsons Movie” where the dysfunctional family arrives in Alaska and is handed a wad of money, and the border guard says, “Here is $1,000. We give everyone in Alaska this, in exchange for letting us destroy the environment”. It seems that that is the view a lot of people take of the tension between growth and nature—that, somehow, man is a pollutant or despoiler and that capitalism is intrinsically bad for the natural world.
When I got to visit Alaska with my children a few years later, I was very surprised to see that there had been a most extraordinary rise in biodiversity there. We saw virtually every one of the characteristic animals. We saw sea otters, which were almost extinct at the beginning of the 20th century and now cutely hold hands as they float on every surface. We also saw whales, whose recovery has been one of the untold stories of the past 30 years, bears and eagles—the works. This is not only true in Alaska. When you have a country where there is sufficient economic progress that people want to shoot with cameras rather than guns, it creates a space.
It is an observable fact that you are breathing cleaner air and drinking cleaner water in London, as compared to Lahore, because it is a wealthier place. I do not think I had seen a red kite in the wild before my 30s; now, they are as common as eagles in Alaska—I was about to say, “as pigeons”. I had never seen an otter in the wild until five years ago; I would have doubted my eyes, except that you can hardly mistake an otter for anything else. The Thames was biologically dead in the 50s; now, you can fish salmon in it.
The point I am making is that economic growth creates a space for environmental protection—this is a luxury that poor and developing countries do not have. My noble friend Lord Ridley has a nice phrase, which is that 50 years ago, wolves, tigers and lions were all endangered; now, wolves have rebounded, tigers are flatlining and lions remain endangered. Why? Because wolves live in rich countries, tigers live in middle-income ones and lions live in poor ones.
Let me close by mentioning one technology that is not plugged in the Dasgupta Review. It talks about using GM and so on as a way of freeing up more space, but I note the ability we now have to fabricate meat—not meat substitute but actual cells that are grown, as it were, so that you can grow the chicken breast without the head, feathers, feet and all the rest of it. Think of how that will free up those ghost acres and barren landscapes of which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, spoke. Think of how that will free up the space that we use for feed growth and animals. Is it not a wonder that technology will continue to deliver these marvels to an ungrateful world?
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for sponsoring this debate and for her very persuasive and articulate opening comments. My interests are as recorded in the register, but, in particular, as far as this debate is concerned, I note that I chair Cawood Scientific, an analytical company whose range includes soil testing et cetera.
The Dasgupta Review is extremely helpful, and I fully endorse its conclusions on the seriousness of the issue of biodiversity loss and the decline of ecosystems. We must take action. The report calls for “transformative change” and suggests
“insisting that financiers invest our money sustainably, that firms disclose environmental conditions along their supply chains … and even boycotting products that do not meet standards.”
This assumes that, in time, the market will influence behaviour and enable pull-through. However, at present, this is not the case; the concept of natural capital accounting is in its infancy and not developed. It will take time for market pull-through.
Until such time, the Government have only two key tools at their disposal to address the concerns identified in the report: legislation and incentivisation. As stated in the report, this is a global challenge that will be addressed only if local action is taken on the ground—literally, on the ground. What legislation might the Government be considering through the office for environmental protection within the Environment Bill? What incentives might be available through the environmental land management scheme for farmers and growers? Will this require an environmental audit for each farm to target the actions required to enhance natural capital and biodiversity gain? It would be helpful if the Minister could consider these questions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Sikka.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Dasgupta Review reminds us that the trappings of neoliberal capitalism, its unrestrained pursuit of growth, consumption, exploitation and accumulation of private wealth, have brought humanity to the edge of disaster. Paradoxically, the review seeks a solution to the crisis of nature and biodiversity within the framework of neoliberal capitalism, which is unlikely to make a significant difference. For example, it emphasises the need to correct what it calls “pricing distortions” because, currently
“most of Nature’s worth to society—its accounting prices—are not reflected in market prices”.
It recommends that natural capital be brought into national accounting mechanisms; that is, that the externality of nature be expressed in terms of money. One consequence of this will be to treat nature as a tradeable commodity and to unleash a different kind of crisis. The use of terms such as “capital” is problematical, as it signifies something which is to be exploited and privately appropriated.
There is also a fundamental error in the review. Just because something is priced does not mean that it will not be exploited, at least by those who can afford to pay. Does financialisation deliver the desired outcomes? Carbon pricing generates a lot of revenues, but it has not significantly reduced global resource consumption or emissions. To save humanity and all living things, we need a transformation of education and society. Equitable distribution of income and wealth and stakeholder capitalism are the first necessary stepping stones towards that goal. I hope that the Government will embrace them.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on getting this debate and on her excellent introduction. When I first saw the title of the report, The Economics of Biodiversity, I was a little conflicted, because there is the overwhelming sense that our economic system has always hugely undervalued the natural world, which has led to huge damage and very poor decision-making. The second feeling is one of concern that, by looking at the natural world through the lens of economics, we risk repeating exactly the same mistakes that got us into this mess. The answer is not more banking, more financial engineering and more big business.
I was elated to see that the Dasgupta Review recognised exactly that; in fact, the report almost reads like a Green Party publication in its criticisms of the status quo, so much so that the Government have glossed over some of its biggest sections. In particular, they seem completely to have ignored Dasgupta’s criticism of gross national product as an economic measure:
“The contemporary practice of using Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to judge economic performance is based on a faulty application of economics.”
It goes on to say that GDP ignores
“the degradation of the natural environment”
and
“is wholly unsuitable for appraising investment projects and identifying sustainable development.”
Perhaps even more importantly, it states that
“in recent decades eroding natural capital has been precisely the means the world economy has deployed for enjoying what is routinely celebrated as ‘economic growth’”.
This has been obvious to Greens for decades; it is one of their foundational principles that sets green philosophy apart from other political parties and movements. Politicians have to end their obsession with economic growth and understand that we are on a finite planet with finite resources.
My question and challenge to the Minister is: what are the Government doing to replace GDP with proper economic measures that do not make trashing our planet look like economic success?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on securing this debate. I want to touch on the main factor that is driving the world’s ecological footprint, which is consumption. The debacle over who paid for the Prime Minister’s Downing Street refurbishment is serious because of where the money came from and because of where the truth lies, but it is really serious because, if we are to address the issues in this excellent report, we must all address our consumption habits. The Prime Minister refurbishing a perfectly decent living space that was recently redecorated and had pretty much new furniture is setting a very poor example. We need to address thoughtless and wanton consumption. Professor Dasgupta’s report states that
“consumption in high income countries … is projected to remain the key factor in driving the world’s ecological footprint”
The section of the report on supply-chain innovation and trade lays out how we can create systems to ensure that, when we consume, we do so more responsibly. Part 3 of the Environment Bill, which we will have the opportunity to amend in the Lords, talks about producer responsibility. Given Professor Dasgupta’s report, I believe it needs to have something on consumer responsibility as well. I hope that we can add that when the Bill comes to the Lords.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, this report is a bold assembly of experience and data in a worldwide context. The fact that we live and breathe means that we all have an interest to declare. I will declare a further interest in the subject of this report as our family runs a livestock farm in Scotland. Along with that, for 40 years I owned a wetland national nature reserve designated for its wild flower and botanical interests. At the last count, our enthusiastic bird-watchers had recorded more than 200 species within the boundaries, so at this level at least I have some acquaintance with biodiversity.
However, this report presents what are likely to become the criteria on which any government rural support will be based, and we still have to see whether its proposals will make any effort that is required worth while. Section 22 of the abridged report discusses ways to get natural capital recognised in accounting practice, as the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said. In the sale of retail food, the firm’s reputation matters. I know that one supermarket is promising that by 2030 all its food will be net-zero carbon. Many farmers are now considering how close they can get to net-zero production. One result may be that a large part of rural carbon sequestration that the Government are counting on may be used to offset elements of food production. Fundamentally, the question still remains whether biodiversity can best be achieved through extensive rewilding or intense ecological management.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Boycott for securing this important debate and introducing it so eloquently. The Dasgupta Review makes eminently good sense, but I fear that, like so many well-intentioned reports, its very commissioning will be considered an end in itself. After a little debate it will be filed under the heading “too difficult”. Trying to persuade a country that it needs to change its attitude to what constitutes wealth is no easy task.
The issue of climate change has been one concerning environmentalists for decades. Only now, when there is no escaping the threat it poses, genuine action is being taken. For years it was embraced in name only by companies in search of enhanced image without undertaking any real change.
The broader biodiversity issue is destined for similar treatment. Take, for instance, the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. It sounds very worthy. More than 200 companies are proud to be members, but how committed are they to the ideas of genuine sustainability? Forgive my cynicism, but when the three worst companies on the offenders list compiled every year by Break Free From Plastic—Coca Cola, Pepsi and Nestlé, which have held those positions for the past three years—can proudly proclaim their membership of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, it is hard to believe that change will come about without firm action from government.
We now insist that companies report on carbon emissions. If this report is to be effective, we have to find a way of forcing companies to report on their use of natural capital. It will not be easy, but will the Minister commit to trying to work with the Financial Reporting Council and its successor to find a way that this might be done?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. This report educates the debate on economic growth, the environment and climate change. Remedial measures are being announced that may not have been thoroughly costed and cannot consider future developments in science and technology. Science in this area is recent, complex and often controversial. This is not to excuse or argue for delay, but to underline priorities and risks.
First, the unarguable point is that vast resources are required for most actions to mitigate and resolve the issues. The least costly and most effective measure that can be taken is the use of the education system. If the population develops best practice, the cost of remedial measures will fall. Could the Minister reassure us that the education system is central to the solution?
Secondly, in farming, overreaction to threats and overoptimism on benefits could lead to unforeseen food shortages; nature is capricious. The reduced harvest of 2020 experienced by most farmers could well be repeated in 2021, with the recurrence of the same weather conditions. The Government’s policies are likely to cause a lot of farmland to come out of food production. Consider the political consequences of food shortages and price rises.
Thirdly, has anyone really thought through the funding and maintenance aspects of the Government’s tree strategy, which is so important to biodiversity? Growers need a current commercial return.
Climate change must be urgently addressed and biodiversity is central. Could the Minister confirm that the issue is not about who shouts the loudest, but who has done their quiet homework on the affordability and consequences of what is involved?
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as well as being one of my favourite lecturers at university, Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta has done all of us a great service through his seminal report. By framing the economics of biodiversity around nature as an essential asset, he triggers a whole series of logical follow-on questions. How do we properly account for the depletion of this asset? How do we manage it and replenish it? What is the portfolio effect from diversification? As a finance geek, I find these analogies both comforting in their conceptual familiarity but also perceptive in identifying the consequences of our actions.
However, my interest in nature extends well beyond economics and finance to the world of philanthropic impact. As noted in my register of interests, I have the honour of serving on the board of the British Asian Trust, a charitable foundation established by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. We recently merged with Elephant Family, a respected conservation charity providing a wider canvas across south Asia. This megadiverse region has revived several important species from the brink of extinction.
I am therefore pleased to inform your Lordships that, in just under three weeks’ time, we will bring alive India’s rich biodiversity through a high-profile campaign called CoExistence. More than 100 life-sized elephants will transform the Royal Parks and other locations across London. These elephants are handmade from lantana camara, an invasive weed whose removal from protected areas benefits wildlife by leaving more space to roam. Each work of art is a sight to behold.
The aim of this campaign is to highlight how India’s indigenous communities live alongside wild elephants in denser populations than anywhere else in the world, competing for food and space. Our objective is to build a network of corridors supporting human-wildlife coexistence. This campaign provides a small but practical way in which the theoretical underpinnings of Professor Dasgupta’s report can be brought to life.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is not on the call so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on securing this debate and introducing it so eloquently, which is greatly appreciated. I refer to my interests in the register.
I quote David Attenborough in the foreword to the report:
“The Dasgupta Review at last puts biodiversity at its core and provides the compass that we urgently need. In doing so, it shows us how, by bringing economics and ecology together, we can help save the natural world at what may be the last minute—and in doing so, save ourselves.”
I think this is the first time that, in reality, we are valuing natural capital and putting a price on nature. If that really is the case, we should recognise the role that farmers play in protecting our ecosystems and in which case, farmers should in fact be the wealthiest folk in the land. When she comes to sum up the debate, will the Minister tell us how farmers will benefit under the Agriculture Act and the forthcoming Environment Bill if they do not own or possess the natural capital but take the economic risk, which is particularly the case for tenant farmers?
What will the particular role of the Treasury be in delivering on biodiversity in the Environment Bill, as it will fall to Defra to implement its provisions and, as I mentioned earlier, those of the Agriculture Act, which is already on the statute book? I hope that my noble friend and her colleagues at the Treasury will take an active role in delivering for natural capital, protecting our ecosystems and recognising the role that the farming community and farmers will play in this regard.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has withdrawn so I call the noble Earl, Lord Devon.
The Earl of Devon (CB) [V]
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for this crucial debate and Professor Dasgupta for his decades of ground-breaking work, to which this is a fitting culmination. I note my interests as a graduate of St John’s College, an environmental land manager, a lawyer with clients in this field and a citizen investor who is passionate about biodiversity.
Professor Dasgupta highlights the need for systemic change to combat our rampant assault on biodiversity, with a focus on education—[Inaudible]—our affection for nature into a learned appreciation of it through mandatory nature studies and better access to nature in all her glorious forms. He says that
“we should all in part be naturalists.”
Will the Government add nature studies to the core national curriculum? Will they also support safe access to the countryside, under ELMS or otherwise, that does not in itself damage biodiversity? Will they consider food and product labelling to identify natural capital costs, allowing consumers to read about the rainforest degradation inherent in every bite of a Brazilian soybean burger?
On finance, how will the Government amend their economic measures to account for natural capital? New Zealand recently adopted a well-being budget. This year, when we will host COP 26, will the UK adopt a biodiversity budget, or at least recognise the consumption of natural capital in all its financial models?
Core to Professor Dasgupta’s message is the need to price biodiversity. He recommends that the ONS establishes an inclusive value to counter the short-term pull of financial returns. As we establish ELMS, will the Government do that? If they fail to do so, the dominant price will be that of carbon, and we may lose yet more biodiversity in our worthy pursuit of carbon sequestration. What a tragedy it will be if the Government’s ambitious tree strategy is satisfied by desolate hectares of coniferous monoculture—a biodiversity wasteland.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness on obtaining this debate and point to my declarations in the register of interests.
If the conclusions of the Dasgupta report about biodiversity are right—I believe that, in general, they are—they are equally applicable in a range of other activities, including climate change and another of my general interests, the preservation of the historic environment, in which I have a specific registered interest. This report is a severe critique of the way we are now and the way we do things these days. The report’s conclusions rest on the simple but far from new proposition that we are custodians of the world we live in, as opposed to us being its master and it our slave—a concept that, in our tradition, goes back to a misreading of the first chapter of Genesis. You do not have to be a fully-fledged adherent to James Lovelock’s Gaia theory to recognise the interdependence of creation.
In my view, the fundamental problem is the troika of greed, its better-mannered twin brother, profit maximisation, and envy, which are exhibited by individuals, businesses and Governments wherever you look. Everything is measured in monetary currency. Other values are converted into monetary values, which invariably lose worth in the exchange. The evidence behind the Dasgupta report shows that this approach is failing in a manner of ways. This Government—indeed, all responsible Governments—recognise this in principle, which is a good start. I have no doubt that the Minister will endorse this in her concluding remarks; I would be horrified if she did not. However, as she will know, that is not the real response, which is to be seen in deeds, not words, and may well include involvement in activities far beyond our shores—as occurred in the Second World War, for example. It is how the Government deal with this as a leader, not a follower. It is not what they say on the Floor of the House that matters, but what they do in the real world.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, a character in an old radio programme had this catchphrase: “The answer lies in the soil”—although he said it in a strong West Country accent, which I could not possibly copy. The fact is that he was right. In his remarkable report, Professor Dasgupta emphasises the economic value of the soil as an ecosystem fundamental to life.
The problem is that, although we know some of the things that endanger soil, we know very little about how it works, although the farmers and gardeners among your Lordships will know a good deal about the fertility of their own soil. Despite the fact that we know a lot about terrestrial mammals and higher plants, such as how many have become extinct and how many are in danger of disappearing, we know very little about the conservation status of the billions of fungi, bacteria and protozoa in the soil.
Despite our ignorance of how this complex life-supporting system works, we know what the threats are: overly intensive farming without putting anything back; excessive inorganic fertilisers destroying the finely balanced soil chemistry; wind erosion; monoculture; and covering it with concrete or tarmac. Flooding carries soils away, yet we know that planting trees can help to prevent this. The flooding we have suffered in the UK and around the world over recent decades has been caused by climate change, but it is less well known that the microorganisms that make up the living element of soil are also threatened by climate change. Healthy soil is the world’s largest carbon sink, but soil could shift to become a net emitter of carbon as global warming increases respiration by soil organisms.
Professor Dasgupta emphasised that
“it is less costly to conserve Nature than it is to restore it”.
Can the Minister tell us whether there has been an assessment of the economic value of our soil and the threats to it, and whether there is a strategy to conserve it?
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Carrington and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, in emphasising education, which is where Professor Dasgupta ends his report. Education is the foundation for all that we are required to do. We have been asked to make some very substantial changes in the way that we live and run the world. To do that, we are going to need a great deal of common understanding and consent. To achieve that, we are going to need an education system that equips our children with an understanding of nature and a real familiarity with it, so that they value it and it is part of their lives. They need to have an inherent understanding of why they are being asked to make room for it and the value of sharing their lives with it.
I know that this is not my noble friend the Minister’s responsibility but I really hope that she will find a way to get this message through to the Department for Education: there is something you can do here. You have in front of you a natural history GCSE, put together by OCR and very widely supported; we would like to see that starting in schools in September 2022. You need to do something now to let it through. I know that this is a hard time, and that this is not the easiest moment to focus on starting a new GCSE, but we all need to put our weight behind regenerating the environment. You, the Department for Education, have your bit to do, too.
A related suggestion that I would make to the same department, but via Defra, is that Defra should put some serious support behind the Queen’s Green Canopy. That is intended to involve every school in the country in celebrating the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee by planting trees and hedges. Schools are in no shape to do this well without finance or support. Put some money behind it and you will get every school in the country responding. Without money, it gets very difficult to do anything significant.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as usual, I declare my interest in this area as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. In terms of some of the related climate finance, I also declare my role as a trustee of the Green Purposes Company, which holds a green share in the Green Investment Bank.
I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for having brought this debate to Grand Committee. It is great that we are actually giving this subject the level of attention in the House that it deserves. Her reminder that we have only one biosphere is particularly important. I liked—or disliked—her reference to vultures. I remember my first visit to south Asia in the early 1980s. You knew you were coming to a settlement well ahead from the fact that large black vultures circled above these settlements. When I visited there more recently, they were almost completely absent. She is right to show that as an example of a loss of biodiversity, but also to show its implications throughout human society.
I welcome the fact that the Treasury is involved in this issue and that it took the initiative to have Professor Dasgupta produce this report. We as parliamentarians all know that the Treasury actually does stuff and decides stuff, which is not true of many of the departments that we sometimes talk about and deal with. This is a serious subject in a serious department of government.
A number of things are absolutely clear from the Dasgupta Report and this debate. First, biodiversity is a real problem: it is a big issue, and we are failing in that area. The statistics are not just bad but continuing to get worse. In the period from 1970, not just globally but equally in the UK, there has been a 40% fall in a number of key indicators of biodiversity, but they have been even worse since 1990.
Some 10 years ago, there was the UN conference on biodiversity in Japan; the 20 Aichi targets were laid down there, and globally we have met none of them. The Government suggest that we have met six of them in the UK, but NGOs suggest that it is only one. My noble friend Lady Parminter mentioned the National Audit Office report, which was very condemning—regrettably—about the progress in relation to the 25-year environment plan, which we all welcome but want implemented and to be successful.
The other thing that we have all now recognised is that our national accounting does not work in the way that we need it to. As the report says so well, it takes account of produced—and perhaps human—capital to some degree, but not natural capital. GDP, described as a “flow” of economic activity, does not include depreciation, as I understand it from the P&L accounts that I look at. This cannot work well for us into the future; it is important but needs to be supplemented.
This issue of biodiversity is complex, and we should not ever run away from that. It is not an easy issue to measure or solve. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, mentioned, we need metrics, but those are not easy here. Climate change is so much easier in terms of tracking what is happening in relation to greenhouse gas emissions or the proportion of CO in the atmosphere—that is not the case for biodiversity. As Professor Dasgupta himself says, the economics of biodiversity is a hard subject, and we should not underestimate that.
We have also learned that we have the twin emergencies of not just biodiversity but climate change. Although there are clear areas of common interest, such as nature-based solutions and carbon sequestration, we know that we cannot solve just one of these; we have to solve both. We cannot have one without the other; both are fundamental to the survival of not just us but our planet in the way that we know it.
Contentiously, Professor Dasgupta mentions food production as being one of the biggest problems. That is the case, and it is also true in the United Kingdom, regrettably. I do not blame farmers for this; I blame the way that they have been incentivised in the past. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Curry, mentioned ELMS, which I hope will reorient that sufficiently—it is a big ask. Of course, my noble friend Lady Walmsley mentioned the soil—again, ELMS will be important in making sure that we give that greater attention.
As my noble friend Lady Miller mentioned, the other area is that we are consuming more than our planet can provide; that is very clear in this report. We consume 1.6 planets’ worth, in comparison to what we have available to us, and we have to look at that. We are embedded in nature, and we have to make sure that our consumption, as well as the way that we treat nature, is managed.
As such, we have no easy answers; we have only glimmers of the solution. A number of those are mentioned in the Dasgupta Report, but we do not, by any means, have a comprehensive answer yet about how to deliver in relation to biodiversity challenges. However, one thing that comes out to me from this is that we have an emergency. We need look no further than the World Economic Forum in Davos, which sees biodiversity as one of the top five challenges to the global economy into the future.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. First, on finance and coming back to the way capitalism can work, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, we found good ways that capitalism and green finance can work for climate change and renewable energy. Does the Minister see such ways forward for biodiversity? There is much work being done—the Green Finance Institute, which the Government support, is looking at that—but do we see answers on that in the near future?
Secondly, will the Government continue to look at alternative ways of accounting? It is not about getting rid of GDP but about using additional methods, as Professor Dasgupta mentioned. As he said,
“nations need to adopt a system of … accounts that records an inclusive measure of their wealth.”
That is: the stock of the economy’s assets, of which nature is one. I read a book recently by Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics, as many others will have done. Is the Treasury looking at those areas as well? Will it discuss this report with other countries? In my own area of Cornwall, we have the G7 happening in June. Will Professor Dasgupta be there with the Treasury to put forward those arguments?
Thirdly, will a Treasury Minister be at the CBD COP 15 conference in Kunming in October? I think that will be so important. Finally, will the Government have the guts and determination to declare a climate emergency?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the South Downs National Park Authority, which is responsible for preserving biodiversity in our protected landscape. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for tabling this important debate and for her thoughtful and incisive contribution.
There is no doubt that the Dasgupta Review is a hugely significant report. It builds on the work of the Natural Capital Committee and puts a new approach to natural assets at the heart of government, where it belongs. If the Government take it seriously, it has the potential to be a game-changer by delivering for biodiversity in the way that the Stern review put climate change centre stage; a point made by a number of noble Lords. The ball is now in the Chancellor’s court and we look forward to his response with considerable interest.
As the report points out, we rely on nature to provide us with food, water and shelter. It balances our environment and climate. It provides opportunities for recreation and enhanced health and well-being, but we have been very slow to put a value on these core assets that are fundamental to life. They have been taken for granted. As a result, we have allowed them to be overexploited and degraded.
Noble Lords have pointed out that biodiversity is declining faster than at any time in human history. Extinction rates are accelerating, and nature is finding it more and more difficult to adapt and survive. The complex interrelationship between living organisms, including humans, has been massively underestimated. We are close to the tipping point, where there is no way back, with potentially catastrophic consequences for economies and for human well-being. We agree with the persuasive conclusion in the report that nature and the contribution of our natural assets need to enter economic and financial decision-making just as goods, services and skills do now. For today’s debate I want to concentrate on four key issues.
First, as noble Lords have argued, the decline in biodiversity represents an emergency which now needs to be addressed urgently. There are actions which the Government can take immediately to begin to reverse the crisis. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset our priorities for nature through the Environment Bill. Does the Minister agree that we should use that Bill to set legally binding targets to reverse declines in nature by 2030? Does she agree that we should use the Bill to require meaningful baselines to be set, against which progress can be clearly monitored and reported?
Does the Minister accept that biodiversity net gain should be established as a fundamental principle applying to all government investment and infrastructure projects? Does she agree that we need a powerful and fully independent office for environmental protection, on a similar footing to the Committee on Climate Change, able to hold the Government fully to account on progress on these issues? All these things can be delivered in the next few months via the Environment Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond, noted earlier this month that
“to speak with authority internationally, the UK needs to get its own house in order.”
He was very frank with your Lordships’ House in saying:
“That is not the case at the moment.”—[Official Report, 13/4/21; col. 1149.]
So does the Minister agree that the steps I have outlined would give the UK greater credibility when representatives attend the Convention on Biological Diversity later this year, which will enable us to create an ambitious global response to the crisis?
Secondly, as the report points out, restoring our ecosystems not only addresses biodiversity and climate change but delivers wider economic benefits. It can also be used to create employment, which has high social benefit and quick returns. Research shows that green projects can be delivered quickly and effectively. They can have an immediate return on investment as well as creating rich and rewarding work. As we rebuild our economy after Covid, which has had a particular impact on opportunities for young people, does the Minister agree that there is a unique opportunity to be grasped? Already, other counties are creating ambitious green economic programmes. Are we now prepared to match and exceed the example shown by others by bringing forward £30 billion of capital investment in the next 18 months to support 400,000 much-needed, new, clean jobs?
Thirdly, the report makes a powerful case for resetting the UK’s economic framework and how we measure economic success. If we accept the premise that our economic success and biological success are intertwined, we need to find mechanisms to reflect the importance of nature in measuring our prosperity. At its heart, we need a strategy to conserve the precious natural assets we have. As has been said, food and water are not infinite. We need to place a new value on our land and sea stocks, and not just in the context of the measures in the recent Agriculture Act and Fisheries Act. This will require a shift to sustainable patterns of consumption and production right along the supply chains at a global level.
As a high-income country, we need to take more responsibility for the demands we place on the world’s ecological footprint. One example, as we have discussed, could be changing diets, ideally towards less meat consumption or at least promoting homegrown produce with a lower carbon footprint. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s policy and fiscal priorities can help to embed more sustainable consumption and production patterns? What plans do they have for making this a reality? How will they ensure that future spending plans across government reflect our biodiversity goals? Will they extend the use of green taxes to embed the principle of “polluter pays” and more fully reflect the damage being done to our environment? What proposals do they have to scale up incentives for private sector investment in nature recovery initiatives?
Finally, the report makes the crucial point that citizens should demand and shape the change we seek. This debate is not just about big government and shifting capital; it is also about local knowledge and passion for nature in the community. In the UK, we are seeing a widespread awakening that nature matters and is part of our well-being. This was already taking place before the pandemic but has gathered pace over the past year. We need to ensure that local communities have a real say in how our environment is protected and utilised for the future.
This is a big report in every sense. I hope that in her response the Minister can confirm that the Chancellor is up for the challenge and intends to match Professor Dasgupta’s challenge with the sort of action that could really make a difference. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of the Treasury and the Government. I thank noble Lords for their many insightful and constructive contributions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has been a significant degree of consensus—although not complete consensus—on the importance of this issue and on the action that needs to follow on from the report.
The Government’s position is simple: protecting and enhancing our natural assets and the biodiversity that underpins them are crucial to achieving sustainable, resilient economies. That is why the Government commissioned the independent and globally focused Dasgupta Review on the economics of biodiversity. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, noted, the review has particular significance as the first such review commissioned by a finance ministry.
I thank Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta for his landmark review. It makes a clear and compelling case for nature as vital for the health of our economies as well as that of our planet. The Government welcomed the publication of the review, not least as a strong example of UK thought leadership on an important environmental issue with clear but often overlooked economic implications. We are now reviewing and examining the review’s findings and encouraging international partners to do the same. We will respond formally in due course. I assure noble Lords that action on many of the issues raised by the review is already under way and need not await the Government’s response.
The Government have already legislated to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, as we all know. Through the Environment Bill, we will deliver on our commitment to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better condition than how we found it, as set out in the 25-year environment plan. The Bill includes setting a new and ambitious domestic framework for environmental governance, embedding environmental principles in future policy-making, setting legally binding targets for environmental improvement—including on biodiversity—and strengthening environmental oversight with the new office for environmental protection scrutinising progress and enforcing compliance. The Bill also includes: measures to reduce waste, including single-use plastics; the creation of a deposit return scheme; strengthened power for locals authorities to address air quality issues; improving the sustainable management of our water resources; and creating a mandatory requirement for biodiversity net gain in the planning system.
This strengthens the action already taken to reform farm payments and create the environmental land management scheme to promote sustainable agriculture by paying farmers for work that protects and restores the environment, which a number of noble Lords touched on in their remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Curry, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh asked specific questions about the operation of those schemes, which I am happy to write on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the economic value of soil and what plans we have to address soil degradation. In 2022, we will start rolling out some elements of the environmental land management scheme. The sustainable farming initiative will support sustainable approaches to farm husbandry to deliver for the environment, such as actions to improve soil health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked a question in relation to the Bill on the fact that taxation, spending and the allocation of resources are excluded from the remit of the principles contained in the Bill and the work of the office for environmental protection. This provides maximum flexibility in respect of the nation’s finances. I assure noble Lords that this exemption will apply only to the allocation of funding between multiple policies or programmes to or between departments. It is not an exemption for any policy that requires spending. Further, the Treasury takes environmental impacts into account in the Green Book, which guides policy-making decisions at fiscal events. The Treasury is undertaking work to strengthen those guidelines on environmental policies, including biodiversity. In particular, there is a current review of the environmental discount rate and work is under way on biodiversity evaluation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, rightly noted as essential so that we can measure the impact of our policies on biodiversity.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering also asked how the Treasury would contribute to the Environment Bill. That work on biodiversity valuation is one example of how it will do so, as it is an essential part of the requirement for biodiversity net gain included in the Bill that the planning system should be able to measure what biodiversity net gain there is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and many others asked about GDP and role of biodiversity and natural accounting in our national accounting. GDP remains one of our most important economic indicators, because it correlates closely with employment, income and tax receipts and helps guide economic policy. However, the Government recognise that it has its limitations. Indeed, those were acknowledged in Sir Charles Bean’s Independent Review of UK Economic Statistics in 2016. The Government have fully supported the recommendations of that review, including through providing the ONS with an additional £25 million to support its Beyond GDP initiative to address the limitations of GDP. As part of that work, the ONS published comprehensive natural accounts last year and has started to publish human capital accounts as well, both of which are central to the Dasgupta Review’s “inclusive wealth” concept.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, asked about government investment in green jobs. The Treasury has supported a green recovery at the spending review and in this year’s Budget. The spending review backed our Ten Point Plan for a Green Industrial Revolution with £12 billion of government investment to create highly skilled green jobs in the UK, and spur over three times as much private sector investment by 2030. The spending review also increased Defra’s budget by almost £1 billion, helping it to harness the power of nature in the fight against climate change, and to connect people with green spaces by creating habitats and investing in national parks. We have also committed more than £600 million to the nature for climate fund in England, which will support our objective to plant 30,000 hectares of trees a year in the UK by 2025 and to restore more peatlands. During the pandemic, we also set up the £80 million green recovery challenge fund to help our environmental NGOs and their partners invest in a wide range of natural capital improvement projects, including tree-planting and habitat restoration, while protecting jobs.
A number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Lucas—raised education. Nature is covered in the national curriculum, and schools have the autonomy to explore the topic further. What is more, in 2017, we introduced a new environmental science A-level which will enable pupils to study topics that support their understanding of climate change and how it can be tackled. An economics A-level also requires the study of the allocation of scarce resources, which could include the effects of economic decisions and activity on the environment.
My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised with me before OCR’s proposal for a new GCSE in natural history. The Department for Education is exploring that and has held an initial discussion with OCR, but I should say that it has made no commitment at this stage to introduce such a GCSE.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the question of consumer responsibility in the Environment Bill, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, asked about information and labelling for consumers to improve their understanding of the products they buy. There is an important connection between the products we buy and their wider environmental footprint. The Environment Bill will help consumers to make purchasing decisions that support the market for more sustainable products through powers to introduce clear product labelling that identifies products that are more durable, repairable and recyclable and informs consumers about how to dispose of used products. Clauses will also enable us to set minimum eco-design requirements for products and require the provision of information to buyers to support a shift towards more sustainable products. The Bill also includes an amendment to tackle illegal deforestation in agricultural commodity supply chains.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and others asked about the role of finance. We absolutely acknowledge the importance of encouraging financial institutions to understand and disclose the impact of their activities on nature. To this end, the Government have offered their support to the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosure, which looks to do just that.
That is some of the work that we are undertaking at home but, as noble Lords have noted, biodiversity loss is a global crisis. Biodiversity underpins all economic activities and human well-being. It is estimated that $44 trillion-worth of economic value generation—more than half the world’s total GDP—is moderately or highly dependent on nature, yet global capital accounts show that from 1990 to 2014 almost 90% of countries have seen declines in their natural capital per head of population.
That is why arresting and reversing the fast decline in biodiversity also requires concerted and co-ordinated action internationally. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, noted, this year is critical. As co-host of the COP 26 climate conference, we have made nature one of the core themes that we will raise. As president of this year’s G7, the UK will ensure that the natural world stays right at the top of the global agenda, although I cannot speculate on the cast list or invite list for the G7 at this time.
As noble Lords have also noted, the international summit on the Convention on Biological Diversity, to be held in China this year, will see the world come together to agree long-term global biodiversity targets, and as such is a key opportunity to set nature on the path to recovery. The Government have committed to playing a leading role in the development of an ambitious set of global biodiversity targets under the convention. The Government are demonstrating genuine leadership in other ways too, and have so far committed to spend at least £3 billion over five years on nature and nature-based solutions in developing nations as part of our £11.6 billion commitment to double our international climate finance from 2021 to 2025.
We also committed in the UK’s green finance strategy to ensure that our ODA is aligned with our commitments under the Paris Agreement for climate change. Also, as we a signatory to the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, the Prime Minister has committed to mainstreaming nature into all government policy and investment, so officials are also undertaking work to explore how we can nature-proof ODA, not just climate-proof it, and indeed make it nature positive. We have striven to raise ambitions on the international stage as pioneers of the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature, which has now been signed by more than 80 countries. Signatories have committed to 10 critical actions to reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. At the same time, the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People, co-chaired by the UK, has managed to get more than 50 countries to pledge their support for the 30x30 targets to protect at least 30% of the world’s land and ocean by May 2030. Of course, the UK has signed up to that itself.
I have tried to cover an immense amount of ground, but I have not managed to cover all the ground noble Lords did in this debate. I apologise to those whose points I did not manage to address directly. I will happily write to all those who have taken part in this debate to pick those up afterwards.
I close by saying that this has been an incredibly important debate. I think it is welcome that a finance ministry, the Treasury, is engaged on these issues. That shapes how we approach our action as a Government on biodiversity and climate change, which, as many noble Lords have said, are two sides of the same coin. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and, finally, make the Government’s position clear: biodiversity loss is an issue of critical importance on which we are determined to continue taking action, at home and internationally.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank everyone who spoke and the Minister for that detailed response, which managed to cover a great many of the points that were raised. We have an emergency—I noted that the Minister did not use that word in her response. I thoroughly applaud the Treasury for producing this report. At the beginning of her reply, she mentioned the “thought leadership” approach and said that it was thought leadership for the world. The important thing is that this becomes much more than thought; it has to become action and that has to happen in the Environment Bill, with a lot of detail. It is not enough to just make general sweeping decisions that we have to take nature into consideration; this needs money and attention to detail.
As various noble Lords have pointed out, it is relatively simple to figure out how to lower our carbon emissions because they are measurable, but measuring biodiversity and natural capital is a whole other ball game. I would plead that this huge and fantastic report does not end up on a shelf, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, implied that it might—because many reports do—but instead really becomes a call to action.
I thoroughly endorse the plea of the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for this to get into education. At the end of the day, this is our home and we are asset managers. In the same way that we are lamentable in teaching schoolchildren how to look after their finances, it is now time that we taught them how to look after their larger world. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for bringing up the subject of consumption, which I had not talked about. The consumption habits and patterns of our world are quite unsustainable if we want to make radical change. I cannot respond to every single point, but I thank everyone very much.
I will leave the Committee with one last story. This is not the first time that this has happened, and it has had disastrous consequences. Some 15 years ago, I found myself in Leptis Magna on the north coast of Africa—in a desert with a wonderful old Roman city in it. It had an extraordinary market where they pulled the water down from the mountains and kept it underneath the market to keep the vegetables cool. You look around and think, “Vegetables? What are they talking about?”. But the Romans went to north Africa because it was the bread-basket of the Mediterranean at that point. It was so fertile and extraordinary that they could get three wheat harvests a year.
They sustained their civilisation but did not know what they were doing: they planted the crops too often and planted monocrops, and it all fell apart. It was fine then because you just packed your suitcase and went to find another place. We do not have another place. There is no room on Mars—that is a super bad idea, and I wish Elon Musk would spend his money on protecting the environment rather than looking for somewhere else to live.
On that note, I thank everyone very much for the debate and the Minister for her response. I hugely congratulate the Treasury on undertaking this report and publishing it. We all hope that we will see real action in this regard in the months to come.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this evening. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask all Members to respect social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. I ask those asking supplementary questions to keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points, and I ask that Ministers’ answers are brief.
Northern Ireland: Citizens’ Rights
Baroness Hoey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the rights of Northern Ireland citizens in comparison with citizens of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is a family of nations and a union of people. The recognition and protection of rights are fundamental values of our union. That is reflected in the Government’s unwavering commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, of which guarantees of rights are an essential part. The Government will take every opportunity to strengthen Northern Ireland’s place within the UK and will continue to ensure that the rights of all Northern Ireland’s people are protected within it.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, surely, one fundamental right that all United Kingdom citizens should enjoy in a democracy is being able to elect those who make the laws for the economy. The protocol, introduced without one single person in Northern Ireland agreeing to it, has now placed Northern Ireland in the outhouse of the United Kingdom family, with a foreign jurisdiction making the law and a foreign court overseeing it. Does the Minister recognise that the constitutional position of that part of the United Kingdom has changed utterly with the loss of that fundamental right?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, it is fair to say that urgent progress is needed to restore confidence on the ground and to address the outstanding protocol issues. However, I remind the noble Baroness that, as she will know only too well, Article 2 of the protocol states:
“The United Kingdom shall ensure that no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity, as set out in that part of the 1998”—
Belfast/Good Friday—
“Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union, including in the area of protection against discrimination”.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, if there is equality of rights between the citizens of Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, how is it that in GB at a funeral, even a royal funeral, only 30 people are allowed to attend, whereas in Belfast, apparently, a funeral for an IRA/Sinn Féin supporter can be attended by over 1,000 people?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I certainly do not want to be drawn into answering on that particular thing. I simply reiterate that the Government take their obligations in regard to the rights of all United Kingdom citizens incredibly seriously. The Government are committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the protocol does not impact on the constitutional arrangements within the United Kingdom or the provisions in that agreement.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that any difference between the rights of citizens in Northern Ireland and those of the rest of us in the United Kingdom is one of the many results of the Brexit disaster, which Northern Ireland’s people voted against? Who does the Minister think is most to blame for that: Boris Johnson, Arlene Foster—or the noble Baroness who tabled this Question?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can only reiterate that we are urgently looking at addressing the issues on the ground. As the noble Lord will know only too well, much work is being done by my noble friend Lord Frost and Mr Sefcovic to address the outstanding issues to ensure that rights are equal between the citizens of Northern Ireland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement enshrined many rights for the people of Northern Ireland but, following Brexit, there are fears that some of those rights are being diminished. Does the Minister agree that the British-Irish Council would be a useful forum to discuss these concerns? Can he confirm when he expects the next meeting of the council to take place?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I cannot confirm the actual date. I was drawn in on the BIIGC the other day and I understand the sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, but I cannot give any further information. She will know that that we are aware of its potential operation.
Lord Caine (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that a clear majority of people in Northern Ireland continues freely and legitimately to support the union on the basis of their
“cherished position of equal citizenship in the United Kingdom”?
Can he assure the House that this Government will always defend and uphold that fundamental position of equal citizenship for all the people of Northern Ireland against any threat, including in relation to the EU’s implementation of the protocol?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I believe my noble friend makes the right emphasis. The Government firmly believe that UK nationality law is consistent with their Belfast agreement obligations and therefore with equal citizenship within the UK. The Government have always stressed the importance of the union and Northern Ireland’s place within it. We share, as my noble friend will know, so many cultural, social and economic ties that make for greater prosperity and for security.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is much unease in Northern Ireland at the moment and the marching season will soon be upon us. Does the Minister agree that dialogue and intervention are now vital? Will he convey to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that their personal involvement is now absolutely necessary to stop any drift towards potential instability in Northern Ireland?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I can certainly pass the message upwards, to answer the noble Lord’s question. I reassure him again that much work is going on, with intensive discussions between the co-chairs of the specialised committee, who have begun to clarify, work forward and address the outstanding issues. Some very good and positive momentum has been established. As I said earlier, these matters are urgent and must be addressed.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Given that the anomalous position of Northern Ireland, spelt out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, is justified by the need to uphold the integrity of the European single market, can my noble friend explain why it is necessary to have barriers to goods coming from GB towards the European single market, to uphold its integrity, but no barriers are necessary to uphold the integrity of the United Kingdom market? Is its argument simply bogus or bureaucratic obsession, or are we letting our internal market be put at risk?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I think it fair to say to my noble friend that we are going over old ground because of the agreements that have been set out on the unfettered access that is in place for goods that move from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. As he will know, some necessary minimum checks are required for certain goods going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, young people in Wales are very envious of the deal facilitated by the Irish Government, which enables young people from the North to maintain their full access to the huge benefits of the Erasmus+ programme. Does this not demonstrate that the best way for the people of Northern Ireland to retain links with the EU, for which they voted, is to work closely with Dublin wherever possible?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As the noble Lord is alluding to, the Irish Government have separately offered higher education students in Northern Ireland the chance to take part in Erasmus+. Institutions taking part will remain eligible for the Turing scheme, which, as he may know, will enable 35,000 students in higher education, further education and schools across the United Kingdom to go on overseas placements.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I spent the best part of a year of my life defending the position of the citizens of Northern Ireland, from whatever community, as equal citizens of the United Kingdom. The current situation is not acceptable. Will my noble friend go back to the Government and say that my noble friend Lord Frost, or whomsoever, must negotiate to amend, scrap or even ignore the protocol?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I do not agree with my noble friend on that point. The point is that the protocol has to work. As I said earlier, urgent progress is being made to address the outstanding concerns. The House will know that my noble friend Lord Frost will appear at the Dispatch Box tomorrow and I am sure that my noble friend will wish to put certain questions to him.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, is this not a classic case, as far as the protocol’s application in Northern Ireland is concerned, of taxation without representation? How sustainable is it in the western developed world, in a modern democracy, for people to have laws imposed on them without any say or vote?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord will know better than I do that in terms of consent, ultimately the protocol’s fate depends on the political representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. The Assembly will next vote on the protocol in 2024, as agreed in the protocol itself.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, the effect of the Northern Ireland Protocol is that any amendment made by the EU to an EU law currently in forced in Northern Ireland has direct effect, with no approval needed by the UK Parliament or by the Northern Ireland Assembly, and will be immediately justiciable in the relevant court in the UK. Will my noble friend consider again if this situation of the people of Northern Ireland is compatible with Article 3 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which grants an unabridgeable right to free, secret and regular elections to a relevant legislature?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend is right that any solution in Northern Ireland should have democratic support, which ties in slightly to the previous question from the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. That is why Northern Ireland’s elected representatives have a democratic choice. The Assembly can extend or end Northern Ireland’s alignment with EU law with the first consent decision, as I said earlier, at the end of 2024. This process will repeat every four or eight years, depending on whether consent, if given, is given on a simple majority or a cross-community basis.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Zimbabwe: Human Rights
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the political situation in Zimbabwe as regards human rights.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we remain concerned by the current situation in Zimbabwe, particularly human rights violations. We have been clear that the Government of Zimbabwe must meet their international and domestic obligations by respecting the rule of law, safeguarding human rights and committing to genuine political and economic reform for the benefit of all Zimbabweans. On 1 February, the UK announced sanctions to hold to account individuals responsible for the most egregious human rights violations in Zimbabwe.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in the light of the deepening economic and political crisis, which has had direct impact on local communities throughout Zimbabwe, will the Minister go a little further and outline in clear, concrete terms what recent assessment the UK Government have made of the treatment of political prisoners and critics of the Government in Zimbabwe, and what action the Government will take, working with the international community, to address the problems in that country?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we remain seriously concerned by the harsh tactics of the Government of Zimbabwe and their treatment of their critics. The Minister for Africa and our embassy in Harare regularly call out the Government and urge them to live up to their own constitution and uphold basic human rights. We also continue to work with our international partners, including South Africa, to examine what more can be done to put pressure on the regime.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, Zimbabwe has recently been reported as pursuing its application to rejoin the Commonwealth. Given that belonging to the Commonwealth involves a commitment to free and fair elections, protection of human rights, freedom of expression and equality of opportunity, is it not the case that the recent arrest and treatment of women activists seem to fall far short of Commonwealth standards?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The decision on whether Zimbabwe can rejoin the Commonwealth is one for all Commonwealth members. However, we are absolutely clear that the UK would support Zimbabwe’s readmission only if it met the admission requirements and complied with the values and principles set out in the Commonwealth charter. Zimbabwe’s recent actions, including those that the noble Baroness mentioned, do not live up to those standards.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, my diocese has a close and long-standing friendship with the diocese of Harare. When I asked friends there about this subject, they spoke of those human rights activists and others who allege mistreatment when taken into custody, and then nothing is done to address their allegations. Is the Minister able to suggest how we might better underline and, indeed, demonstrate that allowing dissent is good for the health of a society, to be encouraged rather than met with suppression or even violence? This is something that, of course, has a wider application than just to Zimbabwe.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely to make the point about lawful dissent in a democracy. We are aware of reports of mistreatment of activists in Zimbabwe. On 29 March, my honourable friend the Minister for Africa publicly called on the Zimbabwean Government to end the harassment of political opponents, and we have been clear that Zimbabwe should guarantee the right to freedom of speech which is enshrined in its own constitution.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, alongside justifiable concerns about its human rights record, bearing in mind some recent disturbing reports of forced labour in Zimbabwe in the Marange diamond fields, does my noble friend think that the Government should follow the lead of the United States of America in prohibiting any imports from Zimbabwe where evidence of forced labour has been established?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are aware of the reports of forced labour in diamond mines and the tobacco industry and continue to follow closely concerns over the involvement of children, particularly in mining. We currently support efforts by Zimbabwean civil society organisations to try to ensure that communities benefit from, and are not harmed by, mining activities.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, there are disturbing reports from Zimbabwe that food aid intended for the poor and needy is commandeered by government agents, while individuals subject to the UK sanctions which the Minister mentioned are unaffected by these measures. Opposition to the Government, from the MDC and others, continues to be violently suppressed; party offices have been broken into and membership records stolen, allowing homes to be visited at night and members and their families severely beaten. Beyond the sanctions programme, what progress have the Government made in discussions with neighbouring Commonwealth countries, including South Africa, to avoid Zimbabwe falling back into the worst traits of the Mugabe regime?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We provide aid to Zimbabwe to support the people of that country. We stand by them and our sanctions send a powerful message that we will not shy away from holding to account those who commit human rights abuses. Sanctions are just one part of our approach which, working with our international partners, as the noble Lord said, is aimed at encouraging the Government of Zimbabwe to fulfil its own commitments to fundamental political and economic reform.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, what representations have the Government made to the Government of Zimbabwe on the detention and treatment of female parliamentarians, specifically in relation to the reports of sexual violence against them in custody? What specific work are we doing in relation to sexual violence in conflict, which is something that the UK leads on, as my noble friend is aware?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, we are concerned by the unacceptable pattern of arrests and intimidation of opposition and civil society figures, particularly women. The recent cases of MDC activists and an MP, Joanah Mamombe, are particularly pertinent in that regard. On 29 March, my noble friend the Minister for Africa publicly called on the Zimbabwean Government to end the harassment of political opponents—so we are taking action, as my noble friend suggested.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB) [V]
My Lords, the proposed patriotic Bill being initiated by the Zimbabwe Government would effectively make it illegal to criticise President Mnangagwa and forbid any member of the opposition from speaking to any foreign body or politician. With Zimbabwe currently applying to rejoin the Commonwealth, what measures can we, and other members of the Commonwealth, take to resist this draconian measure?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We are aware of the proposed Bill that the noble Lord mentioned and have been clear with the Zimbabwean Government that any legislation which restricts democratic principles or freedom of speech is not in line with Zimbabwe’s own constitution, nor with the promises of political reform which President Mnangagwa made when he came to power. As I have said, readmission to the Commonwealth is a matter for all Commonwealth member states, but we have been clear that Zimbabwe’s actions do not live up to the standards set out in the charter.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I return to the women activists, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, drew particular attention. My late and respected noble friend Lord Judd put down a Written Question on the case of Joanah Mamombe, which the Minister mentioned. My noble friend Lord Hain also wrote to the Foreign Secretary about this case yesterday. She has now been charged with faking her own abduction. She is being treated appallingly in prison and she has a severe medical condition. The Minister mentioned specific sanctions; can he assure the House that these will be extended and will involve all the people who are committing these terrible human rights abuses, so that we hold them properly to account?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I said, we remain concerned about the failure to address the allegations of abduction and abuse made by the three MDC Alliance members which the noble Lord raised. We continue to call for investigations into these allegations and we have regularly raised our concerns about them with the Government of Zimbabwe. I am sure that the noble Lord will understand that I cannot speculate on future sanctions, as doing so would reduce the impact of potential designations.
Lord Oates (LD) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the continued detention of MDC MP Joanah Mamombe and activist Cecilia Chimbiri, whose bail hearing judgment was deferred in Harare just this morning until Friday, is just a further example of the politicisation of the courts, the violation of human rights and the closing down of free expression in Zimbabwe? This includes the patriotic Bill. Will the Government summon the Zimbabwe ambassador and impress on him that, until freedom of expression, the rule of law and upholding of human rights are restored, there is no prospect of the normalisation of relations between our two countries?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I know that the noble Lord takes a keen interest in Zimbabwe, as co-chairman of the All-Party Group for Zimbabwe, and that he has written to my honourable friend on this case. As I said, we are concerned at the failure to address these concerning allegations and we continue to call for an investigation into them. We continue to raise our concerns directly with the Government of Zimbabwe and in public, as my honourable friend the Minister for Africa has done.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Care Home Occupancy Rate
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Greengross
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the care home occupancy rate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, occupancy levels are hard to measure precisely. However, data from providers indicate that occupancy rates in care homes for older people have been adversely affected by the pandemic. We have made over £6 billion available, through grants that are not ring-fenced, to help councils tackle the impact of Covid-19 on services, including adult social care. We have made it clear to councils that this funding can be used to help offset the impact of temporary reductions in occupancy.
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Alzheimer’s Society is reporting that because of care home deaths and restrictions on visits during the pandemic, some families have had to defer placing their loved ones into care homes. Given this, how will the Government support the sector to ensure that occupancy rates rise again, other than by what he just said? How will this be monitored, given that I recently received an Answer to a Written Question that said the occupancy rates in care homes were not held by central government?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I note the intelligence from the Alzheimer’s Society, but I emphasise it is not the responsibility of central government to raise the occupancy rates of care homes. This area is supplied mainly by the private market. Players may choose to leave the market if occupancy rates fall, and local councils have been provided with more than £6 billion that should be drawn on to support the sector.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a number of unpaid at-home carers have told me that even though their relatives in dire need of care home residency have been offered places, they have turned them down because of heavily restricted family visits, the invidious 14-day quarantine rule and restrictions even on taking doubly vaccinated relatives for a walk in the spring sunshine. Will the Minister acknowledge that moving to a care home can be distressing, and depriving new residents of family support when settling in will inevitably impact on occupancy? When families liken taking up occupancy to sending relatives to prison, surely it is time to review guidance using today’s data, rather than as though Covid were still rampant and vaccines ineffective.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a perfectly fair point. Moving into a care home is a difficult and potentially stressful experience. Moving in at a time of Covid, when, as the noble Baroness rightly points out, there are heavy restrictions, is very difficult. Those restrictions are in place to save lives. They are under constant review, and when the infection rates warrant leaving them behind, we will make that decision.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Will my noble friend join me in commending the excellent work of care staff during the appalling problems that have arisen over the past year during the pandemic? Will the Government urgently investigate the financial stability and debt levels of care home operators, which, too frequently, seem to have no controls on the amount of leverage, excessive debts or lack of equity in the sector?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I absolutely join my noble friend in commending the incredible contribution of care home staff, domiciliary staff, unpaid care workers and all those who support loved ones, neighbours and residents. The Covid pandemic has shone a light on the selfless contribution of those people. The service continuity and care market review keeps a careful eye on the financial stability of the market. We are in constant contact with some of the biggest providers. The scene we see at the moment is not one that causes a huge amount of concern, but we keep close to the market.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as outlined in the register in relation to the Outcomes First Group quality committee. Can the Minister explain how he will ensure that the Government work with the Care Quality Commission to see how we can deliver a strategy that promotes care home financial stability so that there are sufficient beds available this winter to enable the NHS to deliver suitable care for those on waiting lists, without older people having to go into hospital unnecessarily?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. There is always a tension in having enough beds in care so that those who need somewhere to be supported are not sent to hospital, thereby occupying valuable beds that should be used for elective surgery or other more complex and important procedures. We are working closely with the CQC to ensure that the right strategies are in place to deal with that.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
The Minister knows we have continually raised our strong concerns about the financial stability of care homes. Now, the possibility of increased closures due to falling occupancy rates and the extra costs stemming from the pandemic have exacerbated the precarious situation the sector is in. With the downward trend in the registration of new care homes and the upward trend in closures, is not the resulting net reduction in the number of beds available deeply worrying at a time of known growth in the need for social care provision for older people? Can the Minister reassure the House that in the Queen’s Speech we will, at last, find out about the Prime Minister’s plans for how he is going to fix all this and what is going to be done to deliver long-term funding and sustainability for the social care sector?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have heard the noble Baroness and others express their concerns about the sector, but I reassure noble Lords that it is not in overall long-term decline. In fact, the number of care home beds has remained broadly constant over the last 10 years, with 460,000 in 2010 and 458,000 in April 2021. But I recognise the noble Baroness’s question, and it is right that we are going to bring forward recommendations for social care reform by the end of the year.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, a recent National Audit Office report highlighted how the Covid pandemic has adversely impacted the financial viability of care home providers, with occupancy rates falling significantly, as we have heard. Given this, could the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that the much-needed financial support he has referred to, to stabilise this highly fragmented and fragile sector, gets to the front line and that there is equal treatment for all care home services, irrespective of whether they are local authority-funded or NHS-funded or whether residents are older people, younger adults of privately paying residents?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we have written to local authorities to make it clear what the funding is there for and to make recommendations on the sort of financial support that may be needed to bridge this moment when occupancy levels have been reduced because of concerned families taking their loved ones out of care homes. That funding is in place, and it is up to local authorities to make their decisions on the matter.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, what has the impact of the pandemic been on those who choose to receive care in their own homes? With the rise of closures of private care homes and fewer public sector beds being available, have we got the balance in provision right?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, there is an important area of support for those who decide to have care at home. During the pandemic, we did an enormous amount to ensure that there were infection-safe procedures and to reduce the use of itinerant care workers in order to provide safety for those who were at home. Support for those who choose to be cared for at home should be increased. I do not recognise the idea that the number of beds in local authority care has reduced so far, but I am happy to look into the matter.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
NHS England and Public Health England’s contingency planning for pandemics was strengthened after the SARS epidemic. Will the Minister put in the Library the minutes and documents that show what the NHS policy was in January 2020 on the transfer of people between care homes and hospitals and between hospitals and care homes during a pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, NHS minutes are published as a routine matter, of course. I would be happy to write to the noble Lord with a link to the right minutes.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
Given the reluctance, post pandemic, to going into care homes, one would expect more vulnerable people to require support at home, and this is delivered in part using local authority funding. What advice is being given to the sector by Her Majesty’s Government, and what measures are being taken to ensure that this need can be met?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, DHSE has written to local authorities explaining how we recommend some of the unring-fenced £6 billion could be spent to support both those in social care residential situations and those at home. That is the correct mechanic for guiding the spending of the money, but it is the responsibility of local authorities, not of central government, to provide the support that the noble Baroness describes.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Northern Ireland: Flight Passengers and Covid-19
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they will take to ensure that the necessary information about flight passengers who are crossing the border into Northern Ireland from outside the United Kingdom is shared with the Northern Ireland health authorities in order to prevent the spread of COVID-19.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, coronavirus restrictions, including the arrival of international travellers, are led by the Northern Ireland Executive. I am extremely grateful to the Northern Ireland Minister of Health who is working closely with his counterpart in the Irish Government to facilitate the sharing of data for international travellers travelling across the border. The Government continue to support ongoing co-ordination between the UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government as part of our collective ambition to drive the virus down.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The common travel area is a very positive feature of life between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic and has been so for many decades, predating our EU membership. Yet there remain serious problems with the Irish Republic carrying out the necessary urgent work needed to allow the sharing of information from Irish passenger locator forms for those transiting to Northern Ireland and to the rest of the United Kingdom. This delay is increasing the risk of the spread of Covid, especially variants coming into Northern Ireland and the UK. The Northern Ireland Health Minister that the noble Lord referred to expressed serious concerns as late as last week, in evidence to the Northern Ireland Assembly, about the dragging of feet. It has been flagged for many months. Will the Minister please raise this at the highest levels of the UK Government and ensure that action is taken to close this problem off?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I recognise the challenge to which the noble Lord refers. It is, of course, a fact that coronavirus restrictions in Northern Ireland are determined by the Northern Ireland Executive as part of the devolution settlement, as I am sure he would recognise. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has raised the issue with the Irish Foreign Minister on a number of occasions to press for a resolution, and while the UK Government continue to work closely with the Executive to drive this virus down, we respect that healthcare is a devolved matter. This is a complex issue to resolve, but we are extremely grateful to all parties who are working hard to resolve it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the truth is that the Northern Ireland Health Minister, Robin Swann, found out that there were cases of the Indian variant of the virus in the Republic of Ireland only from media reports. This is deeply concerning, as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, so we have the same responsibilities to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland and therefore it is very concerning. Is the Minister confident that, going forward, mutually beneficial data-sharing processes are in place to ensure that new variants are controlled and do not become seeded and spread in any of our communities?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Irish Government for the very large amount of informal clinical data-sharing that goes on. CMOs of both countries exchange data on such matters as VOCs the whole time, and that kind of day-to-day clinical exchange of on-the-ground information works extremely well. The specific question of travel information is a lacuna that needs to be closed, I recognise that it needs to be shut, a lot of work is going on to shut it and I am grateful to those involved.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I think noble Lords understand that there have to be special arrangements, and the common travel area seems to work well for most things. The Minister knows that I have asked him repeatedly about the joining up of data of international travellers between whichever border they arrive at, the NHS and the testing system, especially the private testing system, otherwise any self-isolation system will fail. Can the Minister say whether this gap that there was before has now been remedied, so that every part of the NHS can pick up data information from borders, and how it works across all four UK countries? Will he explain a bit more about the CTA arrangements between Westminster, Stormont and the Republic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness that the data flows between borders, Test and Trace, NHS and JBC work extremely well. I was in the Covid Gold meeting earlier today and we had presentations that captured all the data flows from all those places, and we have extremely good see-through on VOCs, infection rates and bed occupancy. The progress we have made on that area is astounding. Where we have a lacuna is on the transfer of data from Irish travellers to Northern Ireland, and that is something we are working to close.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others about data sharing between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Will the Health Minister use this opportunity to praise the vaccination programme in Northern Ireland and all those who have made it so successful, from the Health Minister, through the GP surgeries to the many volunteers who have made it so successful? Does this success in Northern Ireland not show how important the union is, and also how important it was that we left the European Union and did not have its regulations on vaccination, as the Republic of Ireland has had?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am pleased to tell the noble Baroness that, as of 27 April, 1.2 million vaccinations have been administered in Northern Ireland, of which 919,000 were first doses and 356,000 were second doses. That is an astonishing figure. I am extremely proud of the figure and very grateful to all those concerned.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased that the final Question in Question Time today gives us the opportunity to say something about the importance of co-operation between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom. It is worrying that there is this lacuna; I wonder whether the expertise of the CAA is being brought to bear on it. Are there any problems because we have not yet got digital adequacy with the EU? Is that part of the lacuna? On the broader side, this Question and the earlier Question show that there is a need for a rapid response unit to deal with the genuine problems in the relationship between the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the inevitable consequences of the Brexit decision, which was facilitated by the DUP.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I reassure the noble Lord that the issue is caused by no lack of friendship or spirit of collaboration between the two Administrations. The CAA and all the relevant authorities have a huge amount of commitment to resolving this. There are legal issues that require Acts of Parliament in Ireland and in Britain in order to resolve this; these are quite substantial legal commitments that need to be timetabled and conducted through Parliament, and that is what is holding things up. I am very grateful to all those who are trying to resolve the issue.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked, and that concludes today’s Oral Questions.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I thought it might be helpful to the House if I made a short statement about the arrangement of business today. First, on the Fire Safety Bill, noble Lords will know that the House returned the Bill to the Commons again last night. We fully expect it to send the Bill back to us today for further consideration. If it does, we will consider that message tonight after the proceedings on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, as outlined in today’s list.
The Bill is unlikely to arrive back before 2 pm and the window for noble Lords to table Motions or amendments is expected to be open between 3 pm and 4 pm. I urge those noble Lords with an interest in the Bill to keep an eye on the annunciator for any updates and to consult the Legislation Office at the earliest opportunity should they need further information.
Secondly, on the National Security and Investment Bill, we are due to consider a Commons Reason at a convenient point after 1.30 pm. If, after that debate, there is still no agreement on the one remaining issue, the Bill will return to the Commons and it will consider it again today. If the Bill is then returned to us, we will consider that message tonight. I will need to keep the House updated on timings, but any further debate on the Bill in this House will not start before 9 pm.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to reports of the sentencing of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Iran’s decision to sentence Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe on further charges is totally inhumane and wholly unjustified. Her Majesty’s Government remain committed to doing all we can to secure Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s return home. Iran has deliberately put her through a cruel and inhumane ordeal. We continue to call on Iran in the strongest possible terms to end her suffering and allow her to return home to be reunited with her daughter Gabriella and husband Richard.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, our thoughts must first go to Nazanin, her daughter, her husband and the rest of the family. To be given a further one-year sentence on a trumped-up charge of promoting propaganda against the system and to be found guilty after a sham trial is truly appalling news.
Yesterday the Minister, James Cleverly, said that we are co-operating
“with our international partners on a whole range of issues with regard to Iran, including the United States of America and the E3”.—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/21; col. 239.]
Can the Minister tell us what further actions the United Kingdom will consider with our allies to get Nazanin home to the United Kingdom and the other dual nationals in detention released?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right: our thoughts first and foremost go out to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family for this latest development. We have been very clear that Iran’s decision is totally inhumane and wholly unjustified. He is right that my right honourable friend the Minister, James Cleverly, yesterday outlined some of the action we are taking to hold Iran to account for its poor human rights record—for instance, strongly supporting the renewal mandate of the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Iran at the Human Rights Council in March this year and joining the Canadian initiative against arbitrary detention in February. However, this is on Iran: it can do the right thing and return Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other dual nationals home to be reunited with their families.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too express my sympathy to Nazanin and her family. Two more European dual nationals are being tried today—one German, one British. The German authorities have said that they will seek to attend the mock trial in the revolutionary courts. Is the United Kingdom doing the same for our citizen? What came across yesterday in the Commons was words but not actions.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I cannot speak for the actions of other Governments and the activity they are undertaking. We have requested access to the hearings, as we have for previous hearings, but Iran routinely denies us access to them because it does not recognise Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe as a dual national. We will continue to seek to attend any future hearings. We have been consistently clear that she must not be returned to prison; she should be returned to the United Kingdom to be reunited with her family.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is a very difficult case, but I wonder about our approach to it. The Minister will recall the case of the British hostages in Lebanon held by groups connected to the Iranians. As it happens, I dealt with those cases, both in London and later in Damascus. Our strategy at that time was to refuse to negotiate and to keep the public profile down so as not to add to the perceived value of the hostages. That approach eventually worked. I realise that the conditions are not the same, but will the Minister now review the present case in light of this previous experience?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord speaks with authority as a former ambassador to Syria. We do not accept dual British nationals being used as diplomatic leverage. Iran is responsible for putting Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other dual nationals, such as Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz, through this intolerable ordeal, and it remains on Iran to release them to allow them to be reunited with their families. We have called on the Iranian Government to release all those dual nationals who have been arbitrarily detained, and we remain committed to ensuring that we do what we can to secure their release.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, the ordeals of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe go from bad to worse. These Benches assure her and her family of our continued prayers. As many have made clear, including in the other place powerfully yesterday, she is caught up in political machinations not of her own making. As well as urging Her Majesty’s Government to do everything possible to deal with outstanding issues which may be being used to justify her continued punishment, does the Minister think that the engagement of religious groups here—Muslim and Christian—might offer any way forward, or would that be counterproductive?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sure that the prayers of many people are with those of the right reverend Prelate about Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her situation. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear that this is a totally inhumane and wholly unjustified decision. We are in contact with a range of international partners who share our deep concerns about the ongoing detention of British dual nationals, religious groups and others, but it remains in Iran’s gift to do the right thing and allow them to come home and be reunited with their families.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, over five years the Government have not secured the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. This can be described only as a diplomatic failure, leading to yet another jail sentence by a cruel and inhumane Iranian judicial system. Can the House be given a clear and complete explanation of why the Government have not found a way of paying off the UK’s debt for undelivered military equipment to Iran, which could well secure the release of this innocent victim?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is unhelpful to connect wider bilateral issues with the arbitrary detention of people in Iran. It remains in Iran’s gift to do the right thing and return them home. The whole of Her Majesty’s Government, from the Prime Minister down, have been engaged on this. The Prime Minister has raised this directly with President Rouhani, most recently on 10 March, and the Foreign Secretary last did so with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Zarif, on 3 April. The action we have taken so far, such as granting diplomatic status to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, has helped in previous stages, but we continue to do all we can to try to secure her return home to the United Kingdom.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the people responsible for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s incarceration are clearly this brutal dictatorship, which treats women appallingly, kidnaps innocent British citizens, persecutes gay people, executes dissidents, supports terrorists across the Middle East, and threatens to wipe Israel—the region’s only democracy—off the planet. It is clearly impossible to trust this brutal and corrupt regime. We must do everything possible to prevent it developing nuclear weapons. Western democracies should impose much tougher sanctions on the leadership, and the revolutionary guard which kidnapped this poor woman should be proscribed.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we have long been clear about our concerns over Iran’s continued destabilising activity throughout the region, including its political, financial and military support to a number of militant and proscribed groups. The noble Lord raised points about nuclear; the UK remains committed to making the Iran nuclear deal a success, and Iran must stop all its nuclear activity which breaches the terms of the JCPOA and come back into compliance. On sanctions, we take a robust stance against Iranian human rights violations, and we have already sanctioned 82 individuals and one entity.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is it not the harsh truth that we have been on the back foot since the clumsy and inexcusable intervention by the Prime Minister? There is a logjam here, and it has to be broken if we are to preserve the health of the prisoners. If that means paying the disputed money, so be it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK Government from the Prime Minister down are committed to doing everything we can for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family, and we are determined to see her reunited with her family in the UK. We raise her case, and those of other British dual nationals, with the Iranian Government at every opportunity, and continue to call for their immediate and permanent release. As I have said, we do not think it helpful to conflate this with other bilateral issues.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, following on from the Minister’s answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, can he tell me why the German Government are apparently being treated differently—better treated, in terms of access to trials for dual nationals—than the UK Government?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
As I have said, I cannot speak for the experience of the German Government; I can only be clear that at every opportunity we press for access to the judicial hearings, but the Iranian Government do not grant us that access, because they do not recognise Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe as a dual national.
Lord Walney (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is there not a real risk here that we absolve the Iranian regime of their full responsibility for this fiasco? Does not the appalling and obvious way in which Iran is manipulating its judicial system to torment Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and extort money from the British Government underline the fact that the word of this terror-exporting regime simply cannot be trusted on a whole host of other matters, including, of course, their misuse of nuclear power?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right: the responsibility for this lies squarely with the Iranian Government. It is on them. They could do the right thing and release Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and allow her to come home and be reunited with her family. We continue to call on Iran in the strongest possible terms to end her suffering and allow her to return home.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Highgate Cemetery Bill
The Chairman of Committees
That the Commons message of 26 April be now considered; and that the promoters of the Highgate Cemetery Bill which was originally introduced in this House on 22 January 2020 should have leave to suspend any further proceedings on the bill in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament according to the provisions of Private Business Standing Order 150A (Suspension of bills).
Monken Hadley Common Bill
The Chairman of Committees
That this House do agree with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of 26 April.
Whiplash Injury Regulations 2021
The Earl of Courtown
That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 1 and 25 February and 17, 18 and 25 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 46th, 49th and 51st Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the first instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 26 and 27 April.
Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Prisons (Substance Testing) Act 2021 View all Prisons (Substance Testing) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Baroness Pidding (Con)
My Lords, in moving this motion I wish to make a few brief comments. First of all, I pay tribute to my right honourable friend Dame Cheryl Gillan, who introduced this Bill in the other place and, sadly, passed away earlier this month. Dame Cheryl had an exemplary political career, and established friendships across the political divide. She was a persistent champion of a number of truly important causes. She successfully brought the Autism Act 2009 into law, via a Private Member’s Bill. It is an honour to move the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill one step closer to reaching the statute book. We hope that it will stand as further testimony to Dame Cheryl’s contributions to society and Parliament. I am grateful to Richard Holden, who brought this Bill forward on her behalf in the other place when she was unable to attend Parliament. I also thank colleagues across the House who participated in the Bill’s progress, both for their interest and for their contributions. I also pay tribute to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for his support through the Bill’s passage, and also the officials at the Ministry of Justice for their help. I beg to move.
Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Bill
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021 View all Botulinum Toxin and Cosmetic Fillers (Children) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, in moving this motion I briefly pay tribute to my honourable friend Laura Trott MP, who steered this Bill with such passion through the other place, aided by all the brave and persistent campaigners who have worked so hard. As we said at Second Reading, a huge amount of spadework was needed to bring the Bill to this point—not least by my noble friend Lord Lansley, who I am delighted to say is sitting beside me today. I also pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister, to the Bill team, and to noble Lords across the House on all Benches, who were incredibly supportive. It has been a real honour to bring this Bill to this stage.
Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Act 2021 View all Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 176-I Amendment for Committee - (13 Apr 2021)
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I put on record my thanks to my honourable friend the Member for Weaver Vale, Mike Amesbury, for introducing and skilfully piloting the Bill through the other place. I thank all noble Lords from across the House who gave it such strong support, regardless of their views on the merits of school uniform or on the level of parliamentary scrutiny of the draft statutory guidance. My thanks go to Ministers in the Department for Education, Nick Gibb and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for their support and assistance throughout the Bill’s passage, and to Ben Burgess of the Government Whips Office, who has been unfailingly helpful to this Private Member’s Bill novice. I also thank the Children’s Society, especially Hannah Small. It has worked hard for the Bill to become law. In doing so, it has been spurred on by the children and young people who sat on the society’s Children’s Commission on Poverty, and subsequently by the children and parents with whom they work. I pay tribute to them all.
It has been a privilege to sponsor the Bill through your Lordships’ House. Just the other day I received a report on school uniform costs from the Covid Realities research project. It quoted a lone mother:
“It’s been nothing but worry. I’m anxious and financially broke, paying £310 for school uniform. When I only receive £556 a month.”
I hope that, thanks to this modest Bill, low-income parents will no longer have to suffer such anxiety over the cost of uniforms. I hope too, therefore, that the Bill will be implemented as quickly as is reasonable.
Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21 View all Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 February 2021 - (3 Feb 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge proceeds with the Bill, I will make a very brief statement about legislative consent. The Bill, which increases the maximum custodial penalty for the worst acts of animal cruelty, has enjoyed cross-party support in both Houses. It would bring both England and Wales into line with the existing sentencing regimes for animal cruelty offences in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Animal welfare is a devolved matter, meaning that the Bill is subject to the legislative consent process. The Welsh Government laid a legislative consent memorandum for the Bill before the Senedd in February, advising that they support the Bill applying to Wales.
The timing of the Senedd elections and the Queen’s Speech means that there is now insufficient time for the Senedd to consider a legislative consent Motion before the end of this Session of the UK Parliament. Letting the Bill fall at this very late stage would be a regrettable outcome for both England and Wales alike. Given the circumstances, and mindful of the support expressed for the Bill by both the Welsh Government and other parties in Wales, the UK Government have decided to maintain their support for the Bill, notwithstanding that the Senedd has yet to pass a consent Motion. In the event that the Bill receives Royal Assent tomorrow, as I would hope, the incoming Senedd would have time to provide its support for the Bill after the election period and before the Act comes into force. We believe that this represents a pragmatic solution that will deliver widely supported enhancements to welfare and protection of animals in England and Wales.
Motion
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble for his statement; I am sure that the Welsh Senedd will do the right thing, as this is extremely good for England and Wales. I am delighted and honoured that I was asked by my honourable friend Chris Loder in the other place to sponsor this important Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. I also pay tribute to a former Member of the Commons, Anna Turley, who first started this process—it seems rather a long time ago. I give great credit to Chris Loder for introducing the Bill and for successfully steering it with determination and skill through all its stages in the other place.
The Bill, as many know, has had a protracted passage through Parliament at a time of serious issues well outside the normal parliamentary experience, but it appears that we have come together and finally made it happen. As we know, it increases the maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 from six months to up to five years’ imprisonment. It is strongly supported and overdue. The Second Reading debate showed that the Bill received unreserved support from all sides of the House. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is most reassuring that there are indeed matters, such as improving protections for animals under our control, on which we can all unreservedly agree.
I congratulate the Government on their continued support for the Bill and on the persistence required to deliver their manifesto commitment to increase sentences for animal cruelty. I also take this opportunity to thank noble Lords for their considered and important contributions. I extend my thanks to those outside Parliament who have supported the Bill, long-standing and tireless advocates for animals and their welfare. They include many charities and other organisations, such as the League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Cats Protection, Dogs Trust, Blue Cross and World Horse Welfare. I commend their effectiveness in campaigning for and supporting the Bill and the increased maximum penalties it will provide. Many members of the public write to us in droves and sign e-petitions each month concerning animal welfare issues—evidence that we are a nation of animal lovers. The public’s interest in discussions around protections for animals ensures that parliamentarians are kept abreast of emerging issues and can raise them with the Government, sometimes successfully.
Finally, I extend my thanks to all those hard-working civil servants in Defra, and indeed the Whips’ Offices, for getting us to this point, just before the curtain comes down on this parliamentary Session. I am sure that, given this Government’s commitment to strengthening animal welfare, we can look forward to more legislation in the coming months and years.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. As there is a counterproposition, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Any Member intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members not intending to speak should make room for Members who are. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw Motions.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice counted when the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. Noble 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 to vote will be via the remote voting system.
National Security and Investment Bill
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 View all National Security and Investment Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 28 April 2021 - (28 Apr 2021)
14:07 - Division conducted remotely on Motion A1 - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 241 - Motion A1 agreed.
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 11 and 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motion A1. I will, of course, address any further comments at the end of the debate.
It goes without saying that I am delighted to be back in the Chamber after a short respite while the other place has considered our amendments to this Bill. I am pleased to advise noble Lords that there was resounding support for all the amendments made by this House, with the mere exception of two. The other place has resolved against amendments which, in effect, would have introduced a reporting requirement to the Intelligence and Security Committee in relation to the NSI regime.
Amendments 11B and 11C in lieu, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord West, draw on his earlier amendments. They would require the Secretary of State to include in the annual report provided for in Clause 61 a summary of his decisions in respect of final notifications given and final orders made, varied or revoked, as well as a summary of any national security risk assessment provided by the security services in relation to those decisions. Where publication of any of that additional information would be contrary to the interests of national security, the Secretary of State may instead place that information in a confidential annexe provided to the ISC. The amendments before us would end those requirements should the memorandum of understanding that governs the remit of the ISC be amended to bring the Secretary of State’s activities under Clause 26 in scope of ISC scrutiny.
I merely echo the words of my colleague, the Minister for Small Business, Consumers and Labour Markets, on Monday, when he welcomed the “passionate and expert debate” this issue has seen in both Houses. In particular, I repeat the praise offered in this House for those who previously spoke in favour of this amendment. Rugby analogies aside, it is a particularly serious, knowledgeable and experienced group of Peers, and I of course acknowledge the weight and credibility that they undoubtedly bring to these issues.
However, the other place resolved by a significant majority of 106 to restore the Bill to its previous form in this regard. The elected Chamber has given this issue its due consideration, and a majority of 106 elected Members has made the position of the other place very clear. This includes four of the seven members of the ISC, who, similarly, sit in the other place voting with the Government, with only one Conservative Member in the entire House voting against.
I do not intend to try the patience of the House and repeat the arguments that we have heard many times before which the Government have already made on this issue, but I will address the specific changes in this amendment from the original which this House has previously considered.
The Government do not consider that the addition of an endpoint for the effective requirement on the Secretary of State to provide confidential information to the ISC makes the approach any more necessary or appropriate. It is our view that the BEIS Select Committee remains the most appropriate committee for scrutiny. It is capable, it is interested and it stands ready. The Secretary of State for BEIS has written to the chair of the BEIS Select Committee to confirm this, and this was acknowledged by the chair of the committee in the other place, also on Monday. The BEIS Select Committee will be ably supported by the Science and Technology Committee, where that is appropriate.
The Government hugely value the Intelligence and Security Committee, but we also hugely value the BEIS Select Committee and the clear and appropriate scrutiny that it provides. We do not need to conflate the two through amending this Bill, the memorandum of understanding or, indeed, anything else in this field.
The Government’s position, and that of the elected Chamber, is clear, and I can tell your Lordships that the Government have no plans to concede on this issue. I therefore ask that noble Lords respect the clear wishes of the other place and, while I am of course grateful for noble Lords’ insight and passion on this matter, I hope that this House does not insist on these amendments. Therefore, I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord West of Spithead
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 11B and 11C in lieu—
“(2A) Until the condition in subsection (2C) is met, each report must also provide, in respect of final notifications given, and final orders made, varied or revoked—
(a) a summary of the decision of the Secretary of State under section 26(1), and
(b) a summary provided by the Security Services of any national security risk assessment provided under section 26(3)(a)(ii) relating to each decision under section 26(1).
(2B) Until the condition in subsection (2C) is met, where the Secretary of State considers that publication of any information listed in subsection (2A) would be contrary to the interests of national security, those details may be excluded from publication and instead must be included in a confidential annex to the report provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament on the same day that the rest of the report is laid before each House of Parliament.
(2C) Subsections (2A) and (2B) have effect only until a revised memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament under section 2 of the Justice and security Act 2013 has been laid before Parliament which provides for oversight by the Intelligence and Security Committee of the activities of the Secretary of State under section 26 of this Act.””
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the question put back to this House is not whether the Government should take national security risks into account when considering investment but whether Parliament should have oversight of that process—that careful balancing of our national security against our prosperity. This House delivered a very clear message to the Government on Report that if the Bill is to provide the Secretary of State for BEIS with wide-ranging new powers, it must also provide for meaningful oversight of those powers. That meaningful oversight of high-level intelligence can be conducted only by the ISC, as the body which Parliament established for that express purpose.
I thought the strength of feeling in this House on the matter had been very clear, and, indeed, the rugby scrum to which the Minister alluded which I gathered in support had unbelievable knowledge and background in this whole area of intelligence, security and the ISC. It is therefore very disappointing that my amendment was rejected in the other place yesterday. I remain of the view that, without that amendment, the Bill does not provide for meaningful oversight by Parliament. Nevertheless, I have sought yet again to offer the Government an opportunity to see common sense on this and, therefore, rather than insisting on the original amendment, I have tabled this amendment in lieu. It requests the same substantive material—a summary of the decisions by the Secretary of State and a summary by the security services of any national security risk assessment in respect of final notifications given and final orders made, varied or revoked, which can be provided to the ISC in a confidential annexe—but it now provides that that material need not be provided if and when those activities are formally added to the memorandum of understanding, at which point ISC oversight is provided for through that route.
I have already set out why the ISC must have oversight and why it can only be the ISC, so I have no wish to try your Lordships’ patience by repeating those arguments, or indeed those made by noble Lords from across the House who spoke in support of my amendment. The substantive point has been made, and I have to say that the argument has been won—I know that from having talked to people in the other place.
I wish to examine more closely the assertions made more recently by the Government in the other place, as I would not wish any of them to muddy the water on this issue. The Government’s starting point was that the ISC can already scrutinise the information provided to the ISU by the security services. That is indeed the case—we can require the security services to provide us the information which they provide to the ISU on the national security risks—but that is missing the point. What the ISC must be able to scrutinise is the balancing of those security risks against the business elements. It is that crucial balancing which is at the heart of the Bill. There is little point in seeing what the national security risks are if you cannot see what decision has been reached regarding those risks. That is precisely why my amendment makes reference to the decision of the Secretary of State.
Moving on to that decision, the Government’s next argument is that the ISC cannot oversee decisions made by the Secretary of State for BEIS because BEIS is not listed in the ISC’s memorandum of understanding. That is indeed the case but again that is, I am afraid, missing the point, deliberately or otherwise. As I have already explained to noble Lords, the Government gave a commitment to Parliament that the ISC would, through its MoU, oversee all security and intelligence matters across all of government. The seven bodies currently listed on the MoU are those that were carrying out security and intelligence matters in 2013. That list of bodies should be kept and updated, as the Government told Parliament was their intention. It would be very simple to add something such as BEIS to the list.
With that argument dispatched, the Government move on to their next line of defence—that decisions by the Secretary of State for BEIS must be for the BEIS Committee to scrutinise, and that the ISC should not encroach on that remit. That is, I am afraid, a direct contradiction of the Government’s own MoU. The Government have already expressly said that the ISC’s scrutiny will not affect the wider scrutiny of departments such as, for example, the Home Office, FCDO and MoD by parliamentary committees. The same would be true for BEIS. If the decisions by the Secretary of State for Defence or the Home Secretary can be scrutinised by the ISC, why are the decisions by the Secretary of State for BEIS any different? I am curious as to what it is about BEIS that sets it apart and means that the ISC should not oversee it?
At this point, the Government resort to their final argument. I have to say here that I find it rather tenuous to argue that the ISC does not need to provide oversight because the BEIS Select Committee can do it. The Secretary of State for BEIS has written to the chair of the BEIS Select Committee talking about confidential briefings in a most reasonable manner. However, we need to examine what that does not say, which is, “The Government will hand over our top secret information to you, your committee and your staff for you to hold, scrutinise, take notes on, discuss, question us about and report on”. That is because the Government cannot do that. The words being used belie the practicalities of the Government’s own security procedures—unless, of course, the Minister is going to tell us that the Government are prepared to breach their own security procedures.
The proposals do not amount to meaningful scrutiny. I say this with the greatest respect to the BEIS Select Committee, whose chairman, in a most thoughtful and measured speech in the other place yesterday, supported the ISC’s oversight of this area. The BEIS Select Committee does excellent work and should rightfully be the primary oversight body for the work of BEIS and the business elements of the work of the ISU. However, the ISC is the only body that can provide oversight of the intelligence elements and balance them with the business elements. The ISC is the only committee of Parliament that has regular access to protectively marked information that is sensitive for national security reasons. This means that only the ISC is in a position to scrutinise effectively the work of those parts of departments whose work is directly concerned with intelligence and security matters, as the Government have said repeatedly until now.
The Intelligence and Security Committee was created by Parliament to handle classified information where Select Committees could not. The Government committed to using the ISC to scrutinise all their intelligence and security functions. Now we are told that the BEIS Committee is able to do exactly that. In this instance, apparently, the ISC is no longer needed. Let me be clear: the ISC currently does oversee this area of work, so the Government’s proposal is deliberately removing it from ISC oversight. Is that what is going to happen in the future? Will security work be hived off successively to departments that will be told that the ISC cannot oversee them because it is not listed in a nine year-old MoU that the Government have failed to keep up to date?
I see the longer-term consequences of rejecting our amendments and wonder whether more areas of government are destined to follow suit. This could become a very slippery slope, denying Parliament and, indeed, the nation proper scrutiny of intelligence decisions if we do not take action now. For this reason, I have sought to offer the Government yet another opportunity. Rather than simply retabling my original amendment, I have offered them an alternative. Either the Government can provide the ISC with a classified annexe covering security and the Secretary of State’s decision, or they can add those decisions to the existing MoU.
My amendment is a reasonable attempt to provide the Government with a way forward and a way out. I know that the Minister opposite has been put in a very difficult position on this issue. While recognising the strength of feeling across this House, there must be meaningful oversight of these new powers, and that can only mean the ISC. I am not looking for more work for myself, I can tell noble Lords, but only the ISC can do it. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, as I have done throughout this process, I support the noble Lord, Lord West, and, having had the advantage of hearing him today and earlier, I endorse without qualification his remarks and powerful arguments in support of Motion A1.
I am encouraged in that because the Government are yet to produce any reason against these proposals that could be regarded as substantive. I am further encouraged by the fact that the chair of the BEIS Committee supports the proposition and the principle that the amendment embraces. It has been suggested, although not perhaps so strongly today, that confidential information will be made available to the BEIS Committee. There is a difference between confidential and classified. What is confidential as between one Minister and another can easily not be classified. In that respect, the Government have simply not proved their case.
What will that confidential information amount to? It will amount to what the Secretary of State thinks the committee can see. One could describe that, rather pejoratively, as being spoon-fed, but it will certainly come not with its interest in objectivity but with its interest in the subjective opinion of the Secretary of State. In that respect, it is quite different—I repeat, quite different—from the role, powers and the exercise of those powers of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am further encouraged in my position because I read that the Commons Reason for Motion A is that it is “appropriate and sufficient”—which is probably what Oliver Twist was told when he asked for some more. The words mean what people want them to mean and that, yet again, exposes the poverty of the argument offered by the Government.
I shall finish by reminding the House that members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are chosen for experience and a reputation for balanced judgment. As I have said previously, there have been occasions when nominations made to the committee have been turned down because a particular individual was not thought to have the necessary experience or qualities for the discharge of a quite remarkable responsibility. Members sign the Official Secrets Act and the procedure attached to that is a solemn moment. They form an intimate relationship with the security services—one of trust, which cannot be replicated in any circumstances, in my respectful view, by the relationship between the BEIS Committee and the Secretary of State.
The truth is that the Government do not have a good argument here and that is why they would be wise, even at this late stage, to adopt this amendment.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I too believe that the noble Lord, Lord West, is right in insisting that the Government and the other place look again at another way of giving the ISC an explicit role in scrutinising highly classified intelligence underlying the Secretary of State’s use of the powers in this Bill. The Government’s position is, frankly, indefensible. On Report, the noble Lord, Lord West, reminded the House that at the time of the passing of Justice and Security Act 2013, the then Minister for security announced
“the intention of the Government that the ISC should have oversight of substantively all of central Government’s intelligence and security activities to be realised now and in the future.”—[Official Report, Justice and Security Bill Committee, 31/1/13; col. 98.]
The Minister in the other place confirmed on Monday that the Government stand by that statement, yet they refuse to amend the memorandum of understanding under the Act, to bring the Investment Security Unit in BEIS within the purview of the ISC. Frankly, I cannot understand why. In his amendment, the noble Lord, Lord West, has offered the Government an easy way out. If they will amend the memorandum of understanding to bring the Investment Security Unit explicitly within the purview of the ISC, as it would have been had it remained within the Cabinet Office, the problem will be solved at a stroke. There will be no need for this amendment, and if the Minister will give that assurance today, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord West, would be prepared not to press his amendment.
In the other place, a Conservative Member, Steve Baker, said that the chairman of the ISC, Dr Julian Lewis—another Conservative Member—had made an open-and-shut case for amending the MoU, and yet Mr Baker, under the constraint of his Whips still voted against the amendment. If the Minister’s reply is that the ISC can cover the Investment Security Unit without amending the MoU, I am bound to ask: what is the point of having the MoU at all? The Minister has only to say that the Government will make this amendment to the MoU and he will save the Government and all the rest of us, a good deal of trouble. Will he do so? I suspect that the Government’s position is a result of the arrogance of a Government who have a large majority in the other place. They have taken a position and refuse to change it, however strong the arguments on the other side.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has indicated his desire to speak.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. I agree entirely with what he had to say and with the noble Lords, Lord Campbell and Lord West of Spithead, too. It comes down to a very simple proposition: throughout, we have been very clear that if the Government would simply amend the memorandum of understanding with the Intelligence and Security Committee to include reference to the Investment Security Unit, there would be no need for any amendment to the Bill. That remains the case now. The question why the Government are not doing this.
The Minister in the other place said on Monday night:
“The work of the security services on investment security in support of the ISU clearly falls within the remit of the ISC.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 154]
If that is the case, what is the impediment to adding the ISU into the memorandum? I think it is that the Government do not interpret the ISC as having a remit that extends beyond what the intelligence services themselves have offered by way of information to the Investment Security Unit in BEIS, to the point where —as the noble Lord, Lord West, quite accurately summarised—the scrutiny of how national security is being maintained in the decisions that become part of the interim or final orders made under this Bill.
The Government’s problem may be that they think that if they were to include the ISU in the memorandum of understanding, they would effectively create some duplication between the scrutiny of the order-making power by the BEIS Select Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee’s scrutiny. That need not be the case. It is perfectly clear already, within the memorandum of understanding that was quoted by Dr Lewis in the debate on Monday night, that the ISC’s work in looking at the intelligence services
“‘will not affect the wider scrutiny of departments…by other parliamentary committees. The ISC will aim to avoid any unnecessary duplication with the work of those Committees.’”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 160]
It seems to me that the resolution is very simple—the Government should simply add the Investment Security Unit into the memorandum of understanding. It is clear from what the ISC’s chair and members have said that they would not expect to duplicate the work of BEIS —the primary scrutiny of BEIS’s work—in implementing this legislation, but there are specific questions that relate to the use of intelligence and highly sensitive intelligence materials.
I was not comforted by reading that the chair of that committee in the other place has been told by the Secretary of State that he will brief him on privy counsellor terms. That tells us that the chair of the committee may know something, but the BEIS Select Committee in the other place will not generally know it. Its members will not be able to discuss that information and they will not be able to report on that basis. There is clearly a deficiency, as Dr Lewis quite rightly said—a scrutiny gap—in relation to the use of top-secret material on a routine basis in informing decisions made under this legislation. The inclusion of the ISU in the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee will close that scrutiny gap.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister used the word heavyweight; I would use the word authoritative about the speeches we have heard from the noble Lords, Lords West, Lord Butler, Lord Lansley, and my noble friend Lord Campbell. I do not have the same authority, but I have an eye for process and an eye for a discontinuity. At the heart of this is a central contradiction. This Bill is called the National Security and Investment Bill, and its central premise is that the world of security has changed. It is not about armies and air forces; it is about technology—the spread of technology and access to that technology. The Bill is built on the idea that we need an approach to the commercial use, sale and protection of this technology for the security of this country.
The speeches that the Minister has heard were characterised in his preceding speech as somehow decrying the abilities of the BEIS Select Committee. The BEIS Select Committee was not put in place to assess the security issues that these companies are facing. That is not its job; its job is to do what BEIS was there to do. This Bill, by its nature, by its very name, is a hybrid of two very important issues: investment and security. The BEIS Select Committee is there and is an expert on the first of those. The ISC is there to protect the country and to offer scrutiny on security issues. There is no problem in asking both of those committees to do what they are good at in order to fulfil the very important task that Bill seeks to undertake.
We can only conclude that, because the Government decided not to do this and because, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, put it, they have a large majority in the other place, they will continue down this road. There is another opportunity for the Government to think again and do the most sensible thing, which is to amend the MoU. It does not require primary legislation, in my understanding, and would be done very quickly with the consent of this House. For that reason, if the noble Lord, Lord West, decides to put this to a vote, these Benches would like to ask that question of the people across the way, at least one more time.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it is clear that the Government have no good reason for refusing to accord the ISC its proper role in overseeing the intelligence input into a decision by the BEIS Secretary of State to forbid an otherwise bona fide investment in an enterprise—the sort of investment that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just described. I am sad to say that the Minister cited only the size of the House of Commons majority and gave no argument against proper parliamentary scrutiny. Frankly, if we are to say that this House should never question what the majority in the House of Commons does, you would wonder whether there is any role for this House. The size of the majority down there is not important; what is important to the security of this country is the correctness of the views that we take.
At one point, I think in this House, it was suggested that the Government did not want to amend the MoU case by case, but why not? As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has said, if a new law comes in that has “national security” in its title and gives powers to a Secretary of State that depend wholly on intelligence, why not scrutinise that intelligence in respect of the use to which it is put? As we have head, neither the BEIS Select Committee nor its highly respected chair—who I assume will now be made a privy counsellor, since he is about to be briefed on Privy Council terms; I will be there to congratulate him if that happens—have the security clearance or experience to question the intelligence in the sorts of ways that we have been hearing from around the House. So why not let our experts carry out that work, on behalf of Parliament? What my noble friend is asking for is simple: an amendment to a memorandum of understanding. Is that too much to ask of the Government?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed; it has again been a good demonstration of the quality of contributions from this House. I have listened very carefully to the points that have been made, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Campbell and Lord Butler, and by my noble friend Lord Lansley.
I will address the primary issue head on. This was raised by the noble Lords, Lord West and Lord Campbell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. It is the issue of whether the BEIS Select Committee will have access to “top secret” information. We will make sure that the BEIS Select Committee has the information that it needs to fulfil its remit and scrutinise the work of the ISU under the NSI regime. Much of this is unlikely to be highly classified and, where the Select Committee’s questioning touches on areas of high classification, it is likely that the relevant information could be given in a way that does not require as high a classification and provided to the committee confidentially. If, however, the BEIS Select Committee requires access to highly classified information, we will carefully consider how best to provide it, while maintaining information security in close collaboration with the committee’s chair.
Another point made by the noble Lord, Lord West, was that the current system for scrutiny is run out of the Cabinet Office and therefore comes under the ISC’s unit, so the Bill reduces the ISC’s remit. The Government’s main powers to scrutinise and intervene in mergers and acquisitions for national security reasons in fact come from the Enterprise Act 2002; the powers under that Act sit with the Secretaries of State for BEIS and DCMS, not in the Cabinet Office. Giving the BEIS Select Committee oversight of the new NSI regime is entirely in keeping with this and does not represent a reduction of the ISC’s remit.
A point made particularly by my noble friend Lord Lansley was about changing the memorandum of understanding, but the question here is not whether the MoU allows for the role proposed by noble Lords, but whether that role is appropriate. Our answer—and I appreciate that noble Lords will disagree—is no. The Government have made their case, which comes off the back of a resounding vote by the elected Chamber, that no change should be made to the Bill in relation to reporting to the Intelligence and Security Committee. We maintain our view that the BEIS Select Committee remains the place for scrutiny of the investment security unit and that the Intelligence and Security Committee remains the appropriate committee for scrutiny of the intelligence services, in accordance with the memorandum of understanding and the Justice and Security Act 2013. With acknowledgement to all who have spoken and with regard to the points that I have made, I appreciate the difference of opinion on this, but ask once again that the House does not insist on these amendments.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank those who spoke in support of my Motion. They have an incredible amount of knowledge about this issue. I find the Government’s position extraordinary and I feel sorry for the Minister opposite—for whom I have great respect—who has to parrot arrant nonsense. As an admiral and a captain who had defaulters in front of me, I have had people spouting arrant nonsense at me and I know how to spot it. This is arrant nonsense and I find that rather sad. It is unfortunate that he has to do this as I am sure that, deep down, he does not believe it, because he is an intelligent chap. I am appalled that the Government are not willing to give ground on this and I cannot understand why—I really cannot. This is not a great party-political issue or anything like that. It is quite extraordinary, so I am afraid that I will test the opinion of the House.
Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021
16:17 - Division conducted remotely on Baroness O’Loan’s amendment to the Motion. - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 418 - Baroness O’Loan’s amendment disagreed.
16:30 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Morrow’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 63 / Noes: 401 - Lord Morrow’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
16:43 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Shinkwin’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 70 / Noes: 409 - Lord Shinkwin’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Regulations laid before the House on 23 March be approved.
Relevant documents: 51st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument) and 23rd Report from the Constitution Committee
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, these regulations will provide the Secretary of State with the power to direct a Northern Ireland Minister, a Northern Ireland department, and the Health and Social Care Board of the Public Health Agency to take action necessary to implement all the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the 2018 United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, known as the CEDAW report.
We recognise that this is an unprecedented step, but such is the nature of the statutory duties on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that we have to act. While the regulations themselves are short, they are necessary to ensure that abortion services are available as a healthcare service in Northern Ireland, which will provide safe and local access for women and girls. We have made the most appropriate step in terms of the scope of any direction being limited to only what is needed to ensure that the CEDAW recommendations are implemented. This power, if exercised by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, can be used only for those purposes and will go no further.
I remind the House of the background to this. The House will recall that in 2019, during an ongoing absence of devolved government in Northern Ireland, Parliament decided that it was time to step in on this matter on the basis of human rights. These statutory duties did not fall away with the restoration of devolved government. We have always sought to deliver in a way that respects the devolution settlement, by putting in place the legal framework, but recognising that healthcare is devolved and therefore service provision should be delivered and overseen locally by the Department of Health and relevant health bodies with the relevant legal powers, policy and operational expertise to do so.
Noble Lords will also recall the previous debates that we have had on the 2020 regulations and the strongly held views across the Chamber on a range of finely balanced policy issues. This debate today is not about re-opening that; it is about ensuring that the duties under Section 9 of the NIEF Act can be implemented in full at the earliest opportunity. It is our firm view that the regulations that we made in 2020 established a new legislative framework that is operationally sound, works best for Northern Ireland, and delivers on the Government’s statutory duty. That is why we do not intend to amend the regulations.
So why are we here today? We are here today to do everything we can to demonstrate how committed we are to fulfilling the Government’s statutory obligations, and to ensure that women and girls in Northern Ireland have access to high-quality abortion and post-abortion care, consistent with the conditions set out in the 2020 regulations. As I have said, I recognise the emotive nature of these issues, but what is the issue at hand? As many noble Lords will be aware, over a year after the 2020 regulations came into force, women and girls in Northern Ireland are still unable to access high-quality abortion and post-abortion care in Northern Ireland, and the commissioning of full abortion services, consistent with the conditions set out in the 2020 regulations, has still not happened. In 2019, 1,014 abortions were provided in England and Wales for women from Northern Ireland, and women and girls still have to travel to access these services.
It has always been our expectation and preference that the Department of Health drives forward the commissioning of abortion services and ensures that these services become embedded in the health and social care system in Northern Ireland as an accepted and recognised healthcare service. While some abortion services have been provided since April 2020, and over 1,100 abortions have been provided in Northern Ireland, I am disappointed that services have not been formally commissioned, supported or funded by the Northern Ireland Department of Health, and that no guidance has been issued nor any official support measures put in place.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that at the very heart of this matter is the health of women and girls who have been, and continue to be, denied the same reproductive rights as women in the rest of the UK. Women and girls are entitled to safe, local healthcare. Indeed, during the pandemic this is even more crucial. We understand that managing the Covid-19 response has been an immense challenge and has placed the health and social care system in Northern Ireland under considerable pressure. However, the fact is that the law changed over a year ago. This is not a new issue that is a surprise to the Executive. Following the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 receiving Royal Assent, and the Section 9 duties coming into effect, we engaged with all the Northern Ireland parties on this matter, and we continued to engage, being clear that Parliament had stepped in, and we would be delivering on those legal duties accordingly.
We are disappointed with the continuing failure of the Department of Health and the Northern Ireland Executive to commission abortion services consistent with the regulations that we have made, despite having extensively engaged with the Minister for Health, his department and wider members of the Executive on this issue for over a year. However, I put on record my thanks to the medical professionals who have ensured that women and girls have had some access to abortion services in Northern Ireland to date, and the organisations that have supported this work. I pay particular tribute to the late Professor Jim Dornan, a leader in his field and a passionate advocate for health issues such as cancer, but also women’s reproductive rights.
Looking ahead, our strong preference remains for the Minister of Health and his department to take responsibility for upholding these rights, for commissioning services and for delivering on what the law now clearly allows. Let me make an important point. As abortion remains a devolved issue, the Assembly is able to legislate or indeed amend the regulations, should it so wish, but only if it can agree a way forward that is convention-compliant. However, the Secretary of State has an ongoing statutory obligation to ensure that the CEDAW recommendations are implemented in Northern Ireland.
It remains our preference that the Department of Health moves forward with full commissioning of abortion services in line with the regulations. That is why we are giving it every opportunity to act on this matter. I look forward to the debate and will seek to address as many questions as I can in my closing remarks. I hope that these regulations will be supported today and I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness O'Loan
Leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the Regulations laid before the House on 23 March because (1) the Northern Ireland Assembly is now sitting and the matter is devolved to that legislature; (2) the Regulations raise “complex legal and constitutional questions” in the view of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; (3) the Regulations go beyond the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 in that they undermine the devolution settlement in respect of education as well as abortion policy; (4) there has been no public consultation on the Regulations; and (5) the Regulations were laid shortly before the parliamentary Easter recess, which prevented the House considering them before they took effect.”
Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]
My Lords, I give notice that I intend to press my amendment to a vote. These regulations give the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a power to direct a Northern Ireland Minister or department, the Health and Social Care Board and the Public Health Agency to take any action for the purpose of implementing the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of CEDAW. The powers conferred in these regulations are therefore extremely wide.
The Government have asserted that they have a duty to bring these regulations, but there is no time limit. This is work in progress for the Assembly and there can be no justification for intervening in the work of the Northern Ireland Assembly on this sensitive issue, disregarding the devolution settlement. The regulations will be implemented through directions from the Secretary of State. It is said that a direction will look like a statutory instrument, but we have procedures for statutory instruments. There are no procedures to scrutinise what is done by the NIO.
I ask your Lordships to vote against these regulations because the Assembly is sitting and the matter is devolved to that legislature. The regulations raise
“complex legal and constitutional questions”;
they go beyond the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations; they undermine the devolution settlement in respect not only of abortion policy but of education; there has been no public consultation; and the regulations were laid just before Easter, preventing the House from considering them before they came into effect.
Your Lordships will recall that this started in July 2019 when a group of MPs, none of whom represented Northern Ireland, urged upon the other place a duty to give effect to the CEDAW recommendations. There was no obligation on Parliament to give effect to them. All the Northern Ireland MPs voted against them, but their votes and the votes of the Northern Ireland Assembly were ignored. The Government did not question what was said in the other place and proceeded to make an unworkable House of Commons clause into Section 9 of the executive formation Act. There were no international legal obligations, something that the Government have now recognised.
This is a matter that should be dealt with by the Assembly. Work has been ongoing. There is a very firm belief in Northern Ireland that every life matters, that both mother and baby matter. There is provision, such as that suggested in CEDAW recommendations 85 and 86, for support for mothers and for those who make the choice, sometimes with great difficulty, to have an abortion. Undoubtedly, more resources are required. Registered medical professionals in Northern Ireland now terminate pregnancies lawfully at no cost to the mother. Such terminations must, under the terms of the regulations passed here, be carried out in health and social care premises. Some 1,345 abortions were carried out in the past reporting year. Abortion is available in Northern Ireland, and safely.
Northern Ireland’s health service was described as broken pre Covid. Mid-Covid, in January 2021, almost one in five of our population was waiting for a first out-patient appointment; half them have been waiting for more than a year. In December 2019 and January 2020, just before Covid, the Royal College of Nursing called the first strike action in its 103-year history in Northern Ireland. With great respect, it is for the political representatives of Northern Ireland to devise a way forward on the provision of health services and abortion services.
Northern Ireland is in a parlous state. Our Assembly is functioning but our political situation is very fragile. Brexit brought civil unrest and the terrorists—ever present—have become more active. Last week a bomb was left in a car into which a young police officer was about to put her three year-old daughter. Noble Lords will have seen the rioting which was switched on on Good Friday and lasted over two weeks. Some 88 police officers were injured, civilians were injured, families were threatened and property was destroyed.
Northern Ireland has a devolved Government. Most recently the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that these are politically and legally important issues and should have had more consideration. Our Assembly faces more significant problems than the rest of the UK because of our history, the instability of our current situation and the impact of the EU NI protocol. We are in a different place from the rest of the UK. There is no imperative to affirm these regulations today.
If affirmed they will further marginalise the Northern Ireland Assembly in its attempts to do business co-operatively—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the time limit.
Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]
It is important that your Lordships’ House respects the attempts being made in Northern Ireland to deliver effective devolved government. I ask noble Lords to vote for my amendment and reject this further attempt to undermine the Northern Ireland Assembly. Help us. Have courage. I beg to move.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is a relationship between three nations and a Province, a relationship in which together we are more than the sum of our component parts. The union has worked hitherto because Parliament has recognised that it cannot be used to impose a uniformity that undermines the key distinctiveness of the component parts. Parliament could, at any point since 1707, have voted to impose an English legal system on Scotland, but it has not because that would be to fatally disrespect Scotland and render the union unsustainable.
One of Northern Ireland’s distinctions pertains to its approach to the unborn. As the then Secretary of State said in 2018,
“Abortion has been a devolved matter in Northern Ireland since it was created in 1921, and it would not be appropriate for Westminster to seek to impose its will, or to be the arbiter of an issue that has long been devolved to the people of Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/18; col. 220.]
In the last 50 years in particular, we have developed a distinctive approach that affirms the importance of both lives, the life of the mother and that of the unborn. That may not matter to people in other parts of the union, but it matters very much to the people in Northern Ireland. We are proud of the report that demonstrated in 2017 that 100,000 people are alive in Northern Ireland today who would not have been had we embraced the Abortion Act in 1967 along with the other jurisdictions in GB. Moreover, after a complaint and a five-month investigation, the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that this was a reasonable claim.
What makes the regulations before us today deeply problematic is that they rest on the regulation-making power in Section 9, which was developed on the back of a vote that took place on 9 July 2019 in which 100% of the Northern Ireland MPs who took their seats in Northern Ireland voted no, yet this radical Northern Ireland-only law change was imposed on us by MPs, none of whom has a mandate to represent Northern Ireland. The strength and reality of the union is not confirmed by the ability of the sovereignty of Parliament to impose legislation that pertains only to a component unit of the union against the wishes of its representatives. Rather, it is confirmed by the fact that even though Parliament could impose in these instances, it does not and instead respects the different priorities of the different components of the union in order that the union can continue.
The passage of Section 9 and these regulations has swept those normal conventions to one side. First, it was argued on 9 July 2019 that Parliament was duty-bound to pass the amendment that became Section 9 because Northern Ireland was in violation of international human rights convention obligations under CEDAW and the recommendations of the 2018 committee report on Northern Ireland. However, in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the regulations today, the Government now confirm that paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW committee report do not constitute legally binding international obligations. As such, they do not provide grounds for overruling devolution or, more fundamentally, the understandings that make it possible to argue for the relationship that exists between the UK’s four component parts.
Secondly, it has been argued that, quite apart from international legal obligations, the law change introduced by Section 9 was necessary because of domestic UK legal process through the Supreme Court judgment on abortion in Northern Ireland in 2018. However, that argument is plainly absurd. The Supreme Court made no binding judgment whatsoever on abortion law in Northern Ireland. It reviewed narrowly whether certain elements of the law in Northern Ireland were not human rights compliant, not whether there was a general right to abortion.
The two areas where the court considered there would be non-compliance under Article 8 of the ECHR were abortions on the grounds of a fatal foetal abnormality and in cases where a pregnancy was the result of sexual crime. The judgment was not binding but, had Stormont been sitting and the law been amended accordingly, it would have resulted in a tiny increase in the number of abortions and the life-affirming traditions of Northern Ireland would have largely continued.
In the context where the existence of life-affirming laws is a long-term distinctive Northern Ireland legal tradition backed by its representatives on 9 July 2019, and where there is no justification for sweeping that aside on the basis of either international obligations or the ruling of the Supreme Court, one has to confront the harsh reality that the only reason why we are here today is that Parliament decided to take the risk—
Lord Morrow (DUP)
—of dispensing with the Northern Ireland tradition because doing so was a greater priority to Members of Parliament than the continuation of the union.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment in my name and give notice that I intend to test the opinion of the House.
I am a severely disabled parliamentarian who believes that I have as much right to exist as anyone else. The regulations may not apply to me directly, but they still threaten me because they challenge that right by devaluing my existence. The narrative of the regulations is that I should not really exist. Indeed, I would be better off dead. The Minister cites CEDAW, but I wonder how that narrative does not perpetuate a negative stereotype against disabled people, which CEDAW expressly prohibits. If we pass the regulations today, not only are we endorsing lethal disability discrimination right up to birth but we are in practice saying to anyone who is born with a disability that they somehow escaped the net.
To his credit, the Prime Minister has committed to publishing in the near future the most ambitious and transformative disability plan in a generation, so it is somewhat odd that Her Majesty’s Government should none the less think it appropriate to publish regulations whose ambition is not to transform the lives of human beings with disabilities but, rather, to ensure that they never see the light of day.
I have to say that there seems to be a slight disconnect in the Government’s messaging. Perhaps the Minister could explain to the House, to me and to Harry Cahoon from Belfast, whose mother, Grace, emailed me yesterday, how it makes sense for the Government to tell human beings born disabled, “We want to support you but only if we haven’t found and killed you first.” My bones break easily. Harry, who is a happy 17 month-old baby, has an extra chromosome. Brittle bones and Down’s syndrome respectively are our medical conditions. We both, therefore, meet the criteria in the regulations that we have a physical or mental impairment that deems us to be severely or seriously disabled, so under these regulations we would qualify for death right up to birth.
That is ultimately what the regulations are about: death for disability—in other words, state-sanctioned, state-sponsored lethal disability discrimination. It is tragic that, despite the immense sacrifices of my grandparents’ generation, who fought and died in the war, the eugenicist poison that informed Adolf Hitler’s Aktion T4 euthanasia programme against disabled human beings is now informing government policy and being imposed on the people of Northern Ireland.
We have a choice: do we effectively endorse lethal disability discrimination, or do we instead send a resounding message of affirmation to human beings born disabled, and to their families, that your Lordships’ House upholds their dignity and equality? I beg to move.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I preface my remarks by making the observation that it is against the law, throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, to compel or coerce a woman to have an abortion against her will. This House is talking today about the legal provision of services that are locally accessible to women and girls who need them. It is part of an ongoing debate between those of us who believe that women and girls are capable of making—and have the right to make—informed choices about their reproductive health, informed by health practitioners who wish to guarantee their safety, and those who do not. There was much that I took exception to in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. I do not have time to address those issues today, but I hope that the House will return to some of the very serious allegations that he made.
When noble Lords listen to the arguments today, they will hear many deeply held views, but they are not views about the devolution settlement; they are about Members’ opposition to abortion. Those Members not only oppose the reform of Northern Ireland abortion law by Westminster but also support the restriction of abortion rights across Great Britain. They have worked to enable nurses and doctors to block women accessing the care to which they are legally entitled and have sought to stop essential clinical developments in abortion care, such as telemedicine.
We know that when it is difficult for women to access abortion care, maternal health suffers across the board. We know that, before the change in the law in 2018, over 1,000 women a year travelled to England and Wales from Northern Ireland for a termination of a pregnancy —and, during the dangerous time of the pandemic, they have continued, in their desperation, to do so. We really must not return to that because, as ever, it is women who are poor, and women in coercive relationships who cannot escape, who will suffer the most.
This measure is, unfortunately, necessary because the Northern Ireland Assembly has, over 15 months, frustrated every attempt to make sure that women have access to the services that they need. This is a limited measure simply to enable women to access the healthcare that they need. What timetable does the Minister envisage for women to be able to access services across all four health and social care boards in Northern Ireland? When will we see the reintroduction of telemedicine, a service that has proved so effective in England?
For decades, women and girls in Northern Ireland have been weighed down by the politics of the past. Today is another opportunity for this House to give them hope for the future.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, as noble Lords have said, at the very heart of this debate are the women, unborn children and their families who are affected by this issue. We must almost have them at the forefront of our consideration. I found what the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, said very powerful and moving. As the father of a child born with severe disability myself, I entirely understand what he said. I have spoken to, and been friendly with, many families with children with disabilities. They have found their family lives richly rewarding and speak powerfully to the value of every life. That must always be central when we discuss the issues of constitutionality, devolution settlements, the Sewel convention, parliamentary rights and so on.
On this side of the argument we simply ask that all lives matter. In consultation after consultation in Northern Ireland—and this is a devolved matter—the people of Northern Ireland have responded by saying that they value all lives and that they do not want the sweeping laws that have been introduced there to apply to them, especially when no one has voted for that. We now have the most liberal abortion laws anywhere in the United Kingdom and, even if you believe in abortion, you cannot say that that is a correct and proper process for Northern Ireland.
The Northern Ireland Assembly voted to reject these regulations on 2 June 2020. This is not some theoretical matter which the Assembly has not considered; it did consider it and, because of the sweeping nature of the laws, rejected the regulations. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was quoted by the BBC as saying that he was, nevertheless, committed to the regulations because they must comply with a UN convention. However, as has been pointed out, there are no such convention obligations. Paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that
“paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW Report”,
on which the legislation was based, and which we were told was its justification,
“are not binding and do not constitute international obligations.”
We therefore need to be very clear, when we come to vote, exactly what we are voting on, and keep all those unborn children in mind.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, we are all aware of the sensitivities surrounding abortion, as the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, has observed, and also of the wide range of deeply held views that it provokes. However, whatever our own particular standpoint on abortion per se, which is, as the House has been reminded, now legal in Northern Ireland, there are two specific aspects of these regulations which must be of general concern. One has to do with devolution, as we have already been reminded. To quote from a recent statement issued by the Archbishop of Armagh:
“It is a matter of regret that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to seek powers from Parliament to give direction to the Department of Health in Northern Ireland around what is clearly a devolved matter.”
Many others, including 250 clergy from several denominations in Northern Ireland, have made a similar point about these regulations undermining the devolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly, now that it is functioning again. There is a strong and widespread sense of democratic deficit in this regard.
The other issue which demands urgent consideration is the recommendation in paragraph 85(b)(iii) of the CEDAW report that abortion should be legalised in cases of “severe foetal impairment”; that is, disability, including Down syndrome. We have debated that before in your Lordships’ House and it has been raised already in this debate. Members of the Assembly have also already strongly indicated their support for a Private Member’s Bill which rejects the inclusion of abortion on the grounds of non-fatal disabilities. The regulations now before us seem to disregard that entirely. Indeed, they would replace one of the most conservative abortion regimes in the United Kingdom with one of the most liberal and discriminatory. That accords neither with the wishes of a majority of Assembly Members nor with the views of a significant majority—79%—of those who responded to a recent public consultation on this subject.
For these two reasons in particular, I cannot support the regulations as they currently stand. In the event that they are approved, I note that the Secretary of State is not mandated to use draconian powers to ensure their full implementation. I hope that, in that instance, it might be possible for him to work closely with the devolved Administration to bring about an outcome that is rather closer to their position on this contentious topic.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is an instrument dealing with abortion. It is put forward under the authority of Section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. The introduction to that Act states that what it proposes is subject to the formation of the Executive. As your Lordships know, the Executive have now been operational for 15 months and accordingly it appears to me that the Act on which the Government are relying is not operative at the present time.
In any event, there are only three grounds under Section 26 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 under which this Parliament can intervene in a devolved matter by statutory instrument in Northern Ireland: international obligation, safeguarding defence or national security, and protecting public safety or public order. The only question at issue under the statutory instrument is international obligation. The Northern Ireland Office made it clear in its submission to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that there is no international obligation which requires this particular instrument, nor is this instrument enforceable except by the questionable process of judicial review. Accordingly, it is contrary to these provisions for this instrument to be enacted. It is, further, of considerable damage to the settlement in Northern Ireland for this instrument to be forced on the people of Northern Ireland without the agreement of the Executive. It is obviously a matter of considerable dispute in Northern Ireland and it is surely the objective of devolution to allow such matters to be decided in Northern Ireland itself.
In addition to these difficulties, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has said:
“We regard it as poor practice to bring new policy into effect when the House is not sitting, and using a procedure which prevents discussion before the legislation takes effect. It is particularly inappropriate when that policy is likely to be controversial.”
The House, it says, may wish to ask the Minister to explain why:
“Contrary to the convention of allowing at least 21 days between laying an instrument and bringing it into effect, the 2021 Regulations came into effect eight days after laying.”
I therefore take up the committee’s suggestion that the House may wish to press the Minister for further justification as to why the Northern Ireland Office decided to bring these regulations into effect in breach of the 21-day convention, and during the Easter Recess.
My main point, of course, is my first one: that these regulations are ultra vires of the Secretary of State in the present circumstances and I find it impossible to support them.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I now call the noble Lord, Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown. If my pronunciation is less than perfect, I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, we are being asked to give our consent to the killing of the unborn child. Many abortionists claim that abortion is the premature expulsion of the human foetus, but in reality it is the ending of a human life. They try to make it sound as nonviolent as possible, but that is not true. As a pastor, I have met many people, including young women, who find themselves in distressing circumstances and, with Christian compassion, have sought to offer genuine help and practical support. But what of these regulations before us today? They go far beyond that which is legally required and are especially discriminatory against those diagnosed with disabilities; they are insensitive and offensive.
We listen to those who piously proclaim that they would never do anything to undermine the Belfast agreement or the devolution settlement, yet the corrosive constitutional nature of this legislation is seriously damaging to devolution and is like throwing a hand grenade into the fragile structures of devolution. This is an unreasonable exercise of emergency constitutional powers when a devolved Government are functioning. Can anyone imagine Westminster interfering in issues fully devolved to the Scottish Parliament? The answer is no, but the Government, through this legislation, have crawled over the mangled bodies of little children to appease Sinn Féin demands before that party would allow devolution to be restored.
Life in our nation has been devalued. What is being proposed goes against everything God’s word teaches concerning the preciousness of life. Sadly, I believe that part of the blame must lie at the feet of silent people who know better but never raise their voices to speak the truth in love. For years, the very thought of what happens in abortion outraged the community, but powerful lobby forces have been at work and, through the media, have sought to condition and harass people into acceptance. I fear that if we accept the taking of life in the dawn of its existence, we will soon be pressurised to take human life in the twilight of its existence as well. I will not be silent, for my conscience is bound by the word of God. Does no one care that children with a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome, for example, are to be torn from their mother’s womb although their lives are fully viable and valuable? Of course, the doors will not be open for the public to see the tearful reality and truth about the various methods of the death of these children—out of sight, out of mind.
In a democracy, the major decisions are tested at the ballot box, but this legislation is being forced upon the people of Northern Ireland without a mandate to do so. The Government are deliberately acting in defiance of the will of the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. Over these past years, we have spent billions to save life, yet in this one-and-a-half-hour debate we are being asked to sanction the killing of the unborn child. Many have been complaining throughout lockdown about what we do not have, what we cannot enjoy and where we cannot go. As we vote today, I ask noble Lords to hear the voices of thousands of innocent little children who have never had the opportunity to live outside the womb and, before God, to prevent another unnecessary death. I wholeheartedly support the amendments before the House and I unreservedly reject the Government’s Motion.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is an emotional issue, but I wish to express my own concern about the constitutional implications of these regulations.
To go back to the beginning, the legislation that introduced devolution to Northern Ireland followed a similar, although not identical, pattern to that adopted by the Scotland Act 1998. One of the issues that was much debated in the discussion about Scotland was what to do about abortion. In the end, it was decided that this should be a reserved matter, as it now is in Wales since 2006. The decision for Northern Ireland, on the other hand, was that it should be a transferred matter, and so within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly, rather than that of the UK Parliament at Westminster. That was no accident. The Northern Ireland Act was the culmination of multiparty talks and the Belfast agreement of 10 April 1998. Those who are legislating here were content, without question, to accept the result of these talks. I cannot help thinking that if the Government were still respecting that result, as I believe they should, we would not be here today.
The only reason we are faced with this legislation is the duty placed on the Secretary of State by Section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. As we know, that Act was passed while the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland were suspended. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, so correctly pointed out, the Long Title of that Act states that one of its purposes is
“to impose a duty on the Secretary of State … to make regulations changing the law of Northern Ireland on certain matters, subject to the formation of an Executive”.
I agree with the construction that the noble and learned Lord put upon those words. Northern Ireland now has a functioning Executive and the Assembly is now once again able to take these matters into its own hands and reform abortion law according to its own wishes—indeed, it has spoken, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, told us. So, we are not in the situation that the qualification in the Long Title contemplates. I agree with the conclusion that the noble and learned Lord has drawn and I suggest that we ought to have careful regard to it when considering the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
The Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, has raised a question as to the prospect and desirability of different laws on abortion operating in Northern Ireland. This is a very confusing and disturbing matter, because we are moving into very deep waters. I would be grateful if the Minister would respond as fully as he can to the question that the Constitution Committee has raised. One of the remarkable things about the Northern Ireland settlement is a unique provision in the devolution legislation which enables the Assembly to modify any provision made in or under an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament,
“in so far as it is part of the law of Northern Ireland”.
But it can do this only if it is within its legislative competence, having regard, among other things, to the convention rights. So, it is a complicated matter and I would be grateful for the Minister’s further observations on that awkward situation.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak on this unprecedented move to provide the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with such expansive powers. I share the concerns of many across the House and will concentrate on this issue during this debate.
I am pro-life but, for me, the debate is not about the rights or wrongs of abortion; it goes to the heart of the devolved settlement—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has already articulated. Under the devolution settlement it is up to the Assembly to legislate exclusively in a wide range of matters, one of which is health, including women’s health and abortion. In this instance, I agree with the Motions before the House but disagree with the regulations.
If this proposed intervention by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is allowed through the approval of these regulations, a dangerous precedent will be set whereby the UK Government can legislate directly on devolved matters whenever they like. The Minister said that this power related exclusively to the issue of abortion; the House should take note of that.
I point out too that allowing the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland such expansive powers as are set out in these regulations not only is unprecedented but sets a dangerous precedent for the treatment of devolved powers in the UK, undermines the powers of our Assembly and would be in contempt of the Good Friday agreement. It is worth noting that the Assembly was restored in January last year. I believe firmly in devolution and am opposed to the principle of this legislation, without prejudice to my personal pro-life views on abortion.
In 2019, the previous Parliament voted to impose on Northern Ireland the extreme abortion recommendations of the United Nations CEDAW committee. This is a UN convention to which the British Government have signed up. I have been told, however, that CEDAW does not have any direct legal effect in Britain or Northern Ireland: it can report and recommend actions, but those are simply recommendations with no binding international human rights obligations. Moreover, it is not clear how these powers, conferred by the 2021 regulations, are admissible under the devolved settlement enacted by the 1998 Northern Ireland Act. It would appear that this is a constitutional overreach on a devolved matter. I ask the Minister to think carefully about this issue and to withdraw these regulations.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, as a Conservative and Unionist, I am acutely aware that the maintenance of our union does not depend on the imposition of uniformity. If the union is to survive, we must respect the key distinctions between its different parts. Northern Ireland’s long tradition of life-affirming laws may not be to everyone’s liking, but we must acknowledge their existence—not because of a stunted view of human rights but because of a wider vision in which the rights of both the mother and the unborn have to be taken into account.
I am deeply concerned that, rather than respecting the traditions of Northern Ireland, some representatives of other parts of the union have actively sought to disinherit Northern Ireland of her traditions. We simply cannot do that if we want our union to survive. The vote that started this process in another place on 9 July 2019 resulted in all Northern Ireland MPs who took their seats in Westminster voting no, and yet this unwanted legislation was imposed on the Province by MPs from other parts of the union.
I cannot think of any example of this kind of case that ended well. There was the flooding of the valley in Wales and the destruction of the village of Capel Celyn, in the context of 35 of Wales’s 36 MPs voting no. That is a huge issue for many people in Wales more than 50 years later. The imposition of the poll tax on Scotland a year early, against the wishes of its elected representatives, provides another case in point. Both events have been the subject of public apologies and, sadly, both now inform the narrative of independence in Scotland and Wales.
It is no surprise that legislation resting on such troubled foundations should be less than straightforward. These regulations cannot be enforced—certainly not in the normal way. As the Government conceded to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the only way to enforce them would be to judicially review the decision of an actor to whom they are directed to ignore them. Given this difficulty, and the implications of the nature of the vote of 9 July 2019 on which the regulations rest, I suggest that, rather than continuing with these regulations, the Government give Parliament the option of considering the restoration of Stormont and repealing Section 9.
In making this point, I say to advocates of abortion liberalisation: “What are you scared of?” It is patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about the Northern Ireland Assembly that it is not going to move back to a pre-October 2019 position. Indeed, it is interesting that the only legislative steps that the restored Assembly has taken—
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
I am finishing. The only legislative steps that the restored Assembly has taken is to consider a Bill to prohibit abortion on the basis of non-fatal disability until birth, a measure that would prevent perhaps only one abortion a year. I will certainly support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Government have said that they have no choice but to bring these regulations forward because of the obligations placed on the Secretary of State by Section 9 of the executive formation Act. We now know, having listened to and read many speeches, that this is just not credible. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in particular, pointed this out so clearly. First, Section 9 was brought in in the context of legislation whose purpose was to help restore the Executive, along with maintaining abortion as a key part of the devolution settlement. The Executive has now been restored for 16 months and abortion remains in the devolution settlement. Secondly, the decision to introduce Section 9 was the decision of the previous Parliament, and no Parliament can bind its successor. Every Parliament must have the right to respond to changing circumstances.
The 2019 vote on which Section 9 rests saw 100% of Northern Ireland’s elected MPs opposing Section 9, but it was imposed by the other MPS, none of whom represented Northern Ireland. Surely the Government have learned from the lessons of the past when trying to impose legislation on other parts of the United Kingdom. As has been mentioned, the poll tax is a brilliant example of that—a terrible mistake by a Conservative Government, and subsequently apologised for by David Cameron in 2006. I would have hoped that riding roughshod over devolved Governments was a thing of the past. It seems to be a thing of the past for Wales and Scotland, but somehow Northern Ireland is once again treated differently.
When it suits Her Majesty’s Government, it is a devolved matter. Along with other Members, I tried very hard to get the definition of “victim” to be the same in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. “Oh no”, I was told, “that’s a devolved matter”. There are so many other examples—look at the treatment of veterans. We now know that the international obligations on which Section 9 was argued for are not binding. These regulations are an assault on the constitutional dignity of Northern Ireland. With the current instability in Northern Ireland as a result of another government diktat of the protocol, this will cause even more instability and concern.
Noble Lords’ views on abortion are not the issue. Today’s debate is not about abortion: it is about allowing a devolved Government to make their own decision on a devolved matter. There is a need for a debate on this in Northern Ireland. Perhaps one way of getting agreement on such a controversial issue would be a referendum.
However, these regulations will—and I must put it in this strange way—put another nail in the coffin of devolution for Northern Ireland. We are being treated differently. People in Northern Ireland are getting fed up with being treated differently, and we can start today in this House by showing that we believe in devolution and in the Northern Ireland Assembly having a right. I ask noble Lords to vote for all these amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, on an extremely moving speech and totally support him.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, the regulations proposed by the Government are deeply troubling for the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland and the lives of the unborn. There is a danger that this regulation will further the damage done by the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 in that instant changes were made without the Executive’s approval because there was no Executive. However, now there is an Executive in Stormont exercising their constitutional right to govern. Do the Government no longer trust the institutions or leaders of Northern Ireland to govern? If the people and parties of Northern Ireland have a different view on abortion from that of this Government, should they not be allowed to form their own laws and regulations?
A Motion was passed by Stormont in June 2020 rejecting the changes that the Government made. At the very least, there is cross-party support for removing the right to abortion in cases of severe foetal impairments. This regulation takes no interest in the views of those representing the people of Northern Ireland. Instead, it assumes that the Secretary of State should be responsible for these decisions. This principle potentially threatens the union. I am sure that voters in Scotland will be taking note.
Furthermore, I have concerns about the implication of this regulation for the lives and rights of the disabled. Paragraph 85 of the report upon which the regulation is based states that severe foetal impairment should be considered grounds for an abortion. However, it goes on to say that this should be done
“without perpetuating stereotypes towards persons with disabilities”.
This is a clear contradiction. If we value the lives of the disabled, we should not also pass laws allowing for the abortion of disabled babies. What does it say to those in our country, and in Northern Ireland, who have a severe disability, as we have heard already? The Government seem to be saying that these lives are less valuable.
Finally, paragraph 86 of the report mentions protecting women
“from harassment by anti-abortion protesters by investigating complaints and prosecuting and punishing perpetrators.”
What forms of anti-abortion protest do the Government deem acceptable to take place in Northern Ireland? Will there still be space for peaceful exercise of free speech?
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, a womb is not a tomb. In 1996 I presented the Bill which created the UK’s first DNA database. From the moment of conception, life begins, with unique DNA which no other human soul in the world has. Abortion, in the dictionary, means abandonment, death, destruction, expulsion, cancellation, rescission, revocation and feticide—cold, hard, final words which cannot be reversed.
I oppose these regulations. Abortion is a devolved issue. The Northern Ireland Assembly has now been sitting for over 15 months, so it is a serious violation of the devolution settlement for the Government to impose themselves further through the commissioning of abortion services—services which are already being provided. In the year since the abortion regulations were introduced, 1,345 lives have already been lost to abortion in Northern Ireland. There are now over 50 million abortions per year worldwide. That is more than one abortion per second. During the 90 minutes of this short debate, more than 5,400 babies worldwide will have been aborted.
Of the consultation responses, 79% registered general opposition, based on the historical and established position on abortion in Northern Ireland, yet these regulations ignore this clear opposition. These latest regulations go beyond what is available in the rest of the United Kingdom, against the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland and their politicians. For example, they permit gender-selective abortion and there is no requirement that a doctor be involved. There is a clear breach of Article 10 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which states that everyone has the right to life, whether able-bodied or disabled.
We start every day’s session in both Houses of Parliament with prayers. Surely God’s words in the Bible should not be ignored. Psalm 139, verses 13 and 16, emphasises how God views each and every life that He creates as ordained for a purpose and special:
“For you created my inmost being;
You knit me together in my mother’s womb …
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
All the days ordained for me were written in your book”.
We have a choice between man’s regulations and God’s words. Everyone who is for abortion has already been born. Unborn babies do not have voices, but they do have rights. A womb is not a tomb.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, these regulations present me with a quandary. I look at the abortion arrangements that they allow for women in Northern Ireland with some envy. The unconditional access to terminations pre 12 weeks, and a more liberal overall approach that effectively decriminalises abortion, go beyond the Abortion Act 1967, and many of us who have argued over the decades for full reproductive rights for women would want such arrangements extended to the whole of the UK. Conversely, the position for women in Northern Ireland previously, when abortion was legally permitted only in very limited circumstances, was highly proscriptive and led many women to fear stigmatisation and criminalisation for decisions made about their own body, a fundamental tenet of women’s freedom.
The recent problems created by a non-functioning Assembly, forcing women to travel for abortions or to see to term unwanted pregnancies, were intolerable. So I understand the justifiable argument for intervention while the power-sharing agreement was not functioning and women in Northern Ireland were left, in effect, without access to abortion services. But, and it is a big “but”, we now have a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly, and while abortion is a devolved matter, something which I prefer was not the case, the imposition of these regulations by Westminster decree without consent—indeed, in flagrant defiance of a rejection of these regulations by democratically elected Northern Ireland politicians—is an obvious flouting of democracy. Even amid concerns about delays in commissioning services by the Assembly, why does the Secretary of State have such sweeping powers? We do not even know when they will end.
This is made worse by the sensitivity of the issue. Votes on abortion are rightly recognised as a matter of freedom of conscience. I do not agree with the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that post-24 week terminations represent any threat to the rights of the disabled, but I defend his right to put these arguments, and acknowledge that this is a morally charged question. A tone-deaf breach of an already strained devolution agreement on this issue does nothing to win the argument for more liberal abortion arrangements in Northern Ireland or tackle the hard questions.
I urge women’s rights campaigners and the citizens of Northern Ireland to put their energies into winning public support in a popular mandate for changes in the law and in recognition of the importance of women’s bodily autonomy. For pro-choice campaigners to support a UK Government deploying procedural chicanery that gives the Secretary of State unprecedented powers to expand abortion services seems to be cheating politically, and to be counterproductive and antidemocratic. By the way, having 90 minutes to debate women’s rights or Northern Ireland devolution seems insulting to both.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with my noble friend on the Front Bench, because his entire legal case and the whole legal basis for his proposal collapsed within minutes of his sitting down after making his opening speech. In particular, as pointed out by a number of noble Lords but particularly the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Hope of Craighead, he needs an international obligation to give him the statutory power to override the devolution settlement, but his own department and the Explanatory Memorandum admit—and our own Constitution Committee has indicated—that there is no international obligation present in the CEDAW documents.
What really interests me about this whole measure is not the assault it makes on devolution as an abstract concept but the direct assault it represents on the Good Friday agreement itself. Last year we discussed the Northern Ireland protocol—in my view a bad treaty that has brought disruption to businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland, irrespective of communal affiliation. Jovian thunderbolts flew around this House at the thought that the Government could modestly though unilaterally alleviate that disruption to the practical benefit of the people there. The rule of law reigned supreme.
When we come to the Good Friday agreement, Jupiter falls silent—but we would all agree that the Good Friday agreement is a good treaty. It has ended terrorist violence and given Northern Ireland democratic self-government, yet here we are messing about with it on highly dubious grounds and with cavalier high-handedness. As one noble Lord said earlier, it cannot end well.
Earlier today at the Dispatch Box, my very same noble friend Lord Younger spoke to your Lordships’ House of Her Majesty’s Government’s
“unwavering commitment to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement”.
That is not what we are seeing evidence of this afternoon. The weather has changed, with little explanation. It is yet possible that the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Executive will reach an accommodation on this, but to achieve that with a gun pointing at the heart of the Good Friday agreement is a price too high to pay. I urge my noble friend to withdraw these regulations and think again.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
My Lords, as this debate has illustrated all too clearly, this subject provokes extremely strong emotions. I welcome these regulations from the Government but regret that they are necessary.
Contrary to many of the speeches we have heard this afternoon, there is in fact broad support in Northern Ireland and across party lines for the approach taken by the Northern Ireland Office in these regulations. Importantly, there is also a great deal of support for them from both the medical community and women’s rights organisations—points made extremely powerfully this afternoon by my noble friend Lady Barker. It is also worth noting that the regulations were adopted yesterday in the House of Commons by 431 votes to 89, a very substantial majority of 342 votes.
I pay tribute to the many dedicated healthcare professionals in Northern Ireland who have continued to support women and to provide reproductive healthcare in these most difficult of circumstances, made considerably more challenging by Covid-19.
Speaking to friends and colleagues in Northern Ireland, there is a deep sense of dismay at some of the political games being played here and much concern about some of the misinformation adding to the heat of this debate. The facts are that these regulations are concerned only with giving the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland powers to direct local health bodies and officeholders to commission abortion services. These regulations do not amend regulations and provisions for legal abortion care, which were supported overwhelmingly in Parliament last year.
As the report published last week by the House of Lords Constitution Committee sets out clearly, we should also recall that these regulations stem from the legislation passed during the period when the Northern Ireland Executive was suspended and before it was restored in January 2020. The 2020 regulations sought to bring Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the United Kingdom in reproductive rights and to ensure that the whole United Kingdom met its international requirements through CEDAW.
Of course, it would have been hugely preferable for the Northern Ireland Executive to have fulfilled their responsibility directly, but it is now more than a year since the Executive was restored and they have failed to do so. This seems unlikely to change in the near future so, faced with stalemate in the Executive on these matters, these regulations have become necessary. The debate this afternoon is really about ensuring the implementation of a law that has been in place for over a year now; it should not be about reopening or unpicking what should be a settled matter.
Debates about devolution and constitutional wrangling, as set out in several of the fatal amendments before us today, must not be allowed to hide the facts about what is happening now in Northern Ireland as regards access to vital reproductive healthcare and the impact this is having on women’s lives. Abortion in Northern Ireland is in a precarious position. Three local health trusts have stopped providing abortion services, with the consequence that once again women are being forced to travel to England for abortion services during a global pandemic or are purchasing unsafe abortion pills online. Despite the new legal framework coming into effect over a year ago, services remain unfunded and without commissioned support from the Northern Ireland Department of Health. It is surely unacceptable that reproductive rights vary across our United Kingdom.
I would like to reassure those colleagues who expressed concern about the potential impact of these regulations on the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland that—as my colleague in Northern Ireland, Alliance MP Stephen Farry, has said—these are an exceptional set of circumstances and should not create a wider precedent. As the Northern Ireland Office Minister Robin Walker put it so powerfully during the debate in the House of Commons earlier this week, and as the Minister repeated here this afternoon:
“At the heart of this matter are the women and girls in Northern Ireland who have been, and continue to be, denied the same reproductive rights as women in the rest of the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 26/4/21; col. 4.]
I therefore urge noble Lords to support these regulations and to reject all fatal amendments.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, just over nine months ago the Minister and I sat opposite each other at the Dispatch Box and the House debated the terms of the abortion provision in Northern Ireland, as set out in the 2020 regulations. Exactly a year before that, I sat opposite the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, while the House engaged in what was then a thoughtful and detailed debate on the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act and the decriminalisation of abortion in line with the CEDAW recommendations, which we have heard about today.
This debate has been heard in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions, and we know there are long and deeply held convictions across the House on both sides of the issue. That is evident today from the amendments we see, but I urge noble Lords to respect the views of other people in the language they use. Nobody has the moral high ground on this issue. One of the reasons I feel so strongly about the provision of abortion rights in Northern Ireland is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out, it is not compulsory but a provision of services.
Noble Lords may recall the reasons why the Republic of Ireland changed its law. In 2012 a 31 year-old woman was denied an abortion following an incomplete miscarriage because the law would not allow it, and she died as a result of being denied that abortion. I am sure no noble Lord in this House supports that happening to any woman, but the right of life is for women as well. That seems not to have been addressed in the debate we have had, and I am sorry for the tone of some of the comments that have been made.
It is now getting towards two years since the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act was passed, and the Secretary of State has a statutory duty to ensure that the recommendations in paragraphs 85 and 86 of the CEDAW report are implemented. The change in law then was in response to findings that the United Kingdom, as the state party, was responsible for
“grave and systematic violations of rights”.
It was then, as it is now, the duty of this Parliament and the UK Government to uphold the rights of their citizens at a UK-wide level.
Although the 2020 regulations provided a framework for service provision, we know that the proper funding and commissioning of those services is yet to take place. That leaves women and girls in Northern Ireland without the same access to reproductive rights and advice as their counterparts in every other part of the UK. The existing law is not being implemented, and that is the reason behind these specific and, as we have heard, limited regulations before us today.
Today’s order is supported by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Amnesty International and Informing Choices NI. They report that: early abortion services are currently beset with uncertainty; they are being run by local health trusts without funding, which puts them at risk of temporary or permanent closure; and multiple heath trusts have stopped provision of services for periods of time. I have heard just this weekend that, in the Western Health and Social Care Trust, services were being provided by a single doctor without support until, unsurprisingly, that was no longer viable. On Friday, that trust suspended its early medical abortion service, effective immediately, and is refusing all referrals. Today’s order gives the Secretary of State the power to direct that necessary action be taken to provide safe abortion services in Northern Ireland, as the law requires. We support it.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister and one brief comment, if time allows. First, he said the Secretary of State does not intend to use his power to direct immediately, but he is seeking further action from the Department of Health before the Summer Recess. Can he give any more information on that? Largely, my issue is with the continuing uncertainty.
Secondly, it has to be recognised that abortion services are not a stand-alone provision. They are part of the wider landscape of reproductive sexual health services. Could the Minister give more details on what supportive work is being done to provide counselling, access to contraception and quality relationship and sex education alongside changes in healthcare provision? The two go hand in hand.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, spoke about the vote in the House of Commons last night, when these regulations were supported by 431 votes to 89. When we had a debate on the 2020 regulations, I said:
“As an unelected House, our role on secondary legislation is limited and narrow.”—[Official Report, 15/6/20; col. 1995.]
I have said something similar in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions. At times, we find that frustrating—nobody more so than me, I can say. It remains frustrating, but it also remains my view that that is our role with secondary legislation. It would be extraordinary if, having seen secondary legislation passed in the House of Commons by 431 to 89, this House would decide to take a different view and, in effect, pass fatal Motions. As I have indicated, I support the order and oppose all three amendments.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank all speakers who contributed to this debate on the regulations on a subject matter which, as I said in my opening speech, I fully recognise is a sensitive and emotive issue. But can I start by saying how much I appreciated the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie? Her speech was sensible and balanced in terms of where we are now. She used the word “regret,” and she is right, in terms of the position we find ourselves in.
I would also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her remarks. I was grateful that she put, extremely eloquently, what we might both agree is the other side of the argument. I was very moved by the short story that she gave about the sad case of a particular girl.
I will directly answer one question the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, gave about the remarks that came from the Minister of State, Robin Walker, who said the plan is that the Department of Health in Northern Ireland will, hopefully, take heed of what we are doing and move quickly. However, he is happy to have what he has called a pause before the Summer Recess. That means he wants to allow further movement from the Department of Health so is prepared to allow a bit of leeway. I hope that provides some clarity, but if it does not, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness’s second question, which I scribbled down, on the extent and quality of abortion services, is an extremely good point. I may be able to address that later, but if not, again, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My question was not on the quality of abortion services but on the wider services provided on sexual health, contraception and care.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Of course. That is an extremely good point. I will pick up on that.
However, I recognise that several noble Lords—and many today—have registered their strong opposition to what we are doing. But we are under a clear statutory duty, and it is important that women and girls in Northern Ireland are afforded equal rights to those living across the rest of the UK.
Before turning to the substantive issues raised in today’s debate, since some noble Lords have questioned the extent of our legal powers, I would like the House to note that the JCSI has not drawn the instrument to the attention of both Houses for being ultra vires. But I will speak about constitutional matters later on, assuming that there is time.
I also note the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. I hope that the answers I give in relation to the issues raised will go a little way in explaining that these amendments, in our view and in my view, should not be supported.
My noble friend Lord Shinkwin raised issues about the potential for the framework set out in the March 2020 regulations to allow for discrimination against disability. I do, as he will know, respect my noble friend, and I am grateful to him for raising this important and sensitive issue once again. He should note that we are legally bound to implement the CEDAW recommendations, which include providing access to abortions in cases of severe foetal impairment, not only in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities. It is our firm view that the regulations properly comply with the statutory duty under Section 9 of the NIEF Act, which includes implementing all the recommendations in the CEDAW report. The regulations mirror the law in the rest of the UK, where abortions are permitted in cases of severe foetal impairment and fatal foetal abnormality, with no time limit.
The Government would never act to discriminate on the basis of disability. The regulations are consistent with the rights under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Proper provision of information, clear medical advice and counselling and other supports are all key in allowing a woman or girl to make an informed decision in what are often difficult situations. I was grateful for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who spoke eloquently and passionately about this aspect. This ensures access without barriers for victims of sexual crime as well as other women seeking an abortion, supporting the rights of women and girls to make informed decisions about how they wish to proceed, based on their health and wider circumstances, within the health system, rather than looking to alternative, unsafe means. This provision was determined as the most appropriate way of meeting our statutory duty and what CEDAW requires by ensuring that women, including victims of sexual crime, access services without undue delay while avoiding anything that could lead to further trauma or act as a barrier to access.
I would like to pick up on a point raised by my noble friend Lord Shinkwin. I will not be addressing his very strong views that he raised, and, as he would expect, I disagree very strongly with much of what he said, I regret to have to say. Let me say this: given the often late diagnosis and the timing of follow-up scans and tests, women will need to be given time to understand the nature and severity of the condition that they find themselves in. It is only right that women have appropriate time to make individual, informed decisions based on their own health and wider circumstances, including support where they want to carry a pregnancy to term. I think this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, as well. It is crucial that the Department of Health acts urgently to formally commission full services, consistent with the regulations we made, so that these support measures can be properly delivered.
As I mentioned in my opening speech, I remind noble Lords that the Assembly can consider and debate issues related to abortion. As I also said in my opening speech, any amendments must be compliant with convention rights, and the Secretary of State has an ongoing obligation to ensure ongoing consistency with the recommendations in the CEDAW report in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said that abortion remains devolved, and that the Government should instead be asking Parliament to repeal Section 9; that was mentioned by a few other Peers as well. I remind noble Lords that, although the Executive was restored, the statutory duty in Section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act did not fall away with the restoration, nor with the making of the initial regulations that came into force on 31 March 2020. The devolution settlement does not absolve us of our responsibility to uphold the rights of women and girls in this context. The noble Lord may not agree, but I think this goes a little way towards answering the question raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. This is not about stepping in on a devolved matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, suggested it was. This is about ensuring compliance with the statutory duties Parliament imposed on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in mid-2019.
One point that I wish to comment on—it was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie—is that I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is correct when he says that all Northern Ireland MPs oppose this. May I quote from Stephen Farry, who said:
“As an MP from Northern Ireland, I wish to stress my support for these regulations and the approach that is being adopted in this particular area by the Northern Ireland Office. There is a broad-based political support, and most importantly from the women’s sector, for these regulations.”
Here I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. This should not be lost on the House.
We are in a unique position on this issue. As I said earlier, Parliament placed the Government under a very specific statutory duty with respect to access to abortion services in Northern Ireland. That is why we have had to deliver the regulations, and continue to have a role in this space. I must re-emphasise these points to many who have spoken today, including my noble friend Lady Eaton, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. Although we made the regulations last March providing the framework for access to abortions, and some service provision commenced, this has not discharged that statutory duty in full. We are not seeking to reopen the 2020 abortion regulations, which were approved by a significant majority of this House—by 332 votes to 99—last year.
I shall now quickly answer some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, about the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, which noted “complex legal and constitutional” issues. I agree that the issues raised are complex. I also agree with what the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said; this was also raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. It said that the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive should engage in a “constructive” manner.
I recognise that some noble Lords have concerns about the regulations providing unconditional access to abortions up to 12 weeks’ gestation. This provision was determined as the most appropriate way of meeting our statutory duty, and what CEDAW requires, by ensuring that women, including victims of sexual crime, can access services without undue delay while avoiding anything that could lead to further trauma or act as a barrier to access. Based on current public data, 86% of the abortions accessed by residents of Northern Ireland in England under the Abortion Act 1967 in 2018-19 took place prior to 12 weeks’ gestation and would be covered by this limit.
Before I finish winding up, I want to answer a point raised by my noble friend Lord Moylan and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay on the international aspect of this obligation. It is true that the rules are domestic, so the duty to implement the CEDAW recommendations in this context is a matter of domestic law, which the Secretary of State is under a statutory duty to deliver, not a matter of international law. We recognise that Parliament has stepped in and imposed this duty on the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on human rights grounds. I have addressed that directly.
In conclusion, we should bear in mind the fact that these further regulations are ultimately about ensuring that the regulations made in March 2020 are implemented. Essentially, they are about the rights of women and girls, and their being able to access medical treatment in distressing and difficult circumstances, where they have a right to choose what is right for them. We should act in a way to support them in these cases. That is why I commend the regulations to the House.
Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have listened carefully to this debate, and I would like to correct a couple of misapprehensions. Abortion services are available in Northern Ireland, and they are funded. There were 1,345 funded abortions in Northern Ireland, and there have been no instances in which people have been refused abortion in the way described by the Minister. More importantly, support services are also available. We do need more resources; we always need more resources.
Noble Lords have identified the important issues here as the protection of life and our constitutional settlement in Northern Ireland. To revert to the Minister’s last point, where Parliament has legislated, it can, using its sovereign powers, change the law. This matter of the CEDAW recommendations is not a matter of our international human rights obligations, and is therefore devolved. It is therefore a matter that the Northern Ireland Assembly can change.
I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate. I thank those who recognised the current situation and spoke to encourage the work of the Assembly. I also thank the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay and Lord Hope, and other noble Lords for their clear articulation of the nature of our constitutional devolution settlement, which is the product of the Good Friday agreement, which is under threat as we talk today. We have had people, particularly in the loyalist community, withdrawing their support from the Good Friday agreement.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Can the noble Baroness please move to the vote, as we are at the end of our time?
Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]
This is where I am.
In this febrile and volatile situation, I ask you to take courage. I wish to test the opinion of—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Order. I am sorry, but will the noble Baroness please move to the Division?
Baroness O'Loan (CB) [V]
I said that I wanted to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Morrow
Leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the Regulations laid before the House on 23 March because (1) rather than expressing the reality of the union between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, they place that union in jeopardy, depending as they do on the power in section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019, which was passed despite all of the Members of Parliament representing seats in Northern Ireland who had taken their seats at Westminster voting against amending the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Bill on 9 July 2019 to require the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to the recommendations of the report of the Committee on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, published on 6 March 2018; (2) abortion remains devolved and the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive have now been restored for more than a year; (3) rather than welcoming the restoration of devolution, the draft Regulations undermine it to a greater extent than the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 as they address devolved policy competencies beyond abortion, including education and health; and (4) the remit of everything in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019 is defined in terms of moving towards the restoration of the Executive which has taken place, so rather than making new regulations as if Stormont was still suspended, and asking Parliament to pass them, Her Majesty’s Government should instead be asking Parliament to repeal section 9.”
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, before I move my amendment, perhaps I might make a point of clarification. I think the Minister misunderstood and misquoted what I said and I just want to clarify what I said, which was this. A vote took place on 9 July 2019 in which 100% of Northern Ireland MPs who take their seats in Northern Ireland voted no. I am sure that the House will have noted today that no Peers from Northern Ireland have voted in support of the regulations. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Shinkwin
Leave out all the words after “that” and insert “this House declines to approve the Regulations laid before the House on 23 March because they give the Secretary of State the power actively to commission discrimination in Northern Ireland by denying unborn human beings with disabilities the same protections afforded non-disabled human beings between 24 weeks gestation and full term; and because such commissioning would implicate the Secretary of State, and by extension Her Majesty’s Government, in the perpetuation of negative stereotypes towards people with disabilities, as it would provide that while unborn non-disabled human beings from 24 weeks’ gestation are worthy of protection from termination, those who might be born with disabilities are not.”
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I will keep my remarks very brief. I thank noble Lords who spoke in support of genuine equality. I am sure that that will be appreciated by disabled people and their families, whose voices are so often drowned out on this issue. They know, as I do, that the idea that these regulations are not discriminatory is absurd. I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, these proceedings will follow guidance issued by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. When there are no counterpropositions, as for Motion A, the only speakers are those listed, who may be in the Chamber or remote. When there are counterpropositions, as for Motion B, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Any 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 intend to do so. 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.
Leave should be given to withdraw Motions. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counterproposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. Noble 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 to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Financial Services Bill
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 193-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons disagreement, amendment in lieu and reason - (27 Apr 2021)
“FCA rules about level of care provided to consumers by authorised persons
(1) The Financial Conduct Authority must carry out a public consultation about whether it should make general rules providing that authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers.
(2) The consultation must include consultation about—
(a) whether the Financial Conduct Authority should make other provision in general rules about the level of care that must be provided to consumers by authorised persons, either instead of or in addition to a duty of care,
(b) whether a duty of care should be owed, or other provision should apply, to all consumers or to particular classes of consumer, and
(c) the extent to which a duty of care, or other provision, would advance the Financial Conduct Authority’s consumer protection objective (see section 1C of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000).
(3) The Financial Conduct Authority—
(a) must carry out the consultation, and publish its analysis of the responses, before 1 January 2022, and
(b) must, before 1 August 2022, make such general rules about the level of care that must be provided to consumers, or particular classes of consumer, by authorised persons as it considers appropriate, having regard to that analysis.
(4) The duties to consult under this section may be satisfied by consultation carried out after 1 January 2021 but before this section comes into force (as well as by consultation carried out after this section comes into force).
(5) In this section—
“authorised person” has the same meaning as in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (see section 31 of that Act);
“consumer” has the meaning given in section 1G of that Act; “general rules” means rules made under section 137A of that Act.”
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, this Financial Services Bill will enhance the UK’s world-leading prudential standards, promote financial stability, promote openness between the UK and international markets, and maintain an effective financial services regulatory framework and sound capital markets. I acknowledge the work of your Lordships in scrutinising this important Bill. The issue of parliamentary scrutiny has been prominent in our debates and noble Lords have more than demonstrated the positive role that they can play in this regard.
During the passage of the Bill, Members of both Houses debated how best to address issues of consumer harm in the financial sector. Amendment 1, which this House approved on Report, proposes that this should be addressed through a requirement for the FCA to bring forward rules on a duty of care. Let me underline that the Government are committed to ensuring that financial services consumers are protected and that steps are taken quickly to address issues, when they are identified. However, as the Economic Secretary set out in the other place, the Government believe that the FCA already has the necessary powers and is acting to ensure that sufficient protections are in place for consumers, so I cannot accept this amendment.
It is important to remember that financial services firms’ treatment of their customers is already governed by the FCA’s Principles for Businesses and specific requirements in its handbook. These fundamental principles set out specific requirements for firms, including that
“A firm must pay due regard to the interests of its customers and treat them fairly.”
The FCA’s enforcement powers allow it to ensure that these standards are met, but it recognises that the level of harm in markets is still too high. It is committed to taking further actions.
The Government accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has rightly suggested, that this harm may stem from asymmetry of information between financial services firms and their customers. The risk is that some firms may seek to exploit this asymmetry. The FCA is well aware of how informational asymmetries and behavioural biases can influence consumer behaviour, and it works every day to address these issues where it considers that they may result in harm. The Government therefore support the FCA’s ongoing programme of work in this area and believe that it will deliver meaningful change for the benefit of consumers.
The FCA has considered its existing framework of principles and whether the way in which firms has responded to them is sufficient to ensure that consumers have the right protections and get the right outcomes. Building on this, in May, the FCA will consult on clear proposals to raise and clarify its expectations of firms’ actions and behaviours and on any necessary changes to its principles to deliver them. These proposals will consider how to raise the level of care that firms must provide to consumers, through a duty of care or other provisions. Ultimately, the proposals in this consultation seek to ensure that consumers benefit from a better level of care from financial services firms.
Amendment 1A puts this work on a statutory footing. It requires the FCA to consult on whether it should make rules providing that authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers. It ensures that the FCA will publish its analysis of the responses to this consultation by the end of the year. It also ensures that the FCA will make final rules, following that consultation, before 1 August 2022. I hope that this provides reassurance of both the FCA’s and the Government’s commitment to this important agenda. I urge the House to accept this proportionate and, I believe, well-judged amendment.
The FCA will bring its consultation to the attention of the relevant parliamentary committees. This will give them an opportunity to consider the proposals and, if they choose, to express a view or raise any issues. The FCA will respond to any issues raised by parliamentary committees, in line with commitments made during the passage of this Bill.
Let me end there. I hope that noble Lords will accept Motion A and this amendment in lieu.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, we will not challenge this Motion. I cannot say that it goes as far as reassurance, but I think we are in a much better place to have the consultation and its characteristics in statute on the face of the Bill. I particularly thank the Minister and his team. I suspect they have been instrumental in making sure that the concerns, from all sides of the House, were communicated back to the Treasury and the Treasury team.
The Minister today repeated a number of the statements that the Economic Secretary made in the other place when he addressed this issue. I will highlight a few that were of particular importance to me. The FCA recognises that,
“the level of harm in markets is still too high and is committed to—”—[Official Report, 24/4/21; col. 867]
taking further actions. That is an important statement to have on the record. I am slightly concerned, however, that the focus of the FCA should not exclusively be on asymmetry of information. Asymmetry of information is fundamental and important, but it is far from everything. The Economic Secretary said that
“the FCA will consult in May on clear proposals to raise and clarify its expectations of firms’ actions and behaviours, and on any necessary changes to its principles to deliver this.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 84]
I hope that will not be confined simply to asymmetry of information, but as the Economic Secretary said, and the Minister today said, Parliament wants to be assured that the FCA’s ongoing work will lead to meaningful change. I think that reflects some of the frustrations expressed in this House of having had eight consultations to date and relatively little action. I hope this will lead to a great change.
In the amendment in lieu—this is perhaps something the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell will address more extensively than I—the fact that all consumers are part of the consideration is an important one. I want to use this opportunity to underscore to the Minister how urgent and significant this issue is.
When the Government’s amendment in lieu was passed, I got an email from one of the leading financial services lawyers in the country, and two things are pertinent. It said that it looks like this one is headed for the long grass again. I think that is partly because we are looking at action in 2022 and not immediately. The reason for that level of concern was, apparently, that audit firms are now saying that any credit risk between the client and the authorised firm should be counted as client money within the meaning of CASS—the protection of client assets and money. This is storing up some big problems when one of these babies—we are talking about firms that collectively have well over £10 trillion in assets under management—goes down and a judge finds that the trust is bust because they comingled client money with money that is not. Lehman Brothers, here we go again. I went immediately to the FCA site, and it is an excellent but sad example of the very limited powers that the FCA has to deal with such situations, because of the regulatory perimeter that limits a great deal of their potential for action to their definition of consumers. The issue has always been that that is a very narrow definition of consumer.
Every day we wait for a duty of care to become embedded in the system, we run significant risk. It is a risk that none of us wants—it has the potential to be limited to a small pool of clients, but also to knock the economy off its paces once again. It is important that there is an element of urgency built into all of this, that the issue is taken seriously and that there is not an attempt to narrow examination by and the focus of the FCA to simply something like asymmetry of information, but to consider the much wider picture before we end up with another crisis none of us wants.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, while we on this side of the House were hoping for action rather than further consultation, and we remain somewhat puzzled as to exactly what further the FCA has to learn that was not learned in the consultation of 2018 when it published a discussion paper entitled with some prescience, A Duty of Care and Potential Alternative Approaches. None the less, despite our desire for action and puzzlement in that respect, we welcome the tenor of the Government’s amendment.
In particular, I congratulate the Government on the clear acknowledgement that real harm is done today to millions of users of financial services by this famous asymmetrical relationship in financial transactions and that harm is done to those excluded from access to financial services. As evidence of this acknowledgement, I refer to the remarks just made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and also the remarks by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. For example, Mr Glen said:
“The Government agree with the concerns that … this harm may in part stem from an asymmetry of information between financial services firms and their customers. The risk is that many firms may seek to exploit this asymmetry. The FCA is well aware of how informational asymmetries and behavioural biases can influence consumer behaviour, and is committed to ensuring that these issues are addressed where it considers that they may result in harm”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; cols. 83-84.]
All I can say to that is: “Quite right too”.
I am particularly pleased that in new subsection 2(b) in their amendment, the Government refer to the need to extend the duty of care to “all consumers”. I urge the FCA to ignore the suggestion that a duty of care might be limited to “particular classes of consumer”. That way lies unnecessary complexity and the potential for error and injustice. Any inclusive list of “particular classes” is also a list that excludes. Confining the duty of care to particular classes would also eliminate the peculiar advantages of principles-based regulation, namely the flexibility of the principle in an industry of which persistent innovation is a defining characteristic. This is an advantage not to be sacrificed lightly.
In the debates on this issue—including those in the other place—not only Mr Glen, but the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and several noble Lords have referred to the prevalence of asymmetric information in retail financial services. As we know, this renders markets inefficient. In retail financial markets, asymmetric information results in excessive risk being loaded on to consumers. A duty of care will rebalance risk by shifting the balance of risk from the consumer back towards the provider, which in an efficient market is where it should be.
However, the FCA must be alert to a potential consequence. This may well result in some financial services providers deciding to withdraw from the provision of services where previously they happily dumped the risk on consumers. This increase in exclusion would be contrary to the intent and spirit of the Government amendment. We should therefore emphasise that having the status of an authorised person in financial services is a privilege, and with that privilege comes responsibility. Indeed, as Mr Glen remarked in the other place,
“authorised persons owe a duty of care to consumers.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 84.]
He is quite right. It is the responsibility of financial institutions providing financial services not to withdraw but, on the contrary, to play their full part in tackling financial exclusion. I am sure that the FCA will address this issue as it draws up its new general rules on the level of care.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I express my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, for what they have said. I am pleased that they have both taken the trouble to read the words of my right honourable friend the Economic Secretary when responding to the debate in the other place on Monday. I was careful to frame my remarks in a way intended to ensure that there is not a hair’s breadth of difference between his words and mine.
The noble Lord made some very well-observed remarks on the risks arising from asymmetric information. However, I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness that the FCA’s consultation will not be solely focused on asymmetry of information, important though that is; it will look more broadly at raising the level of care that firms provide to consumers—not particular classes of consumers, but all consumers.
Some hesitation—I think that is the best word—was expressed as to why there is yet another consultation. In response to that, I say that it is important that consumer groups and firms have the opportunity to comment on clear proposals and subsequent draft rule changes before final rules are set in stone. So I argue that it is a necessary step, even though I fully understand the noble Baroness’s wish for action this day. I remind her that we are talking about a consultation to be launched very shortly, and I hope that indicates that the sense of urgency which both noble Lords have indicated is right is shared by the FCA.
The FCA will and must act in accordance with its statutory objectives, which include the consumer protection objective. I come back to that point: this is not an issue that is ever lost on the FCA. With those comments, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their acceptance of the amendment in lieu, and I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we have a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House and other Members of the Front Bench on the way they have dealt with the Bill and got us to this final stage. I just have a question about the consultation on the duty of care, and it stems from my experience in other areas of regulation—that is, health and safety and food safety. I have found that, where a duty of care is introduced, it is sometimes possible to change adjacent rules and regulations in a regulatory area and reduce the bureaucracy that can be a problem for both consumers and operators in the field. I would be interested to know whether that sort of work is likely to be envisaged by the Economic Secretary.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I do not have an answer for my noble friend, but her point is extremely helpful and I shall ensure that it is fed into the thinking that will be wrapped around the consultation process as it goes forward.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 8 concerns mortgage prisoners, an issue that the Government take extremely seriously. We are committed to finding practical and proportionate solutions to help this group but, as Motion B in my name makes clear, the amendment is not one that the Government can accept. As explained in Reason 8A, the amendment is neither a proportionate nor a practical response to this complex issue, and this is why the Government cannot support Motion B1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.
In our previous debates, my noble friend Lord True set out the FCA’s analysis of this complex issue. To recap briefly, according to FCA data, there are 250,000 borrowers with inactive lenders. Of these, analysis suggests that 125,000 borrowers could switch mortgage providers if they chose to, even prior to the introduction of the FCA’s new rules. Of the 125,000 who cannot switch, the FCA estimates that 70,000 are in arrears and so would struggle to access a new deal even in the active market. The FCA therefore estimates that there are 55,000 borrowers who may struggle to switch but are up to date with their payments. Its data show that, on average, the 55,000 borrowers with inactive firms who have characteristics that would make it difficult for them to switch but are up to date with payments are paying around 0.4 percentage points more than similar borrowers with active firms who are now on a reversion rate.
As the Economic Secretary set out on Monday, the reason these borrowers are unable to switch is not that their mortgage is with an inactive firm; it is that they do not meet the risk appetite of lenders. For example, they may have a combination of high loan-to-value, be on interest-only mortgages with no plan for repayment, or have higher levels of unsecured debts, non-standard sources of income or a poor credit history. Similar borrowers in the active market are also very unlikely to be offered deals with new lenders.
My noble friend Lord True has previously set out the significant work undertaken by the Government and the FCA in this area, which has created additional options to make it easier for some of these borrowers to switch into the active market. If we look at Amendment 8, we see that what it proposes would be a very significant intervention in the private mortgage markets and in private contracts. It would bring with it a risk to financial stability as it would restrict the ability of lenders to vary rates in line with market conditions. The ability to vary standard variable rates allows lenders to reprice products to reflect changes to the cost of doing business and could therefore create risks with significant implications for financial stability. On top of that, the amendment is not fair to borrowers with active lenders in similar circumstances as it targets only borrowers with inactive lenders. Indeed, this cap would be deeply unfair to borrowers in the active market who are in arrears or unable to secure a new fixed-rate deal because it would not include them.
So, at the most basic level, I just do not think it is right to introduce such a significant intervention for those with inactive lenders which could cut their mortgage payments far below the level of someone in a similar financial situation who happens to be with an active lender. Nevertheless, while the Government are opposing this amendment today, I want to reiterate our commitment to finding any further practical and proportionate options for affected borrowers, supported by facts and evidence.
On Monday, the Economic Secretary set out what further steps the Government and the FCA are taking and I want to repeat those commitments today: namely, that
“the Treasury will work with the FCA … on a review to its existing data on mortgage prisoners”.
This will ensure that we have the right data
“on the characteristics of those borrowers who have mortgages with inactive firms and are unable to switch despite being up to date with their mortgage payments. The FCA will also review the effect of its recent interventions to remove regulatory barriers to switching for mortgage prisoners and will report on this by the end of November, and … a copy of that review”
will be laid before Parliament.
“The Treasury will use the results of the review … to establish whether further solutions can be found for such borrowers that are practical and proportionate.”—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 87.]
Within the significant constraints that I have noted, I want to reassure the House that the Economic Secretary, as the Minister responsible for this area, will continue to search for any further solutions that may provide support for borrowers with inactive lenders who are unable to switch. But, again, they must be practical and proportionate. The Economic Secretary has also confirmed that he will write to active lenders and encourage them and the wider industry to go even further and look at what more they can do to ensure that as many borrowers as possible benefit from these options.
I hope I have convinced the House that the Government are taking the appropriate next steps and have demonstrated our commitment to continuing to work tirelessly on this. Therefore, I ask the House not to insist on this amendment and I beg to move.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I was very disappointed that the Government felt unable to accept our amendment, which would provide relief for mortgage prisoners. I was disappointed, but the mortgage prisoners themselves were devastated by what they heard on Monday in the Commons. Many have called me, some in tears and all in obvious distress. None of them could understand why no solution had been offered by the Government and none could credit the arguments used by the Government in rejecting our—or, as they saw it, their—amendment. I entirely understood their point of view, their distress and their fears for the future.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The original question was that Motion B be agreed to, since when Motion B1 has been moved as an amendment to Motion B. Therefore, the question I now have to put is that Motion B1 be agreed to.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Deputy Leader, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for introducing the debate today. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and his all-party parliamentary group for their determined efforts to make sure that this issue is kept alive and at the forefront of our debates on the Bill. We discussed this issue at Committee, on Report and now at ping-pong. We have had the opportunity to meet Ministers and we have been extensively briefed by civil servants, and I am grateful to all of them for the time they have taken to make sure we are fully briefed about the issues.
It is not uncommon to come across issues in Bills containing matters of public policy which seem to pose difficulties to the Government, despite general support for a solution expressed in amendments such as those we have before us today. In my experience, these often turn out to be what are called wicked issues, ones that span departments and need more time, it turns out, to be resolved in Whitehall than is available in the Bill. In this Bill, we had debates on statutory regulation for bailiffs, which probably falls into that category, as it was primarily a matter for the Ministry of Justice. Sadly, we have to wait for a resolution of a problem that all concerned agreed is actually settleable, albeit we have a deadline imposed of some two years. With that, now, the mortgage prisoner issue, but this is not really a wicked issue: the question of how to deal with mortgage prisoners really boils down to how to provide a “get out of jail” card for the small but not inconsiderable number of people—we think it is about 15,000—who are not able to exercise the basic choices about mortgage borrowing that we would regard as fair and appropriate for comparable citizens not caught in this prison. The sad fact is that while this issue continues, injustice is occurring.
Yes, there are problems of who qualifies; yes, there is a moral hazard; and yes, there may be unforeseen consequences. As Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, we do not normally recommend that any Government should intervene directly in the market—although providing support for those who are trapped in financial difficulties not of their own making has many precedents and, ironically, is presumably where we are likely to end up on this issue, as I very much doubt that the current voluntary solutions will take the trick. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, says, only 40 have so far managed to make the transfer that is on offer through the changes the Government have already made.
I have to say that, since the powers to deal with this issue are already invested in the Treasury, it is hard to see why a possible solution based on the efforts to date to modify the normal affordability checks for existing borrowers, perhaps underwritten or guaranteed by the Government, cannot be devised so that it deals with the situation in what the Government say they need, a proportionate and appropriate way—well, we would all applaud that.
All of us involved in this issue in both Houses have been impressed by the commitment and understanding of the issue displayed by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, John Glen. We are supportive of his efforts to resolve this issue and want him to carry on—but with pace. We would be happy to continue the dialogue with him if that would be helpful. He stressed in the other place that one of his main concerns was that any solutions proposed should
“not provide false hope to borrowers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/21; col. 85.]
He is right to say that, but I put it to him that our main concern, and the reason we have pursued this issue to this very late stage in proceedings, is that it is surely unconscionable for the Government to leave a group of their citizens with no hope of recovery from circumstances that, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, pointed out, they did not create. We need to keep in mind the need for hope.
I trust that the positive words we heard earlier from the Deputy Leader, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the Government’s strong commitment to finding proportionate and appropriate solutions to this problem will be turned into action very early in the new Session, with strong leadership from the Treasury, giving hope to those suffering the injustice we have been discussing. If the noble Earl can give that assurance when he comes to respond to this debate, I can confirm that we will not seek to test the opinion of the House on Motion B1.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has indicated a wish to speak.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I spoke at length on this amendment on Report, and I will be brief today. The first part of the amendment proposes to cap SVRs at two percentage points over base rate. As my noble friend the Minister pointed out, this is a potentially dangerous market intervention with financial stability connotations. A recent study by the London School of Economics specifically recommended against this solution to the problem of mortgage prisoners. As my noble friend the Minister explained, it would confer a benefit on mortgage prisoners beyond what they could have obtained as customers of current mainstream mortgage lenders. The loan and borrower characteristics of mortgage prisoners often put them in the high-risk and therefore high-interest rate categories. It is just not fair to confer better terms than are available to borrowers with active lenders but in similar financial positions.
The second half of the amendment proposes that the FCA should make rules that some borrowers would be offered new fixed-rate deals, but this is probably incapable of operation given that the FCA cannot tell mortgage providers it regulates to whom they should lend and on what terms. Alternatively, if the FCA really could dictate to mortgage providers in this way, it would be a stake in the heart of financial regulation as it works in this country.
I have great sympathy for those who find themselves on high SVRs because they took out their mortgages with lenders that for whatever reason are no longer active in the market. However, we should be very wary of solutions that do not take account of the particular characteristics of these borrowers. It is a far from homogenous population with, at one extreme, borrowers who can and probably should remortgage, through to those who simply do not fit the risk appetite criteria of any active lenders. The devil really is in the detail, and across-the-board solutions such as Amendment 8 will throw up more problems than they solve.
My noble friend the Minister has explained how the Government are committed to finding practical solutions to help those trapped on mortgage terms unrepresentative of market rates on offer for equivalent mortgage situations. In the other place, my honourable friend the Economic Secretary said he was “absolutely committed” to working with the FCA to find practical solutions and to being in touch with active lenders to see to what extent they can help with this problem. I believe that he is sincere in his commitment and that we should await the outcome of the further work he now plans to carry out, which should come to fruition later this year. I urge the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, not to press his amendment.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. My noble friend Lord Sharkey comprehensively answered the points raised by the Economic Secretary on Monday and by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, today in rejecting this amendment. I should point out that if the Government thought that the amendment was not quite correctly finessed, they could easily have brought in an amendment in lieu that would have achieved relief for mortgage prisoners, and they have chosen not to do so.
The nub of the problem is straightforward. Would the financial experience of a mortgage holder be the same if his or her mortgage had been sold by the Government to an active, rather than an inactive, lender? Even the Government do not deny that the answer to that is no. The difference in experience between those whose mortgages were held by active lenders, compared with those whose mortgages were sold to inactive lenders, has been markedly different. Those whose mortgages were held by active lenders that did not collapse in the 2008-09 crash have been able to take advantage of the fact that rates have fallen very sharply and have been offered a whole variety of new and different deals, as part of the normal practice of banks in dealing with their mortgage opportunities and portfolios. Those who ended up in the hands of inactive lenders have faced between limited options and none, and have been unable to take advantage of interest rates falling exceedingly sharply.
That is the only issue at play here. To compare those mortgage prisoners to people today seeking a mortgage is to look at an entirely false set of circumstances. I am concerned that the Government are choosing not to rectify the situation. It was the Government who chose to sell those mortgage assets to inactive lenders. They did so in good faith and without any expectation that the mortgage holders would end up in a different position from their peers who had taken out mortgages with institutions that did not fail. I understand that that was not an intentional process, but, regardless, the Government remain responsible for their decisions when they sold off those assets.
People are genuinely suffering and I ask the Government that the very small measure that my noble friend Lord Sharkey begged for at the end of his speech—that those individuals could at the very least be protected from foreclosures as we exit from Covid and the rules change on repossessions—could be put in place. The Government would then have an opportunity to justify the arguments made in both Houses that they are genuinely trying to find a solution to the problems and devastation that so many individuals face.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have not made as much progress on this issue as many people, including thousands across the country, would have hoped. That is not through any lack of effort. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lord Stevenson have been tenacious in their pursuit of change. However, for that to be possible, both sides must want to work towards a favourable outcome.
I said on Report that we were not convinced that this amendment provided the answer to the long-running problems experienced by mortgage prisoners. It certainly provides an answer, but I accept the argument that there would be consequences for the mortgage market as a whole. With this in mind, colleagues offered an alternative option in what was then Amendment 37B. Your Lordships’ House has a reputation for being constructive and, in that spirit, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend made further offers to look at any text that the Treasury would be prepared to bring forward. Unfortunately, Ministers chose not to put an amendment on the table.
The Economic Secretary has, to his credit, demonstrated knowledge of the challenges in this area. Every time he has spoken, I have believed his wish to identify workable solutions. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord True, have said similar things in our meetings; again, I have viewed their comments as earnest. The problem is that warm words do not pay bills—nor do they generally lead to lenders taking the kind of steps that are required. The initiatives launched to date have helped only a tiny fraction of mortgage prisoners, so one would have thought that the case for further action was overwhelming.
We wanted—and continue to need—the Government to take proper ownership of this issue. We welcome the fact that the FCA will conduct a further review of the options available to mortgage prisoners and that the Treasury will revisit its data on the different cohorts of affected customers. As well as following these processes closely, we will of course continue to press the Economic Secretary to do what is needed.
It is regrettable that we have not been able to achieve a satisfactory outcome on this legislation, which should have been more than another false dawn. However, Conservative MPs have rejected the case for action, and it is hard to imagine meaningful progress being made unless Ministers revise their red lines. Accordingly, we do not believe we should press this matter any further today and look to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to withdraw his amendment. However, I can assure the Minister that we will return to this issue at the next legislative opportunity.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate, both for their constructive comments and for re-emphasising the genuine concerns they clearly have for this unfortunate group of people who find themselves trapped in mortgages that cause them great difficulty. I do not doubt for a second the distress that many such people are experiencing, but my noble friend Lady Noakes brought us back to some very important realities on this vexed subject. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that it is regrettable that we have not been able to reach full agreement on the way forward. Nevertheless, I hope my earlier remarks indicated that we take this subject extremely seriously. I am confident that noble Lords who have listened to my honourable friend the Economic Secretary speak on the subject will be in no doubt whatever of his intention to keep on top of it in the weeks ahead.
Part of the problem we face relates to the data that underpin the case that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, have made. The report of the UK Mortgage Prisoners group makes accusations about the data held by the FCA, essentially saying that the data analysis is wrong. However, I put it on record that the FCA data analysis was conducted using information on the 250,000 borrowers with inactive lenders alongside a credit referencing agency dataset which includes data on 23,000 borrowers with inactive lenders. The FCA data has shown that, on average, the 55,000 borrowers with inactive firms who have characteristics that would make it difficult for them to switch but are up to date with payments are paying around 0.4 percentage points more than similar borrowers with active lenders who are now on a reversion rate. Its analysis also shows that the majority of borrowers with inactive firms are on relatively low interest rates of 3.5% or less.
It is important that, as part of the review that the Government have announced, the existing data is analysed to provide further details on the characteristics of the borrowers of most concern. That is definitely a core part of getting to grips with what more can be done in this area.
It was suggested that in the first instance the Government failed these consumers. I repudiate that suggestion very strongly. The customer protections that we set were best practice for transactions of this type—or went beyond best practice: the Government strengthened the consumer protections for the last two sales of new car loans in response to concerns raised by parliamentary colleagues.
I do not accept the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, about the difference between those whose mortgages were refinanced with active lenders and those who found themselves with inactive lenders. The sales of those mortgages did not impact customers’ ability to remortgage elsewhere: customers with inactive lenders can remortgage with another provider as long as they meet the lender’s risk appetite. The customer protections that we insisted on for new car sales also included prohibitions on placing barriers in the way of customers remortgaging with another provider; for example, all early repayment charges are waived. These lenders are charging interest rates in line with SVRs set by active lenders.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked about Cerberus. The customer protections in these sales were best practice in the market at the time. For the last two sales, restrictions on setting the SVR last for the lifetime of the mortgage. I add that Cerberus indicated that it was offering new products to customers but this was not part of its bid, so UKAR did not seek a binding commitment on this point. Cerberus was selected because it agreed to the consumer protections that were sought and provided the best value for money for taxpayers. I underline, therefore, that inactive lenders can, and often do, allow borrowers in arrears to make use of a variety of tools to get themselves back on track. Such tools include capitalisation of arrears, term extensions and payment holidays.
It is simply not true that the FCA has done nothing for this group of people. For example, to reflect the current Covid-19 situation, the FCA has brought forward guidance to allow borrowers who are up to date with their payments on a recently matured or soon-to-mature interest-only, or part-and-part, mortgage to delay repaying the capital on their mortgage while continuing to make interest payments. This guidance has enabled borrowers to stay in their own homes for a significant period. The FCA also confirmed that it was making intra-group switching easier for borrowers with an inactive firm that is in the same lending group as an active lender. On 14 September, the Money and Pensions Service launched online information and a dedicated phone service as a key source of information and advice for borrowers with inactive firms.
The point was made that the modified affordability assessment has helped only 40 households. The modified affordability assessment, I contend, provides an additional and important option for some borrowers who may not otherwise have been able to switch. We must just give it time to take effect. It will not be a silver bullet for all borrowers with inactive firms, many of whom have other characteristics that affect their ability to remortgage.
I will leave it there. I say again that I regret there has been no meeting of minds on this, but I also say that the Government place a great deal of emphasis on the work that is now in train. We will do our utmost to see what more can be done for mortgage prisoners as a result of the further analysis I have referred to. I hope noble Lords will see fit to agree with the Government’s Motion.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this brief debate. I listened carefully to the Minister’s thorough reply. I was struck again that there was no acknowledgement of any moral responsibility for the condition of the mortgage business. I was totally confused by his explanation of dealing with Cerberus. I point again to the fact that UKAR wrote to the Treasury Select Committee explaining that it had been misled by Cerberus about its treatment of people who became mortgage prisoners.
I would like to place on the record that, contrary to what the noble Earl said, I have never said the FCA has done or was doing nothing to help relieve the plight of the mortgage prisoners. I know that is not the case, and I have always been careful not to say that.
I do not think there was any convincing explanation offered for why this problem has been allowed to run for over a decade. There was no comfort for mortgage prisoners in what the Minister had to say—or, at least, none in prospect. Regrettably, it is clear the Government are unwilling to meet us, and they have not proposed their own amendment in lieu of ours. Obviously, we have reached the end of this episode in this long and distressing tale. The Government remain, in my view, directly responsible for the major injustice done to our mortgage prisoners and the suffering they are experiencing.
We will, of course, return to this issue at every opportunity and willingly join and co-operate with any initiatives the Government and the regulator may want to consider. In particular, we would like the Treasury to release the data the LSE says its needs to complete its analysis of possible solutions. I would be grateful for that at some point. Perhaps the Minister could write to me and tell me the Treasury is prepared to do that and is doing that. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw.
Post Office Court of Appeal Judgment
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and others, including “Panorama” and Nick Wallis on Radio 4, whose championing of the postmasters’ cause helped, finally, to move this towards a just outcome.
Like other noble Lords, I have heard this dismal story many times, but I still have that mixture of shock, horror, shame and some anger with every new hearing. How is it possible that no one in a position of authority noticed that, all of a sudden, hundreds of some of the most upright and respected members of local communities had, almost at the same time, taken it on themselves to start pilfering? How come nobody thought to ask some simple questions? How come the Post Office, adding insult to injury, continued to pursue loyal employees, often with expensive lawyers, long after it was clear that something was amiss? This has been perhaps the most widespread legal miscarriage of justice that I know of; justice has been a long time coming.
Naturally, we welcome the Court of Appeal’s ruling overturning the convictions of 39 postmasters, but, as Lord Justice Holroyde said, the Post Office
“knew there were serious issues about the reliability of Horizon”
and had a “clear duty to investigate” the system’s defects. Despite this, the Post Office
“consistently asserted that Horizon was robust and reliable”,
and
“effectively steamrolled over any sub-postmaster who sought to challenge its accuracy”.
Was the Post Office not curious about this sudden outbreak of illegality? Did it not read the specialist press? As early as 2015, possibly before, Computer Weekly was warning of problems and, even worse, it now reports that Fujitsu bosses knew about Horizon’s flaws all along, yet allowed it to be rolled out to the Post Office network, despite being told that it was not fit for purpose. Back in 2019, a High Court judge ruled that Horizon was “not remotely reliable” for the first 10 years of its existence, which was obvious to Fujitsu and surely evident to the Post Office. Even when the Post Office knew that there were “serious issues” about the reliability of the system, it continued bringing
“serious criminal charges against the sub-postmasters on the basis of Horizon data”
and “effectively steamrolled” anyone who challenged its accuracy.
Even after the High Court vindicated postmasters in 2019, the Government refused to intervene, allowing the Post Office to abuse its power over postmasters. Will the Minister acknowledge the Government’s failure of oversight?
The Post Office let individual postmasters pay a terrible price for its incompetence and cowardice. Seema Misra, falsely accused of stealing £75,000, was sentenced to 15 months in jail while pregnant with her second child. Rubbina Shaheen, accused of stealing over £40,000, spent 12 months in jail. Jo Hamilton, accused of taking £36,000, gave up her shop and, because of her criminal record, found it impossible to get another job. While these convictions have finally been quashed, the hurt, damage and enormous costs remain—to say nothing about those who died before they could be vindicated by last week’s ruling.
So there are questions that the Government must answer. Why are Ministers refusing a statutory inquiry, with subpoena powers and a remit to consider compensation? Given that postmasters are having to spend some of their compensation on legal fees, will the Minister confirm that additional support will be made available to cover such costs? What steps will the Government take to hold Fujitsu to account? Given that it was found to be complicit in covering up the software bugs that led to the false Post Office prosecutions, will it be asked to pay for the monstrous damage that it has done to hundreds of lives?
Given the acknowledgement in the Minister’s letter that steps need to be taken to ensure fair compensation, will he promise—not just undertake, but promise to this House—that it will be done speedily, generously and with no more of the foot-dragging that has besmirched this whole saga? Does the Minister agree that there should now be a criminal investigation into potential wrongdoing, given the knowing cover-ups that led to false prosecutions?
There is one other point I want to make. These postmasters were criminalised by a culture that assumed that technology is infallible and workers dishonest. Given that in future, technology will play an ever-larger role in the world of work, stringent protections will be needed against this “computer says” culture. We must not get to the point where directors, and Governments, automatically side with technology over their workers—or, indeed, over claimants or consumers. If ever technology is trusted without question, or there is inadequate human oversight and challenge, I fear that this will not be the last time that individuals are unfairly treated by a Big Brother who is neither infallible nor accountable.
This has been a sad story. It now rests with the Government to provide fast and full compensation, and to put right the ills that many people have suffered.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to your Lordships’ House, and for his two letters to all Peers over the last five weeks. I should say that I have been a member of the Post Offices APPG for some time.
Looking back, the Government have said that they will determine what went wrong. Of course, we absolutely support that. To this end, their route has been to ask Sir Wyn Williams to lead the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry. The inquiry, they say, will work
“to fully understand these events, gather available evidence and ensure lessons have been learnt so that this cannot occur again.”
I am sure that this will be a thorough investigation, which will shine a bright light on systems and programmes, and their implementation. But can the Minister reassure us that it will also illuminate the overriding issue of how this business behaved? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has just eloquently set out, the moral shortcomings of the management are central to why this happened. To fully understand this issue, as the Government want to, they need a thorough appraisal of the management culture of the Post Office. It is changing the culture that makes sure that something never happens again, not updating an operating system or rewriting a computer programme.
Can the Minister please make available the full terms of reference according to which Sir Wyn will conduct his inquiry? Government communications include the phrase:
“The Government look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s report in the summer”.
Does the Minister expect the report to be completed by this summer, or have I misunderstood? If so, what support will the investigation have to run to such a tight timetable? I am concerned because this is not a statutory inquiry. What will happen if individuals retain lawyers to represent their interests? How will Sir Wyn proceed in those circumstances?
I echo the praise given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom. He has tenaciously pursued this issue, and in February last year he asked a question of the then Under-Secretary of State at BEIS, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent assessment they have made of the Post Office’s powers to conduct prosecutions.”-
The response was that
“the Post Office’s powers to bring a private prosecution, which fall under section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, are not specific to that company.”—[Official Report, 4/2/20; col. 1709.]
I forewarned the Minister that I would bring this up, because my understanding is that while it has not been granted investigative powers, the Post Office has regularly undertaken joint investigations with the police and other investigative bodies that do have statutory investigating powers. It was granted access to the national police computer system for intelligence and prosecution purposes; it had financial investigators appointed by the National Crime Agency for the purpose of undertaking financial investigations for restraint and confiscation proceedings; and Royal Mail was included in the list of relevant public authorities, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, designated to grant authorisations for the carrying out of directed surveillance to investigate crime. The Minister’s views on that would be welcome. Is it really still appropriate that this organisation should enjoy those powers?
This is by no means the end of the road, as the Statement makes clear. In yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons, my honourable friend Christine Jardine MP asked the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Paul Scully, to give an assurance that the Government will commit to treating each of the former sub-postmasters as individuals. The Minister acknowledged that, as well as those prosecuted, there were those whose lives had been blighted by incorrect accusations. I am pleased to report that he acknowledged the human cost. However, it is not clear to me what this acknowledgment means in practice. How will the Government embark on treating everybody individually? As part of the settlement, we have the historical shortfall scheme and it has been explained that this had received over 2,400 applications when it closed last August. First, although this is more than the Post Office anticipated, is the Minister satisfied that everybody who could have applied for this was aware of it and did? Secondly, the Minister was clear that Her Majesty’s Government will support the Post Office with resources. We of course endorse that. We do not yet know what form compensation will take and how it will be calculated. However, in a Written Answer, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said:
“we will not spend more of taxpayer’s money than is necessary to ensure that the Scheme meets its objectives.”
That sounds like a management expectation exercise and is a bit ominous. This is not an area, or a time, for penny pinching.
However financially generous the scheme turns out to be, the Government have to be clear that they can never fully compensate for the emotional and social damage that has been visited on many thousands of innocent people in this country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their comments. I completely share many of their sentiments of shock and outrage. The tragic failings of the Post Office have occurred over many years, over many different Governments. On behalf of the current Government I can only say that we are truly sorry.
We welcome the decision of the Court of Appeal on 23 April to quash the 39 convictions. This is in addition to the six convictions that were quashed in the Crown Court in December. The impact that this ordeal has had on affected postmasters, their lives and livelihoods cannot be overstated. Nobody who saw the television coverage and the news reports the other day can fail to have been affected by the individuals featured. We certainly hope that, with this decision, these postmasters can at least start the process of moving forward to a new chapter in their lives.
I move on to the specific issues raised by the noble Lords. On compensation, the Government hope that the court’s decision is another important step towards bringing resolution to these postmasters. The Court of Appeal’s judgment will require careful consideration by all involved, and the Post Office itself will need to consider the next steps and the best process for fairly compensating these postmasters. We are keen to see that all those whose convictions are overturned are fairly compensated as quickly as possible and we will certainly work with the Post Office towards this goal. I understand the strength of feeling felt by those postmasters in the GLO who I understand only received a portion of the original £57.75 million settlement by the Post Office. However, that was a full and final settlement reached between the claimants in the GLO and the Post Office.
Both noble Lords mentioned the inquiry. Many postmasters and their families have suffered issues and distress since the faults in the Horizon system. We all agree on that. Some had their livelihoods and businesses taken away and were convicted of crimes that we now know they did not commit. Anybody can only imagine the distress that that must have caused to loyal, upstanding and honest members of the community. We are clear that a situation such as this must never, ever be allowed to happen again.
To ensure that the right lessons are learned, and to establish what must change, we launched an independent inquiry, led by Sir Wyn Williams, in September last year. He is a retired High Court judge with a wealth of experience and is fully independent of both the Government and the Post Office. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the inquiry has made swift progress. It has already heard from a wide group of affected postmasters. The call for evidence has recently closed and I understand that Sir Wyn is planning to have some public hearings on these matters in June. I can confirm that we expect to get his report by the end of the summer.
Given that all parties so far are committed to co-operating, we remain of the view that a non-statutory inquiry is the right approach. However, if Sir Wyn does not get the co-operation he requires, then all options are on the table and we will not hesitate to act. We do expect his report in the summer.
On who is to blame, decisions regarding the litigation strategy at the time were taken by the Post Office based on the legal advice that it had received. The Government at the time relied on the Post Office’s management to investigate issues with the Horizon system. As we have seen from both Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment and now the Court of Appeal judgment, the Post Office consistently maintained that the Horizon system was robust. That obviously turned out to be incorrect. What is also clear, from the Court of Appeal judgment last week and the judgments in the 2019 group litigation, is just how misguided the Post Office was in its approach to the management of issues arising from the operation of the IT system. All of these matters will be investigated in the inquiry, so that we can ensure this never happens again. I commit to keeping the House fully informed.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the issue of private prosecutions. The Post Office no longer undertakes any private prosecutions, and I have been personally assured by the new chief executive that it has no plans to undertake any further prosecutions in these matters. However, the Government understand the wider challenge that the Post Office case poses regarding the responsibilities that companies have in undertaking private prosecutions. The Justice Select Committee considered this last year and concluded that prosecutions brought by victims of crime themselves, whether corporate or individual, still have a valuable part to play. The Select Committee concluded that existing safeguards in place to regulate private prosecutions are effective at filtering out weak claims. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, himself acknowledged, the Post Office’s powers to bring private prosecution fall under Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, and they are not specific to that company. It has the same right as any other, whether an individual or a company, to bring a private prosecution but, as I said, I have been assured that it has no plans to bring any further prosecutions.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, was kind enough earlier today to mention the issue of the Post Office and its investigatory powers. Since he did, I have asked my officials to investigate this matter. There are, apparently, over 600 public authorities that can use investigatory powers, and these are overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. There have been no changes to the authorities that the IPCO oversees since the introduction of the Investigatory Powers Act. According to the IPCO 2019 annual report, Post Office Ltd is not on that list.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the 20 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 Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, this is a situation in which the Post Office used our system of justice to produce a massive injustice. I would like to know who represented the Post Office in these proceedings, whether they had any reason to doubt the validity of the evidence that the Post Office produced and, if so, whether that was passed to the defence.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble and learned friend makes some very good points. Given that some of these initial prosecutions happened, in some instances, 20 years ago, the fact is that the Post Office representation changed a number of times. It is difficult to provide a complete answer to my noble and learned friend’s questions. Postmasters were prosecuted by the in-house legal teams of the Post Office and, before that, by the Royal Mail, and they were supported by external counsel as needed. It is important to emphasise that none of these prosecutions involved any current Post Office lawyers, nor that of Peters & Peters, which is the criminal lawyers firm now supporting the Post Office to address these issues. I am unable to say what prosecutors thought at the time. However, as my noble and learned friend is of course well aware, prosecutors have a duty to disclose to the accused material that could reasonably be considered capable of undermining the prosecution case or assisting the defence case.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister spoke of fair compensation. Is he aware that the statutory test for compensation for miscarriages of justice is much stricter than simply showing that the Court of Appeal has quashed a conviction as unsafe? The statutory test would impose a burden on postmasters to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they did not commit the alleged offence. Can the Minister assure the House either that this onerous statutory test will not be applied to restrict compensation or that the statutory test will be treated as satisfied in all these cases? Any other approach would compound the wrong done to these postmasters.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a powerful point. Of course, the judgment is relatively recent and no decisions have been taken regarding compensation, so I cannot give him any specific commitments today. However, I repeat that we are keen to see that all postmasters whose convictions are overturned are fairly compensated as quickly as possible. I know that the issue of compensation will be of great interest to the House, and I commit to update the House on this matter whenever it is appropriate.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as a businessman, I am embarrassed that our culture of corporate governance and a failure of corporate leadership has directly ruined the lives of the innocent. As Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment lays bare, this includes the fact that they defended an untenable case, and how they did it shows how hollow and disingenuous even the current statements by the Post Office should be seen. The positions of the chairman and CEO are difficult to justify. Can the Minister provide assurance that the serious questions this raises about the position of every member of the current board, and indeed the responsibility of all members since the board was first presented with problems in the system nearly a decade ago, can be fully examined without a statutory inquiry? Can he also assure us that the Government are now willing to provide a full statement relating to what they were told and their actions and role as shareholder? Their apparent failure to provide vigorous challenge to the board meant that this scandal has carried on for as long as it has and illustrates a likely flaw in the Government’s role as a shareholder in this and potentially other circumstances.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I can give the noble Lord the assurance he asked for in the first part of his question: Sir Wyn, as part of his evidence gathering, is looking at the issue of corporate governance, where it is clear that there are some serious questions that need to be answered. On his question about the role of the shareholder, as I have said before on a number of occasions in this place, the Government pressed the management at the time on issues regarding complaints brought by sub-postmasters about Horizon, and we received repeated assurances that the system was reliable. Of course, the Court of Appeal opined that the Post Office had consistently asserted that Horizon was robust and reliable at the time.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Having been a Minister in the business department whose responsibilities included the Post Office for a period, I join others in congratulating the postmasters and the courts on restoring justice. I have always been much troubled by these cases and the tenacity of the Post Office in defending the integrity of its IT systems—now shown to be wholly unjustified—and by the fact that the Post Office was both investigator and prosecutor, which has already been touched on. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, while being extremely important and useful, the criminal cases review process is far too slow? As part of lessons learned, will he follow up with the Ministry of Justice and explore the case for statutory deadlines or other incentives for speed? People’s lives have been wrecked for literally decades.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will certainly pass on the noble Baroness’s comments on the speed of the justice system to the Ministry of Justice. I am sure there are many other areas where we would all like to see speedier justice.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has confirmed that the inquiry—although, technically, I think it was originally called a review—is looking at corporate governance issues, and that is welcome. Could he answer two specific questions? Have the Government submitted any evidence already in the response to the call for evidence? If not, why not? Secondly, does Sir Wyn have the powers to subpoena information from the Government if it turns out that he requires that?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The Government are committed to fully cooperating with Sir Wyn’s inquiry; whatever information or access he needs will of course be provided. I am not sure whether we have submitted evidence, but I will certainly get back to the noble Lord on that. As I said, the inquiry is making swift progress and we look forward to receiving Sir Wyn’s report. However, as I said in my earlier remarks, if there are instances of any stakeholder in this area not co-operating, we will certainly not hesitate to take further action.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the tragedy of this case is not just the length of time it took to put this wrong right but the number of players who individually felt they had nothing to answer for other than just to say that they were sorry, which is not sufficient. We need to find out why this happened.
I return to the issue of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It was set up as a royal commission to speed up the process in the wake of the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six and a number of serious miscarriages of justice. When you look up the funding structure of that body over the years, we see a combination of increased workload and reduction of funding. The very least that we can do is to fund it so that it can perform its function as it was set up to do, and not allow this sub-postmasters miscarriage of justice to be added to that list of grave injustices which have not been righted in the proper way.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, we support the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which does some powerfully valuable work in its independent investigating of possible miscarriages of justice. I know that it has worked hard to complete the review into the Post Office Horizon cases with the necessary speed and thoroughness. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, we will pass on the remarks of a number of noble Lords to the Ministry of Justice to see what more can be done to support its work.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Post Office and the Government have expressly excluded the 555 group litigants from the compensation scheme. Nick Read, the chief executive of the Post Office, has called on the Government to compensate the 555 fairly. Are the Government considering compensating all the 555 litigants—as they should, because they have taken their money and should not be keeping it—or are they limiting compensation to those whose appeals have succeeded? Should not Sir Wyn Williams have considered this in his inquiry?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I start by paying tribute—as have a number of other noble Lords—to the tireless work that my noble friend has undertaken on behalf of the sub-postmasters in this case. His is a splendid example of some of the fine work that is done by many Members of this House in tenaciously seeking to draw attention to tremendous miscarriages of justice, and he has done a good job. I know we have spoken a number of times about it when he has drawn attention to these issues. I understand the strength of feeling felt by the postmasters in the GLO who, we have all come to understand, received only a portion of the £57.75 million settlement paid by the Post Office. However, that was a full and final settlement that was reached between the claimants. For postmasters who have convictions overturned, we are keen to see that they are fairly compensated as quickly as possible, and we will certainly work with the Post Office towards that goal. Given that the Court of Appeal judgment is an important development since the launch of the inquiry, I am sure that Sir Wyn Williams will want to note this in the final report on his inquiry.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great shame that the Post Office did not approach this with the same sense of admirable humility as does the Minister, who is able, for example, to say, “We got it wrong.” I endorse what my noble friend Lord Pannick said. Would the Minister agree that it would be adding insult to injury—in fact, injury to injury—if these victims had to prove what had gone on? In addition, does the Minister feel that he and the Government have learned enough already that, if they were to discover something similar going on elsewhere, they would now be able to intervene much faster?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I cannot really add anything to the answer I gave the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. On the noble Lord’s second question, I would certainly hope that, if the situation arose in any of the arm’s-length bodies for which I am responsible as a Minister, I would ensure that attention was brought to it and the appropriate lessons drawn as quickly as possible. I hope that those in wider government have also learned the lesson of this sad and tragic case.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, my point picks up on that just made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. As horrified as we all are at this miscarriage of justice, what is also shocking to everybody is just what it tells us and shows us about the arrogance of those of us in positions of authority when we are faced with something that is so obviously wrong and has been brought to us by the general public. I understand what the Minister is saying about a statutory inquiry and the inquiry that Sir Wyn is doing at the moment. However, will he consider and express to us his understanding of the reasons why there is that lack of confidence from the sub-postmasters and many others in the robustness and validity of the review that is under way and the need for more reassurance that other steps can be taken if accountability and responsibility is not shown through that process?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point: it is vital to get the buy-in and support of the postmasters for the operation of the inquiry. I hope that we will get that. If there are any shortcomings in the process of the inquiry, we will not hesitate to go further, if necessary. My understanding is that the inquiry is proceeding well. Sir Wyn is getting on with his work; he is a well-respected judge in this field, and will hold some public hearings in June, which will, we hope, draw more attention to these matters. We will keep it under review, and I hope he will get the support of the postmasters, because that is vital to ensure that the inquiry is robust.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
The Minister said that the Horizon IT system had “real problems”. That is a huge understatement, given the misery caused to hundreds of sub-postmasters who had been serving their communities for many years. The Statement says nothing about Horizon’s manufacturer, Fujitsu, a company that continues as a trusted partner of HMRC, the Department for Education, the Cabinet Office, the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence and no doubt many other government departments. The NHS had to sack Fujitsu for a huge IT programme which, like Horizon, did not work. The company’s response was to demand £700 million in compensation. The Minister did not answer my noble friend Lady Hayter’s question: how much compensation will Fujitsu be paying those whose lives it knowingly wrecked with its Horizon software? What assessment have the Government made of what this scandal says about other Fujitsu software embedded in so many government departments?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Fujitsu has been rightly and severely criticised in much of the judgment, but the noble Lord will understand that compensation from Fujitsu is a contractual matter between the Post Office and Fujitsu. I am pleased by and welcome the fact that Fujitsu continues to co-operate fully with Sir Wyn’s inquiry. The noble Lord is right to say that Fujitsu provides a range of services across government and, of course, many parts of the private sector. We are not at the moment aware of any other problems in its systems.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his update today, which is helpful. One of my passions throughout a long police career was the fight for justice and to put right miscarriages. This case has caused personal tragedy to hundreds of people through family breakup, bankruptcy and loss of liberty on an industrial scale. Some, of course, have since died. For example, why did nobody join the dots when deficits were occurring throughout the Post Office estate following the installation of the new Horizon IT system, and why was it kept secret? Does the Minister think it is now time for those who took the decisions at the top of the Post Office all those years ago to be called to account, so the matter can now be closed? Has Sir Wyn Williams got powers to summon witnesses and seize written evidence? If not, surely it requires nothing less than a full statutory inquiry, with powers to determine who knew what and when, so that fair compensation can be awarded to allow all the victims of this massive miscarriage of justice to get on with their lives.
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I said in previous answers, we are keen to see that all postmasters whose convictions are overturned are fairly compensated as quickly as possible, and we will work with the Post Office towards this goal. On the noble Lord’s comments about the inquiry, the problem with a full statutory inquiry is that it could take many years to report. The current inquiry is going well; everyone is co-operating and we should be able to get a report in the summer. I think it is better for all concerned that we have the report, so that we learn the lessons that have to be learned as quickly as possible, rather than waiting years—but, as I say, we are not ruling anything out. If there is any lack of co-operation that we need to address, we will not hesitate to go further.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, given that people have lost their livelihoods, liberty and even lives as a result of the incompetence and bureaucratic bullying, does my noble friend really think it is enough, after 20 years of injustice, for the Post Office to apologise for historical failings and recruit two NEDs, and for the Government to compliment the victims on their tenacity and offer the cliché that lessons will be learned? Why has no one been held to account and why, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, just asked, is Fujitsu, the producer of the dodgy Horizon software, not paying for the damage it caused and repeatedly denied? Will my noble friend return to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, who has done so much in this area, about why the 550 people are not to be included? As for the argument that there was an agreement signed—it was an agreement signed before people knew of the scandal of the way the Post Office was behaving.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I totally agree with the noble Lord that, of course, words are never enough, and we are keen to see that those whose convictions were overturned are fairly compensated. I cannot make any commitments on funding at this stage; it is for the Post Office to engage with the appellants in the first instance as to how compensation can be paid as quickly as possible. The inquiry is doing its work, we will see the report in the summer when it is produced and we will learn all the appropriate lessons.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Metropolitan Police are conducting an ongoing investigation into Fujitsu workers after Mr Justice Fraser wrote to the DPP expressing grave concern about the evidence provided in earlier court hearings. Does what we already know about this appalling miscarriage of justice not justify a wider police investigation? Will the Government not call for one?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will notice that I have avoided commenting on any potential police investigation, for very good reasons that he will understand. However, I hope the investigation will reach speedy conclusions and the police will take the appropriate action.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We have come to the end of the 20 minutes and I regret that two noble Lords who were actually in the Chamber were unable to ask their questions.
Carrier Strike Group Deployment
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we welcome this first major deployment of the “Queen Elizabeth”. The “Queen Elizabeth” and the “Prince of Wales” are the most powerful surface ships ever constructed in Britain. They will strengthen our maritime forces for decades to come, and this maiden mission for the “Queen Elizabeth” is a great achievement for the Royal Navy and a proud moment for our country. Britain has not had a carrier strike force since 2010, when the defence review scrapped all three of our aircraft carriers. This deployment fills a big gap in Britain’s military capability over the past decade. I hope the Minister can confirm that the “Queen Elizabeth” is fully crewed and that the carrier strike group is fully combat ready.
The successful design and build of our two new aircraft carriers is a tribute to the UK’s shipbuilding industry and our UK steelmakers. Can the Secretary of State confirm how much UK-produced steel will be used in the new Type 26s, Type 31s, Astute, Dreadnought and fleet solid support ships?
The new Defence and Security Industrial Strategy states that the Government will publish an updated shipbuilding strategy which
“will set out how the government intends to create the conditions for success for all parts of the enterprise, from shipyards building warships”.
Can the Minister update the House on when the new strategy will be published and how we will be able to monitor its success? This is a big opportunity to back British industry and jobs. The carrier strike group will sail east with the support of US and Dutch naval warships, and with US F-35 fighters on board. It is good that the HMS “Queen Elizabeth” sails with allies, but it is not good if she can sail only with allies. When, if ever, will there be enough British warships to sail with our own British carriers?
This deployment comes on the back of the integrated review, which rightly said that Russia remains
“the most acute threat to our security”.
Can the Minister confirm that the return of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” to military business will involve patrolling the north Atlantic, the high north and the Mediterranean, our NATO area, where Russia poses the greatest threats to our vital national interests?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I welcome the fact that HMS “Queen Elizabeth” is now ready to lead the carrier strike group. Clearly, we are in a new phase of British maritime history. We are obviously in a phase in which the Government are seeking to “go global”, as the Prime Minister has put it on so many occasions, and to do so with a ship that is extraordinary in many ways. The Secretary of State, in his Statement, pointed out that it was truly a step change in capability and that to appreciate the enormity of the vessel, you must stand on its vast deck.
I have not stood on the HMS “Queen Elizabeth” but I did have the opportunity to visit HMS “Prince of Wales” in dock when it was under construction. It is a most incredible ship. However, when the ships were being announced, Russia was very scathing about the size and visibility of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers. I am sure that the Minister will be very quick to say that this is nonsense and that the ships are very well defended, but can she give us some indication of the way in which HMS “Queen Elizabeth” is being supported? It is very clear that this carrier strike group, as laid out in the Secretary of State’s Statement, has, as is suggested, a ring of capability. Most of the ships—the destroyers and the anti-submarine frigates—are British vessels, but how far into the future have the Government thought and planned about the support that can be given?
There is a great deal of emphasis on the work with the Dutch and the Americans. To what extent do the Government see this carrier strike group as being a way of having more multilateral deployments, or is HMS “Queen Elizabeth” intended to be part of a solely British force in future? It is obviously important that bilateral training is going on. Can the Minister tell the House a little more about what is envisaged with our European allies? There is a very clear statement that the carrier strike group will demonstrate our enduring commitment to NATO, but a little more about the links with Europe would be very welcome.
The Statement talks about this being sovereign territory. Clearly it is important in terms of many of our international commitments that the Queen Elizabeth class carriers are indeed able to travel to the Pacific. We have recently seen issues of navigability, with the problems in Suez, and we know that shipping is so vital to trade. It is clearly welcome that HMS “Queen Elizabeth” is leading this carrier strike group, but can the Minister tell us a little bit more about its aims? The Secretary of State talked about being a projector of hard and soft power. Many people listening from outside the Chamber—who maybe do not have any defence experience—might wonder how on earth the Queen Elizabeth class carriers can project soft power. I suspect I know the answer but it would be interesting to hear the Government’s perspective on that.
This is an interesting deployment, but it is notable how important the UK says it is that we do not allow countries to breach international law. We note then that the carrier is going close to China but not seeking to be provocative. What signals do the Government wish to send to China with this deployment?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, first, I genuinely thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their positive comments about the carrier and the carrier strike group. It is a moment for reflection and pride that we have been able to assemble such an impressive demonstration of our commitment to our global reach and global responsibilities. I can confirm to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness that the extent of the interest from across the globe has been very significant; this is clearly proving an exciting proposition to our friends and allies.
To deal with some of the specific points raised, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, particularly asked about the crewing of the “Queen Elizabeth”. In December 2020, the carrier strike group declared that it had reached initial operating capability. It is about to embark on its final training in UK waters next month and exercise Strike Warrior will test the strike group through a range of operational scenarios. At the end of this period the operational commander, the chief of joint operations, will be presented with a declaration that the carrier strike group is ready to deploy on operations.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the use of UK-produced steel. That is an important issue and was raised in the other place. I reassure the noble Lord that we recognise the importance of the United Kingdom steel industry and, in fact, British steel has accounted for almost half of the steel by value in the build of the Type 26. As to the more detailed information he seeks, I should like to try to procure that and I propose that I write to the noble Lord. I hope that he will permit me to do that.
Among other issues, the noble Lord also raised the shipbuilding strategy, which the Government have pledged to publish. We are working at pace to refresh the national shipbuilding strategy and it will contain details of how we intend to monitor the success of the strategy. My understanding is that we hope to be able to provide further information on this in early summer.
The noble Lord also raised the issue of the sovereign core of the carrier group and whether there will be enough British warships to sail with our own British carriers. The sovereign core of the group are the Royal Navy frigates and destroyers, helicopters and submarine that will routinely deploy with the carrier. The United Kingdom has 18 F-35s, and we could now put all 18 on the aircraft carrier. We could deploy the aircraft carrier group alone or with allies.
This deployment is in fact about our strength compared with that of our adversaries. We have friends and alliances, and that is vital, because it means that, if there is any attack on us, it is an attack on NATO—to attack us is to attack our allies. That is our real strength globally so, as I said, we have a huge expression of interest from countries wanting to sail with us and stand up for our common values.
The noble Lord raised the issue of what happens when the “Queen Elizabeth” returns to military business. I think he was particularly interested in knowing whether it would involve patrolling the North Atlantic, the high north and the Mediterranean. NATO is obviously our cornerstone; our home beat is the Atlantic and that is where our most aggressive adversary is active. Only recently we saw it active in December when nine Russian ships were operating in the waters around the UK; the Russians have been assertive. That is why it is important that we are active and hold the Atlantic flank of NATO as well as using our convening ability to bring in the French, Germans and others who wish to patrol the seas alongside us. While the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on specific operational deployment, the carrier strike group is intended to have a holistic role in our defence activity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, whom I thank for her positive comments, raised a number of important points. She asked particularly about the threat of Russia and the comments that it has made in relation to the carrier presence, asserting that it is vulnerable. I reassure her that our UK Armed Forces play a leading role in NATO’s enhanced forward presence in the Baltic states to enhance Euro-Atlantic security. In response to the comments about the carrier itself, we keep all threats under constant review, and we are confident that our new aircraft carrier is well protected thanks to defensive systems that we have invested in as part of our £178 billion equipment plan. The carrier will be robustly protected by air and sea assets against threats known and unknown.
The noble Baroness made an important point about our European allies. Again, we are very conscious that the security of Europe is pivotal to the security of the UK and vice versa. In the European context, we are one of the leading powers in NATO; we are the largest spender of the NATO European members and we have strong bilateral relationships with various European countries. Those are relationships that we value hugely, and our desire is to maintain a constructive and engaged dialogue with our friends in Europe. There is an awareness of the mutual interest and benefit to us all in doing that.
The noble Baroness commented on soft power. That is a very important aspect of the approach. The carrier strike group is in fact a manifestation of the objective of the integrated review, which was to look at defence, security, trade and diplomacy and to recognise that these are all interconnected and do not exist alone in silos. That is one reason why the carrier strike group not only has defence security significance but has the flexibility to afford the promotion of relationships with friends and allies in different parts of the world and particularly to facilitate discussions in relation, for example, to trade. A trade conference has been proposed that would be on board CSG21 units. The strike group will play an important role in relation to these issues.
The noble Baroness also raised the role of China. It is important to be clear about the objective of the strike group. The strike group is to represent the support and positive relationships with our friends and allies in the Indo-Pacific area. It is not intended to be confrontational and the group will obviously be visiting parts of the South China Seas. We have enduring interest in the region and are committed to maintaining regional security. Wherever the Royal Navy operates, it does so in full compliance with international laws and norms. That is why we are clear that this deployment is not to be regarded as provocative or confrontational. That is not why we are engaging on this important exercise; it is because we want to show to our friends and allies in the region that the area matters to us. Strategically, it is important because of trade and potential trade links. It is also important in relation to our existing defence relationships that we have in that area. We are therefore positive about the reasons for this exercise. From the reaction we are getting, our friends and allies in the area are positive about us coming.
I scribbled down something that the noble Baroness asked me and I am ashamed to say that I cannot remember what it was about. I wrote down “international” but cannot recall the context of her question. I apologise. I will look at Hansard and undertake to write to her.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I understand that the Chief Whip wishes to speak now. Is that correct? I have been told that the noble Lord wanted to interrupt. I thank him. We will now proceed to the 20 minutes for the Back-Benchers.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I applaud this deployment and it is excellent to see this extremely expensive carrier being put to good use. I wish the deployment of the strike force well and godspeed in these dangerous times. Does my noble friend think that it is sensible in such times to be reducing the number of ships in the Royal Navy and the number of aircraft in the Royal Air force, and slashing the size of the British Army? What signal does she think that that may send to our allies and potential adversaries?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I should say to my noble friend that I do not share his somewhat pessimistic perspective. He will be aware that the defence budget is at unprecedented levels, which includes a healthy shipbuilding investment that will double over the life of this Parliament, rising to over £1.7 billion a year. We are also committed to exciting developments on our aerial front, including the RAF with the FCAS and our proposed investment in the F-35s. I should say to him in relation to the Army that we are moving into a completely new age of defence. That has been acknowledged, not just in the integrated review but in the defence Command Paper and the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy. He will understand that our intentions for the Army are to have a highly trained, skilled professional Army with expertise and which benefits from new technologies. Quite simply, that makes it possible for the Army to work with fewer people and achieve greater effect than was possible in the past. That is the point we have got to focus on. I should also say to my noble friend that we do not propose redundancies, but we will be looking at ways in which to achieve the diminutions with those who seek to retire.
Lord Boyce (CB) [V]
My Lords, as a submariner I echo the opening part of the Statement and its sentiments regarding condolences to the Indonesian navy and the families of the ship’s company of the submarine KRI Nanggala following its loss. I am sure your Lordships share these sentiments. Considerable fundraising efforts are well under way within the UK submarine community, aimed at supporting the bereaved families of the 53 fellow submariners lost.
Regarding the main part of the Statement, I welcome the very good lay down of what a carrier strike group can provide strategically, operationally and tactically. In the context of the strike group’s deployment to the Indo-Pacific, it is good to see recognition of the need to exert our legal right to freedom of navigation, especially in the South China Sea, and the opportunity that will be taken to re-energise our partnerships and alliances in the region, particularly with the FPDA.
The Statement very wisely does not give the carrier strike group’s detailed itinerary, thus rightly preserving the sovereign choice of options provided by a maritime force through its ability to poise on the high seas and come and go at a time of its choosing, and its range and flexibility of manoeuvre and capabilities, hard and soft. However, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to look for an opportunity to establish a maritime relationship with the United States, India, Japan and Australia through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the Quad?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his condolences regarding the tragic situation of the Indonesian submarine where so many lives were lost. I share these condolences, and I am sure they are shared by everyone in the Chamber. I was very encouraged to hear what he said about our own submariner community showing support; we are very proud of it for doing that.
The noble and gallant Lord raises the important issue of the implications and impact of the carrier strike group, particularly in the Indo-Pacific area. As he rightly identifies, there are strategic, geopolitical and trade interests there and, of course, the important alliances and partnerships I referred to earlier. He is absolutely correct that the countries he has described are important to the United Kingdom. We already enjoy very strong relationships with these countries through a variety of means, and I am sure we are always willing to explore how these relationships can be advanced and progressed. He raises an interesting point, and that is no doubt something that will give rise to further discussion.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on generating this powerful force and agreeing to deploy it into regions of the world that are so important for our nation and for global security. They are also regions of the world where we are the largest European investor, and we need them for our balance of payments.
Twenty-five years ago in January, I was the battle group commander for a battle group of 19 ships which: deployed from the UK and went out through the Mediterranean; worked in the Gulf; flew the first operations in the Iraqi no-fly zone—only our fighters were able to do it, from the carrier; operated in the Indian Ocean; went to Singapore for a five-power defence arrangement; carried out an amphibious assault of over 2,000 men in Brunei; went through the South China Sea, Japan, Korea and numerous other countries; was there for the Hong Kong withdrawal; visited Australia; and returned home.
What came over to me then was that the Foreign Office was so desperately pleased with everything that was done in diplomatic terms and what it meant for UK Ltd. I signed £2.5 billion-worth of defence and other deals—not just defence contracts—and we were able to do humanitarian things in various parts of the world. The ability of a group to do these things is absolutely there. Just on the intelligence side of life, it was clear to us that the Chinese were very worried when they saw the capabilities of this group that we could deploy 8,000 miles away and carry out an amphibious assault. It makes their islands look a bit dodgy and they have to think about it. When I operated with 22 ships in the North Atlantic the year before, it showed the flexibility; these ships can get everywhere, and the Russians were very worried because they could never find us.
This is a very powerful and useful group, and well done to the Government for doing it. But I also say beware, because when I sailed from the UK in January it was a Conservative Government; when I returned in August it was a Labour Government, and my noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen was the Minister of Defence, who was so taken by the capability of this force that in his very good strategic defence review he decided we needed big carriers. I am delighted we got them, because now we have them today doing this.
My question may be only a petty one. There is no doubt that this shipbuilding strategy sounds very good, but I am scarred by being told I am going to get ships but never standing on their quarterdeck. In each of the big deployments I did as a carrier battle group commander, I had two solid support ships with me. I notice that only one is going out to the Far East, and it is over 40 years old—RFA “Fort Victoria”. I ask the Minister: when will we actually put in the order for the three fleet solid support ships we need, and will they be built in this country? It is no good these things being put off. It is like with the Type 26s: we need the orders, and we need to start building.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
First, I say to the noble Lord that his youthful demeanour belies that he was commanding this impressive operation—I think it was Ocean Wave—in 1997. I am grateful to him for powerfully encapsulating the potential that a carrier strike group has. He made the point extremely well.
As the noble Lord is aware, we have a shipbuilding programme in place; he and I have exchanged views on that in the Chamber. I think it is a healthy programme; I detected from a meeting this morning that it has excited Navy Command and people there feel a sense of purpose and anticipation. I am delighted about that, because, as the noble Lord would agree, morale within our Armed Forces is very important. So I am pleased to confirm that.
On the fleet solid support ships, the noble Lord will probably be aware this is at a critical stage of contract progress, where consideration will be given to the award of a contract. I am constricted in what I can say about that, but he will know that the Secretary of State has been clear about his desire to proceed with augmenting the solid support ship fleet, and I anticipate we may be able to disclose more on that front in the not too distant future.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am a little worried by the air of nostalgia in several paragraphs of this Statement, with references to our
“proud history … legendary Second World War vessels”,
and so on.
Does the Minister recall the speeches our then Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, made in his visits to the Middle East in December 2016 and early 2017, in which he talked about Britain returning east of Suez, having major bases in the Gulf and Diego Garcia and stationing vessels permanently out there—and, perhaps, marines and troops? Does she worry that this may lead us to overextension? Does she also recall that part of the justification for the withdrawal from east of Suez in the mid-1960s was that in order to sustain a ship on station in Singapore or east Singapore, it was estimated that four other vessels were needed—going out, coming back, working up and under refit? If that is what we are committed to, I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord West, in that we need an awful lot more frigates and aircraft carriers than we have.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I was just trying to race through the potted history of all this. As the noble Lord, Lord West, carefully and eloquently outlined, we all have an understanding of what this is about, and we all regard it as being positive. The key to this is that we recognise we are living in a world where we work more strongly with alliances and partnerships.
As the carrier strike group heads off in May, it will be the start of a series of important messages and an indication of a more persistent presence in the Indo-Pacific area. There are plans for how we achieve that, and there will be flexibility in how we take that forward.
The noble Lord may think some of the language is tub-thumping and perhaps Victorian in character. I think this is facing up to the realities of what 21st-century global opportunity is. There are opportunities, and that is one of the reasons for the carrier strike group deploying. It is also a realistic assessment of the new order of things in the Indo-Pacific area and a desire to work with our allies and partners in recognising and addressing that.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, growing up, one of my fondest memories was visiting naval ships on good-will tours. Our carrier strike group will be visiting 40 countries. Due to Covid, I imagine we will have restrictions on visitor open days, but will my noble friend the Minister tell us whether we have thought of alternative, maybe even virtual, means to show the flag during this tour?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point. This entire deployment has been planned with a sharp eye on the possible implications of the pandemic. I reassure both my noble friend and the Chamber that we are deploying the carrier strike group mindful of the risks of Covid-19. We are working hard within the strike group itself and alongside nations that we hope to engage with during the deployment to ensure that we implement and understand the current safety measures and requirements, and can plan activity accordingly. But he makes a good point: what is plan B if, for any reason, the pandemic intervenes in an unwelcome fashion? We will look to ensure that we maximise engagement, as far as possible. We will be creative and innovative and, yes, use virtual means where appropriate.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB) [V]
My Lords, I ask the Minister: how many small ships are left to protect the United Kingdom’s coastline, when those required to accompany the carrier strike group are taken away?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that we are satisfied that we will have sufficient maritime capability to deal with all the obligations that fall on us to keep the country safe and discharge our defence responsibilities.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I frame my question in the context of the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, which places supporting human rights, the rule of law and the COP climate process at the centre of our approach to security.
The Statement is glowing about our Five Power Defence Arrangements with Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand, which is described as being based on
“common shared values of tolerance, justice and the rules-based order.”
I ask the Minister how that squares with the failure to make progress on the rule of law and democracy in Malaysia, including its use of the Communications and Multimedia Act to target human rights offenders, activists and cartoonists; the delivery of a death penalty sentence for drugs offences by Zoom, in Singapore last year, and the pursuit of political bloggers with swingeing defamation suits there; and the disastrous record of Australia on climate action and biodiversity destruction, plus the damning judgment of the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples on its treatment of indigenous people.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness encapsulates the relevance, significance and purpose of the carrier strike group. The difficulties to which she refers can be unilaterally addressed by the United Kingdom on the diplomatic front. We engage with Malaysia, and we articulate concerns when we feel that matters need to be brought to the attention of any Government. I underline that the carrier strike group is about standing up for the values that we all cherish within the United Kingdom—values we know are shared by our friends and allies, not least in the Indo-Pacific area. One of the best manifestations and indications of support that we can give is to get the carrier strike group out there, with the momentum it will generate and its capacity to excite, encourage and make our friends and allies realise that, together, there is so much that we can do that is positive and can assist. The common difficulties to which she refers are part of that, and will have a better chance of being resolved if we all work as a team to address them.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
That completes noble Lords’ questions on the Statement.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before we go any further I thought that it would be helpful if I were to make another short business statement, as I promised this morning.
As I made clear in my earlier statement, because there is still no agreement between the two Houses on the Fire Safety Bill and the National Security and Investment Bill we will continue sitting tonight to consider further Commons messages. Our consideration of the Fire Safety Bill will be at a convenient point after 8 pm, and our consideration of the National Security and Investment Bill will not begin before 9 pm, with the start time confirmed via the annunciator.
The House of Commons has been clear about where it stands on the three Bills that are left before us. This House has now asked the Commons to think again more than once on each of the Bills, and has each time been provided with reasons why this House’s amendments cannot be accepted. It is time to accept the settled view of the elected House. Noble Lords have made their views clear, and the elected House has made its position equally clear. It would not be right for it to appear that this House does not accept the primacy of the House of Commons.
Once again, I encourage noble Lords with an interest in the National Security and Investment Bill to keep a close eye on the annunciator.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for his statement, which was helpful to the House. I will just add that he sounded a bit waspish at times. I am sure that he did not mean to. Parliament and legislation benefit from the kind of dialogue and debate that we have had around this legislation, and I hope that the Government found that helpful. I do not think that this House has ever not accepted the primacy of the Commons. We do, however, sometimes suggest that perhaps we have better ideas and the Commons might not always get it right first time. We play our part in legislation, therefore, in the normal way, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for the time he has given us this evening.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as one who believes very strongly in both Houses and has now done nearly 51 years in Westminster, I strongly support my noble friend’s position, much as I admire what the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said. It is right that we should ask the Commons to think again, and again—and sometimes again. There comes a point, however, and the eve of Prorogation certainly is one, when we have to decide whether we wish the Bills to go forward or not. I have many criticisms of all of them, but at the end of the day the primacy of the House of Commons should prevail, and I very much hope that there will not be any more Divisions this evening.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their views. I think that ultimately we are all agreed that, although we accept the primacy of the Commons, in many of these Bills the Government have made concessions, which is just as it should be: many Bills, if not all Bills, are improved in this House. I hope that that will be the case here. I agree with my noble friend that we should finish it tonight.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, for consideration of Commons reason and amendments on the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Where there are no counterproposals, as for Motion A, the only speakers are those listed, who may be in the Chamber or remote. When there are counterproposals, as for Motion B, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Any Member intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members not intending to speak 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 discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw Motions.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counterproposal, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the question is put, they must make that clear when speaking on the group. Noble 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 to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 197-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons amendments in lieu and reason - (28 Apr 2021)
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1S, 1T and 1U and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1V, 1W, 1X, 1Y and 1Z in lieu.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely pleased to confirm that the Commons has agreed to the government Amendments 1V, 1W and 1X in lieu of Lords Amendments 1S to 1U. In doing so, I draw attention to the consequential Amendments 1Y and 1Z—which were also agreed—to the government amendments, which serve only to delete the now unnecessary definition of articles in Schedule 1.
As I set out in some detail in our debate on this issue on Monday, it has always been the Government’s view that the measures in the Bill will not increase the risk of our service personnel or veterans being investigated or prosecuted by the International Criminal Court. Accepting this amendment in lieu, which will exclude all offences that fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, including war crimes, will offer further reassurance and put this issue beyond any doubt.
The other place has agreed to Lords Amendment 1R, which excludes all offences under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 from Part 1 of the Bill. The grave breaches of the Geneva conventions referred to in that Act are also war crimes offences through the International Criminal Court Act 2001. As such, it is right that these offences should also be included in Schedule 1 in order to maintain a consistent approach.
The measures in Part 1 of the Bill will apply to all “overseas operations”, as defined in Clause 1(6), and it is perhaps worth remembering that not all alleged offences committed on an overseas operation will amount to an ICC Act offence. I can reassure your Lordships, therefore, that service personnel and veterans will continue to receive the benefits of the additional protections provided by the measures in Part 1 of the Bill in respect of historical alleged criminal offences under the criminal law of England and Wales through the Armed Forces Act 2006, saving those offences that have been excluded by Schedule 1.
The decision of whether to exclude war crimes from the measures in the Bill has limited practical effect. In practice, the prosecutor would still have retained their discretion to prosecute an individual for a war crime, because any credible allegation would be likely to trigger the exceptionality threshold in the presumption. The decision to exclude war crimes is aligned with the highest standards that we expect from all our Armed Forces personnel, the overwhelming majority of whom meet those expectations and serve with great distinction. But we rightly hold anyone to account when they fall short of these expectations.
The Bill delivers the Government’s commitment to protect our service personnel and veterans from the threat of legal proceedings in connection with historical overseas operations many years after the events in question, and it reinforces our continuing commitment to strengthen the rule of law and maintain our leading role in upholding the rules-based international system. We intend to maintain our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
The Government have listened to the concerns of both Houses, particularly the concerns so eloquently expressed by noble Lords on this matter, and the other place has accepted the government amendments in lieu. I therefore urge your Lordships to likewise accept these amendments.
I also beg to move Motion B, that this House do not insist on its Amendment 5B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 5C.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I think it may have been noticed that my noble friend has strayed from Amendment A into Amendment B. I think it would be wise to allow the Deputy Speaker to deal with Amendment A before we move on to Amendment B. I might be able to persuade my noble friend to keep her opening speech short for Amendment B as it has been given already.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the clarification by the Whip on the Bench. I am going to talk about Amendment A only at the moment, but the Minister clearly was trying to save us time by conflating everything into one. I thank the Minister for her co-operation and help during the course of this particular issue. My prevailing sentiment at the end of this process is relief. I am happy to accept the government amendments that have been put down that discharge the decision taken by the House in its earlier session.
It is a relief that we have, in doing so, saved the Government and, more importantly, the country from the embarrassment, maybe even the humiliation, of challenging international humanitarian law, which would have been the import of where we were going. It was, however, not easy to persuade Ministers and their somewhat acquiescent majority in the other place that this aspect of this Bill would cause more trouble than it would solve. It took two chunks of parliamentary time to persuade them to come to this conclusion this evening, but, finally, sense has prevailed. Our troops, sent overseas in our name, will now not be singled out as being above the law that they seek to uphold. They will not face the prospect of being subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Nor will we, this United Kingdom, become the precedent for every warlord or war criminal to say that our presumption against prosecution after five years would give them some sort of carte blanche to be let off the hook. Improving—some might say saving—this Bill represents the conclusion of a tenacious campaign to draw public and parliamentary attention to its manifest defects.
In particular, I pay tribute to John Healey MP, the shadow Defence Secretary, and Stephen Morgan MP, who sought in the other place to demonstrate the weaknesses of the Bill. I also thank David Davis MP— who I once was in hand-to-hand combat with as his shadow in the days of the Maastricht treaty—who was, in this case, a powerful voice in changing the legislation. I also pay tribute to Dan Harris in the PLP office, who gave so much advice and support to me and my colleagues, my noble friends Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Touhig, as they campaigned vigorously during this Bill. I also pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem and Lord Alton, who were my co-signatories on the key amendment.
I would also like to mention the Financial Times, the Daily Mail and Nick Cohen in the Observer, who also joined in the campaign to change the Government’s mind on this case. A number of NGOs also played a major part in drawing attention to what we are talking about here this evening, and I single out Steve Crawshaw at Freedom from Torture, who did a huge job here. The Bingham Centre, the Law Society, Liberty, the APPG on Drones and the British Legion all offered detailed advice and intelligent, perceptive and constructive criticism of the Bill. It was a Bill that sought to do a commendable service for our fighting forces but which almost ended up leaving them liable to trial in The Hague.
As I said originally, my overwhelming sentiment now is relief, and I welcome the Government’s amendments tonight. Elegantly, they make it clear that war crimes, improbably committed by British troops serving overseas will be subject, as they are in international law, to no time limit at all. I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her understanding and indulgence, and I am so pleased this evening to be able to give her support in relation to Motion A.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, between the two items of business on defence matters, the Government Chief Whip pointed out that there are three pieces of legislation still going back and forth between your Lordships’ House and the other place. With regard to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, I suspect that this will be the last iteration in either Chamber because, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, so eloquently pointed out, the Government’s amendments in lieu of this particularly important amendment basically give everything that we have been asking for at various stages.
I will not rehearse the litany of people that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, had either supported the amendment or given advice on it, other than to say, in line with his sentiments, that the omission of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and torture had potentially created a lacuna in the Bill that could have been detrimental to service personnel and veterans. While the stated intention of the Bill, to deal with vexatious claims, was a good one, the original framing of the Bill was less good. With this amendment, we have moved a long way towards making the Bill fit for purpose and we certainly support the amendments that the Government have brought forward at this stage. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his tenacity in bringing the amendment again and again, and I thank the Minister for listening and for the representations that have gone back and forth between the Chambers. At this stage, I welcome this Motion and expect to see the Bill passing relatively soon.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s amendments to ensure that serious offences, including war crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC, are excluded from the presumption against prosecution. These amendments give full effect to the amendments passed on Report in this House, which were signed by noble and gallant Lords who have much wisdom and guidance, both on military matters and human rights.
It has taken a lot of work to get to this point and is a testament to the important work we do. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his leadership on this issue, as a former head of NATO and former Defence Secretary. I also thank colleagues for the collaborative approach that all sides have shown on this issue. I remind the Minister that this mistake was not discovered at the last minute; it was a glaring issue when the Bill was first published, an issue that threatened our international standing, including that of our Armed Forces, and could have led to British service personnel being called in front of the ICC.
The Government’s amendments mean that our international reputation will not be trashed, but it has been damaged, just like it was by the internal market Bill and by the cut in development spending. It leaves me wondering what message this Government want to send to the world, because the world watches what we do. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, this would have set a terrible precedent, likely to be grabbed on by many of the worst regimes in the world. I close by imploring Ministers, if they really want Britain to be a moral force for good in the world, to not be so reckless. With this Bill, which still has many flaws, we got there in the end on this issue, and for that, I am grateful.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, first, I offer my apologies to the Chamber and the Deputy Speaker for my inadvertent acceleration of proceedings. At this time of day, immediately after a Statement, I fell into the trap of reading the two speeches I found in the folder together. I emphasise that no discourtesy was intended to the Chamber, and very particularly I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, that none was intended to him.
I thank noble Lords for their comments, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, for his singular contribution to this issue. I am very grateful that on what is an important issue we have managed to reach a position acceptable to him and his fellow contributors. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for her helpful comments on the Bill and for her desire to get it passed. I also express to the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, my appreciation of his acknowledgement, while he may still have reservations about aspects of the Bill, of the progress made to bring it to an acceptable place.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, and I commend the Motion.
Baroness Goldie
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5C.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I beg to move Motion B. I again apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for inadvertently making my speech in advance; I am sure that all your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to repeat it. However, I wish to say how much I have appreciated the noble Lord’s profound and passionate interest in the issue which he is pursuing. I know that that is born out of a genuine desire to do his best and ensure that Parliament does its best for our Armed Forces personnel. Therefore, although I will not repeat my speech, I shall certainly listen with great interest to what he has to say.
Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)
“Duty of care to service personnel
(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in section 1(6).
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.
(3) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—
(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;
(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;
(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and
(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(4) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.
(5) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.””
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is now the fifth time that I have spoken in favour of an amendment to the Bill inviting the Secretary of State for Defence to lay down a duty of care standard to protect the legal, pastoral and mental health support available to serving and veteran members of our Armed Forces involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations.
I continue to be most grateful to the Minister for her courteous but determined rejection of the arguments in favour of such a duty of care standard that have been advanced by many other noble Lords and by me. I am also most grateful for the cross-party, cross-Bench and tri-service support that this amendment has attracted. I have also most carefully read the Hansard reports of the debates on this amendment in the other place. I note support there for the amendment from right honourable and honourable Members from all the main political parties.
Given that the Minister and I are now not going to agree on this issue—I am grateful for her unintended but helpful preview earlier of her arguments in anticipation of this debate—I do not wish to detain your Lordships’ House unduly on this matter this evening. I have previously argued that this is a matter of principle: of the Ministry of Defence showing itself to be a good employer by standing solidly behind its people. I have rejected arguments that a duty of care standard would create a dangerous employment precedent and that it would itself give grounds for serving and veteran personnel to sue the Ministry of Defence.
However, I take away some comfort on behalf of those who are serving or who have served their country in uniform from the commitment by the Government to publish down the chain of command, to serving personnel and out through appropriate means to veteran personnel, a clear statement as to how the Bill when enacted will provide them with a measure of the protection that my amendment sought to put into law. Indeed, I was encouraged to read that in the other place yesterday, the new Minister for Defence People and Veterans, Mr Leo Docherty, said,
“We are aiming for a gold standard and are improving our provision all the time without the requirement for legislation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/21; col. 287.]
Clearly, there will be no legislation at this time, but I am delighted to hear the pledge of a gold standard. I will not be alone in watching for that gold standard to become manifest.
I will make two final points. First, on a point of principle, it is clearly an appropriate part of our national and political debate about foreign security and defence policy that opinion is often split along party-political lines. However, while that is appropriate, it is not acceptable or appropriate to extend that party division to the treatment of our service men and women and our veterans as people. For our service, on operations overseas and at home, our sworn allegiance is to the Crown and not to the Government of the day. Yes, of course, our elected Governments may well decree that such an operation is in the national interest, and members of the Armed Forces get on and do their duty, often laying their lives on the line on behalf of the nation in so doing. But party politics should not play any part in the way those personnel are treated as people. It has been thoroughly depressing, despite the widespread support for a duty of care standard, that the divisions in your Lordships’ House and in the other place have been along party lines. That is not the way to treat our service people and veterans, who serve the Crown and the people of this country.
Secondly, on a point of opportunity, later in the year the Armed Forces Bill will return to your Lordships’ House, as it does every five years. In the context of further strengthening the Armed Forces covenant, there is an opportunity to look again at issues of the treatment and care of our Armed Forces personnel, serving and veteran. I hope that we will take that opportunity and do so in the spirit of doing the right thing by those people and not just what the party Whips dictate. I believe we owe it to our service personnel to take party politics out of their treatment and care. If we are to seize that opportunity on a point of principle, I believe that difficult and divisive issues arising from operations overseas and in Northern Ireland could be satisfactorily addressed. We must not play party politics with the lives and well-being of those whose duty is to protect the security and interests of our country. I do not regard this matter as closed satisfactorily.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, has exhorted us not to play party politics with this issue, and I certainly have no wish to do so. Our duties to our service personnel are crucial. It is absolutely right that the MoD and, by extension, the Government, should be a good employer, and I agree with the noble Lord that that should be a matter of principle.
The issues that the noble Lord has sought to put on the agenda and which we have debated on several occasions now, to ensure legal, pastoral and mental health support for service personnel, are crucial. However, the amendment to the Bill was for a duty of care in very limited circumstance: that for service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations. That is clearly appropriate within the confines of a narrowly defined Bill. However, the issues are much wider. I am therefore grateful that the noble Lord is not pressing this amendment to a Division this evening, because it would be wise to be able to have a fuller and well-informed debate on a duty of care to be considered in the context of the Armed Forces Bill.
Whether that then takes a statutory form will depend on negotiations and, as the noble Lord suggested, not necessarily party-political discussions, but an understanding of the likely consequences, intended and unintended, of such a duty of care. From these Benches, we absolutely agree with the noble Lord that it is vital that the MoD provides legal, pastoral, and mental health support for service personnel. We must get this issue right, and clearly it is appropriate that we do not divide the House again this evening, but that these issues come back in the next Session and that we keep raising them with the Minister.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, again, after another overwhelming majority in this House, the Government have rejected a duty of care standard for personnel and veterans who face investigations and litigations. This legislation is still very far from doing what it says on the tin: protecting British forces personnel serving overseas from vexatious litigation and shoddy investigations. It still fails to incorporate a duty of care for forces personnel who are faced with allegations, investigations, and litigation.
The gap was identified by veterans faced with investigation or litigation consistently saying that they are cut adrift by their chain of command and abandoned entirely by the MoD, with no legal, pastoral, or mental health support. Major Bob Campbell made that point so powerfully, from his own dreadful experience, in evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, has said,
“when this new Bill passes into law it will singularly fail to provide the protection that serving and veteran members of the Armed Forces believe it should provide.”—[Official Report, 26/4/21; col. 2109.]
The Government’s arguments have been weak against this amendment. They argued that they already provide this support, yet a gap has been clearly highlighted time and again. They also argued that it could lead to more troops being caught up in litigation—when all the Government need to do to avoid this is to fulfil their responsibilities—and that the duty of care amendment has drafting issues, when the Government have failed to produce their own version, as with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Robertson.
With prorogation fast approaching, I accept that we should not divide on this amendment tonight. I will be entirely happy if the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, withdraws his amendment for now, but I urge the Minister to think hard about this, as we will return to this issue in the Armed Forces Bill.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments, and for his warm personal comments to me as an individual, which I appreciate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for their contributions.
The noble Lord referred to this as a matter of principle. He may be surprised to hear me say that a duty of care is a very important matter of principle. On the principle, there is proximity between him and the Government, but the divergence of view is on the mechanism. Does doing this by statute makes things better for our Armed Forces personnel, or does such a statutory creation, through unintended consequences, inadvertently make things worse by creating scope for more litigation and possibly inhibiting operational command?
These are significant matters, and I sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, recognises the need for caution—not in terms of what we all want, because I think there is a lot of agreement on that, but on the question of how we safely get there.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for not pushing this to a Division this evening and recognising that there is merit in getting this Bill passed, but I warmly suggest to him that we continue our engagement and continue to explore whether we can find a route forward. I am a great believer in dialogue and discourse; when there is such obvious conjunction of opinion over what we want to try to achieve for our Armed Forces personnel and why, I like to think it might be possible to explore a safe road towards arriving at that destination—one which does not involve the hazards I have outlined.
I look forward to that continued engagement with the noble Lord and again express my appreciation to him for not moving this issue to a Division this evening.
Lord Dannatt (CB) [V]
My Lords, I once again thank all noble Lords who have spoken or voted in support of my amendment on this important issue of a duty of care standard. It remains clear to me from what I have just heard from the Minister that there is no movement in the position taken by the Government on this. However, picking up a reference from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, there must be no more Bob Campbells.
I am aware that this Session is nearing its end and that there is therefore a danger that, if I press this amendment to a further Division tonight, the Overseas Operations Bill, with its other important amendments now included, might be lost. For that purely practical and procedural reason—and recognising the moment for a tactical, if not a strategic, withdrawal—I will not seek to divide your Lordships’ House again on this amendment. Instead, I will watch for the promulgation of the gold standard of care for our serving and veteran personnel and will, in the spirit of the Minister’s comments just now, write to her to ask for an update on the development of that gold standard, and maintain the dialogue. Moreover, I note that we may return to this issue on the Armed Forces Bill later this year—in an open and frank way, I hope, and ideally not constrained by party politics. I beg leave to withdraw Motion B1.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. As there are counterpropositions to the Minister’s Motion, any Member in the Chamber or on the speakers’ list may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and the capacity of the Chamber. Any intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members not intending to speak should make room for Members who are. All Members will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk.
A participant wishing to press an amendment other than the lead amendment to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw Motions. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice taken into account if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group. Noble 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 to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Fire Safety Bill
Wednesday 28th April 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 198-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons reason - (28 Apr 2021)
21:11 - Division conducted remotely on Motion A2 - Ayes: 153 / Noes: 242 - Motion A2 disagreed.
Lord Greenhalgh
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4L, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4M.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, I express my thanks once again to everyone for their contributions to this important debate. The other place has now consistently voted against four different amendments on the issue of remediation. It is a vital issue but it is not for this Bill. This House has a choice about whether to prioritise finalising this important Bill or to delay it to the point where it falls.
The Government’s position on the Fire Safety Bill has not changed. I will repeat our key points. We are all in agreement about the importance of getting the Fire Safety Bill on the statute book. Residents have a right to be safe and feel safe in their homes. As I have said repeatedly, without this Bill the legal ambiguity around the fire safety order will continue.
Let me be clear about what is at stake if we do not resolve this: responsible persons for multi-occupied residential buildings will be able to continue to argue that it is lawful to ignore the fire safety risk of the structure, external walls and flat entrance doors; and fire and rescue services will lack the legal certainty to support enforcement decisions taken to keep people safe.
Failure to get this Bill to the statute book will lead to a delay in delivering the Grenfell recommendations. This is not a political point. This Bill must come first as it provides the legal certainty that I have just referred to. That certainty will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations with reduced risk of challenge to place duties on responsible persons in relation to the external wall structure and flat entrance doors, as the inquiry recommended.
It might help the House if I provided an example. The inquiry recommended a frequency of checks on fire safety doors, including flat entrance doors and communal fire doors. That cannot be done easily and in a way that is relatively free from legal risk if we have not identified that flat entrance doors are within the scope of the fire safety order. Equally, enforcing authorities would not be able to take appropriate action in this regard.
I thank your Lordships for recognising the substantial government support—to the tune of £5.1 billion—for leaseholders for remediation of unsafe cladding. Our five-point plan to bring an end to this cladding crisis helps provide certainty to the housing market. Noble Lords yesterday raised some points about uncertainty in the housing market and about the concerns of lenders and insurers. Our five-point plan addresses these.
More needs to be done to ensure that those responsible for fire safety defects should contribute to paying the costs of remediation. Industry must play its part and pay its way, and through our high-rise levy and developer tax we will make sure that developers with the broadest shoulders pay their contribution.
I agree that leaseholders need stronger avenues for redress and I made that clear yesterday. The building safety Bill will bring forward measures to do this, including making directors as well as companies liable for prosecution. We are bringing about the biggest changes in a generation to the system through the building safety Bill.
Finally, I reiterate the comments I made yesterday about forfeiture. It is a draconian measure that should be used only as a last resort. This measure should be considered as part of our wider programme on leasehold reform. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Moved by
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 4L”
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I first draw the attention of the House to my relevant interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd and chair of the Heart of Medway Housing Association.
It is disappointing and frankly outrageous that the Government are doing nothing and not delivering on their promises to the innocent victims of the cladding scandal. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, has gone through various points. He said that the other place had consistently voted against our amendments. That is a matter of much personal regret. Most Members of the governing party do not seem to recognise the plight of the innocent victims in this scandal.
What also irritates me about this issue is the point made by my noble friend Lord Adonis. The Government are now saying, “Well, of course, the Session finishes tomorrow and we need to get the Bill on the books”. The fact is that the Government, when the House of Commons rejected our amendments some weeks ago, left them sitting there and did not bring them here. They could have done so and I do not know whether that was deliberate or incompetent. The fact is that the amendments just sat there and were not brought here. For the Government then to claim, “We cannot go any further because of where we are” is irritating, to say the least.
It is fair to say that one could never accuse this Government of acting in haste when it comes to the Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations. This is the first piece of legislation since the fire happened four years ago this summer. The Government have not acted in haste at all. The noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, is right: I want to see the people who built defective buildings and put cladding on improperly pay. I do not want to see the innocent victims pay. I also want the companies that provided insurance honour it. They were clearly happy to provide the insurance and they should pay up. I also want to see the professionals who signed the buildings off and who pay for their professional indemnity insurance, come forward, recognise and be held to account for what they have done.
It is even more outrageous when one considers what our Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—been saying for the past 18 months. I shall remind the House of one or two of his quotes—not all because there are loads of them. There are many examples and I suggest that noble Lords, particularly those on the Government Benches, would do well to reflect on some of those comments, read what he said, think about them and consider what they will do in terms of the how they are being whipped to vote. The PM said on 30 October 2019:
“I know that progress is not as fast I should like, but I am pleased to say that all such buildings owned by central and local government have now had their cladding removed, are undergoing work to remove it, or, at the very least, have such work scheduled. In the private sector, progress is slower, and too many building owners have not acted responsibly.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/19; col. 379.]
He also said:
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to this injustice and what is happening with leaseholders at the moment. That is why we have put £1.6 billion into removing unsafe cladding. I do not want to see leaseholders being forced to pay for the remediation, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are looking now urgently—before the expiry of the current arrangements—at what we can do to take them forward and support leaseholders, who are in a very unfair position.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/20; col. 842.]
That was the Prime Minister on 9 December 2020. He subsequently said:
“We are determined that no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 945.]
Everyone would agree with that. That was the reply of the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition on 3 February this year. That is just three quotes but there are many others that noble Lords should look at. Those are the quotes but we then come back to the reality of where we are, which is something different, is it not? It goes on and on.
What is shocking for me is that whenever the Government are provided with the means, through the Fire Safety Bill, to do what they promised—what the Prime Minister promised—they vote against it. We get excuse after excuse after excuse from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, or at the other end about why the Prime Minister cannot do this and why the Government cannot deliver on their promises.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
If Motion A1 is agreed to, I cannot call Motion A2. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, to speak to Motion A2.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and a member of Kirklees Council.
Throughout the course of this Bill, I have said that I support its contents and purpose. I cannot support the unintended consequences that will have a devastating impact on individual leaseholders and a very damaging effect on the housing market. Those are the reasons for my asking again for the Government to take responsibility for the consequences of this Bill, which despite the Minister’s best efforts has been totally underwhelming so far. Promises have been made by the Government and not kept.
The Government’s response to date is to provide grant funding of £5 billion while knowing that the total cost is estimated at £16 billion. The grant includes only blocks over 18 metres and only removes the flammable cladding. For those in lower blocks, there is the prospect of paying up to £50 per month for years to come.
Conveniently, the Government fail to take into account the non-cladding issues that are a result of construction failure of immense proportions. These non-cladding issues are the ones that will finally push individuals over the edge. Meanwhile, those who have literally built this catastrophe walk away with their billions of profit. The Government have a duty to protect their citizens—it is their prime duty—yet here we are today with perhaps a million of our fellow citizens being thrown to the ravages of financial bankruptcy, and the Government wash their hands and look the other way.
The Government will argue that the Bill is a vital response to the Grenfell tragedy. It is so vital that it has taken four years to get to the statute book. The Bill’s purpose is to include external walls, doors and balconies in the fire safety order of 2005, so that action is taken to protect people from another Grenfell tragedy. However, a Bill is not now needed to force action to remove cladding; that is happening. It is not needed to get fire alarms put in; that is happening. Those who own the buildings, and those who are leaseholders and tenants, already know that action has to be taken to make their buildings safe. It is no longer urgently necessary to get legislation to force the issue and it is no longer possible to force construction firms to take the necessary action; there is not capacity to do so. If, though, the Bill does fall, this provides a breathing space for the Government to develop a package of further measures that will protect the interests of leaseholders and save them from penury.
The amendment in my name seeks to achieve that breathing space. It is based on the original one in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and has been adjusted to include the various very valid points that have been made during the passage of the Bill. We must all recognise that passing this Bill will not magic away the crisis that individual leaseholders are facing. It will not remedy the construction scandal. It will not provide stability for a foundering housing market. It will be the beginning of a scandal of individual bankruptcies, homelessness, intense stress and mental illness. It will become a public scandal and I for one will at least have on my conscience that I have done all in my power to prevent it. Leaseholders have done everything right and nothing wrong. Liberal Democrats will stand by them. I give notice that I wish to test the opinion of the House on the amendment in my name.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as we seem to be in the last chance saloon, I will try not to repeat myself too much, but declare my interests as both a property professional and a vice-president of the LGA. As I said yesterday, the House seems to be presented by the Government with a choice. On the one hand is the evident desirability of implementing fire safety measures in pursuance of the valuable recommendations in the report by Dame Judith Hackitt into the Grenfell tragedy, plus a partial solution to some of the effects of cladding replacement on a limited class of taller buildings, as we have heard. On the other is what I am afraid I must describe as the effective hanging out to dry of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of other home owners. It should not be a question of either/or in dealing with a growing and pressing social and economic disaster. I too support improved fire safety, but not on the basis of creating further untold, and probably unquantified, problems.
Yesterday, the Minister endeavoured to persuade us by saying that this brief and simple Bill merely clarified the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. I am afraid to say that, on my own rereading of that, he is plainly mistaken. This Bill amends the scope of the fire safety order by inserting an exception to paragraph 1a, referring in turn to two newly inserted paragraphs, 1A and 1B, that substantially expand the scope of the order. The fact that anything was attached to the named elements means the Bill has far wider implications than might be supposed. So I am afraid to say that the Minister’s assertion really did it for me. I felt it was misleading and what my late father would have described as an exercise in intellectual sharp practice. My distinct impression is that I am being taken for some sort of fool. The indisputable fact that must be regarded as plain is that this Bill makes the changes that by direct chain of causation have created the issues and caused the results that the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seek to resolve.
Another issue appears to be one of definition. The Government are concerned that any scheme that might be put in place could be used to avoid regular maintenance and routine upgrades. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in particular, seeks to address that. In my experience there may be grey areas, but I do not have any difficulty in my work in distinguishing repairs and the like, or like-for-like replacements, from those items that are improvements. Nor do most leaseholders and property owners.
Let us be clear—and here I take a cue from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for a bit of historical background—that it was on the watch of a Conservative Government that the 1984 Building Act brought in the approved inspector regime and the effective privatisation of the regulatory oversight of construction quality, previously exercised by local authority building control. Despite indicators of shortcomings and shortcutting, this process continued, without adequate checks on who was doing the inspection of the works, or how good the oversight was in practice. It is on the basis of the subsequent 37 years of construction and its legacy of known and unknown deficiencies, scattered randomly about the nation’s housing stock, that modern housebuilding, construction warranties, lending and home ownership have been founded.
If the Government consider that they need to take steps to protect the valiant and much-abused postmasters from system failure, how can they, with it any cogency or conscience, make a distinction concerning a far greater number of home owners who are affected at least as severely? So, while I note that the Minister in the other place this afternoon sought to point the finger at the unelected Lords blocking the democratic decision of the Commons, I simply say that the exercise of raw political power vis-à-vis the party whip to procure a majority in the Lobby does not endow the Government with a moral superiority, or indeed the social advancement of justice and ethical treatment of citizens. I note the reasons for rejecting our amendments, which simply translate as “too difficult”. I suspect not half as difficult as picking up the bits after this has rolled itself out.
At one point I believed the Government had it hand to corral all the potential damage, but I believe they have not done so. It would not concern me if this Bill fell, so unreasonable do I believe its true effects to be, and so lacking is the willingness of the Government to deal with it. What it has proposed will roll out far too slowly: eight months to do the highest-risk buildings, and how much longer to deal with the far greater number in future stages? What about capacity in terms of manpower, training and so on?
I took note of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but I find that sitting on my hands, signifying my acceptance of the Government’s position here, does not sit comfortably with my conscience—knowing, as I do from professional experience, just what harm the Bill is likely to do, alongside its undoubted good.
I suspect that the Bill will ultimately pass into law, even if the Parliament Act has to be invoked—but I am afraid I cannot agree to it as it stands. I fear that Lobby fatigue may mean that this is the end of the matter for now. Either way, I shall return to this subject in the new Session—as, doubtless, will the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. Meanwhile, I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting the thrust of the amendments—any one of them, whichever might gain approval. And I hope I will sleep with my conscience clear as a result.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester and the noble Lord, Lord Newby. I call first the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I remind the House of my interests: I am a leaseholder. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I heard Boris Johnson telling Parliament in February that
“no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 945.]
To be honest, I cheered. Maybe I was being naive, but I sort of took him at his word—and I sort of still do. But can I? Has anyone briefed the Prime Minister on how his promise to leaseholders is being broken by his own Government as we speak?
In the other place the Minister, Chris Pincher, said that the amendments lacked clarity and prohibited minor costs from being passed on to leaseholders. That was so disingenuous. This is not a load of whiny leaseholders whingeing about minor costs. People are utterly desperate. As we have heard from other noble Lords, this Bill almost guarantees that major costs will be passed on to them—unless the Minister thinks that remediation costs of up to tens of thousands of pounds each, or 400% hikes in service charges, are minor. Those are not minor in my world, nor in the world of so many leaseholders who, as I have stressed here before, bought into that nirvana of home-owning democracy. They were often first-time buyers, who became leaseholders as part of affordable housing schemes.
The Minister in the other place said that the amendment would not help leaseholders. But leaseholders do not feel that way. What they do feel is exasperated. They have been told about the loans scheme, and that this issue can be sorted out by the passage of the building safety Bill. Even then, if there were an assurance from the Government that they would prioritise that Bill as an urgent piece of legislation at the start of the next Session, it might be some consolation. But of course, we do not know when it will appear.
As one group of leaseholders noted in an email to me, the reality is that they are accruing costs now. They are not allowed to postpone paying them until a new parliamentary Session. They cannot say, “Sorry, won’t pay until the building safety Bill’s got through.” They fear that by the time that legislation is passed, many of them will already have lost their homes—and, as one said, “I will certainly have lost my mind.”
Earlier today I heard a Minister here justify imposing a set of regulations on the Northern Ireland Assembly, although that would undermine the devolution agreement. He justified that decision because he said that the Government had a duty to ensure that women’s rights were addressed, and legal abortion services were made available. I was anxious at this procedural and technical fix to solve a complex constitutional and moral problem. But now, if only the Government would come up with some procedural and technical fix to solve what is undoubtedly a complex problem, but one, in this instance, of leaseholders’ rights. There seems to be a sort of stubbornness, which is so unbecoming—a kind of evasiveness, which is kicking this problem down the road, where it will get worse, and letting the most blameless take the hit in the meantime.
I have a lot of respect for the Minister, but I feel as though the Government must know in their heart of hearts—with Tory rebels in the other place, noble Lords from all sides of this House and all the devastating personal testimonies we have shared over the last few days—that what is being asked for here is modest. We are asking for any mechanism, however technical, or any scheme that would actually help leaseholders and save them from bankruptcies now, as is so urgently needed.
We have heard about the £5 billion scheme, and we have all welcomed it, but it really applies only to those in buildings over 18 metres. Leaseholders in buildings of 17 metres or 15 metres are still being asked to pay sky-high costs. As we have heard, it is estimated that the £5 billion scheme still leaves at least £10 billion unaccounted for, and maybe more.
I want to test whether the Government are true to their word—true to the Prime Minister’s word that I started with—and ask the Minister a simple question. If this Fire Safety Bill were to pass, what will the Government do in the interim between its passing and the building safety Bill to stop leaseholders’ bankruptcies and the negative equity crisis that this Bill undoubtedly helps to create?
Finally, I take this opportunity to say to the leaseholders: you have allies in the other place and here who will continue to stand up for you and keep raising awareness of your plight. I am still hopeful that the Minister and the Prime Minister might be among those allies too.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of St Albans and the Bishop of London have both been involved in earlier stages on the Bill and, regretfully, neither is able to be in your Lordships’ House this evening. However, I come with my own background and interests, as a former board member of various housing associations over 25 years and as the former chair of the charity Housing Justice.
As noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has been heavily involved in this matter and has been persistent. He said yesterday that none of us wanted to be in this position at this stage. But while so much of the Bill is welcome—not least the £5 billion which has been referred to—there are continuing and serious concerns, some of which have already been expressed in the debate this evening, about the position of leaseholders and tenants, and particularly certain groups of leaseholders and tenants.
Yes, remediation is a complex matter, but I am sure that it is not so complex that it cannot be worked out. I want to believe that Her Majesty’s Government are sincere in the express desire to protect leaseholders and tenants. The proposed amendments, including one here tonight, are designed to provide time for the Government to bring forward their own statutory scheme. It is the absence of clarity about that scheme and the timetable for it which is the cause of continuing regret on these Benches. Mention has been made already of the loan scheme in relation to buildings under 18 metres and the fact that that is likely to come forward in the context of another Bill. But, of course, that leaves open the questions of the detail and timescale and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has just observed, there are leaseholders facing those bills today.
We have heard many tragic stories of people with unpayable bills and crippling insurance and service charges. One concern of Members of these Benches is the effect of all that on people’s health and well-being, as well as on their financial capacity. These are important matters; they affect people’s daily lives, mental state and financial futures. While the Bill tackles a number of really important things, it leaves open some others which leave people facing uncertainty and potentially very significant liabilities.
Whatever happens this evening, I know that many in this place and elsewhere will continue to make the cause, because this issue will not go away. I dare to hope that if the Bill does pass this evening, Her Majesty’s Government will bring forward their proposals as soon as possible in the new Session to remove the uncertainty from those who are finding it really difficult to live with. These Benches continue to hold out hope for a more empathetic attitude towards leaseholders.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as a leaseholder affected by fire safety remediation costs.
This afternoon, I decided to listen to the debate on the Bill in another place to see whether I had been missing something, by just hearing debates here, about the Government’s real reasons for not taking any appropriate action. Instead, I found that the key challenges that have been set out by noble Lords this evening were being made most eloquently by Conservative Back-Benchers. Bob Blackman made the key point that leaseholders have no luxury of time to deal with the demands dropping on their doormats today. Sir Robert Neill made the logical and consequential point that bridging provisions to fund remediation were needed, until the Government had put in place measures to recoup the costs from developers and builders—costs to be met, in the interim, by the Government. As a former Minister, he also made the telling point that the Government would have had time to produce their own amendments, if they had put their mind to it.
The response from the Government was from the right honourable Christopher Pincher, who replied with all the empathy and grace of a Victorian miller faced by workers’ demands to install expensive safety equipment on all the machinery. He also put the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, to shame in his ability to ape Sir Humphrey. Unlike the noble Lord, who at least shows a certain lack of conviction in some of his adjectives, Christopher Pincher had none. In describing this amendment, as we have heard before, he mentioned the uncertainty that it would cause, the lack of clarity and the litigation that would flow, which would be voluminous. He had us almost in tears at the prospect of these terrible consequences.
There was not a word of explanation as to why, given that the Government allegedly want to do what is right, in the seven months since this Bill’s Second Reading they have made no progress whatsoever in bringing forward their own proposals to deal with the issues now. There was not a scintilla of a suggestion, from him, of when there would be certainty for leaseholders. He said that the building safety Bill would be brought forward as quickly as possible and that it would protect leaseholders “as far as possible”. Those two statements are of literally no comfort to somebody facing a bill today. We all know that those phrases “as far as possible” or “as quickly as possible” allow the Government to do whatever they want or not very much at all.
He also had the temerity to say that the Bill should now pass,
“so that people can get on with their lives.”
The one thing certain is that, if this Bill passes unamended, hundreds of thousands of people will not be able to get on with their lives, because overwhelming uncertainty will remain over their financial position and their ability, if they wish to do so, to sell the property in which they live.
The truth is that the Government have shown themselves indifferent to the mental and financial anguish faced by these people today, or else they would have made a meaningful commitment to the timetable for lifting the burden of costs and uncertainty from them. In these circumstances, how can we, in all conscience, pack up our tents now and let the Bill sail into the night? We on these Benches will not do so, and I urge Members across the House to vote for my noble friend’s amendment to bring tenants the relief that they so richly deserve.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has also indicated a wish to speak, and I call him now.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, in Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty says:
“ ‘When I use a word, … it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’ ”
That is exactly the position we find ourselves in today. It is an argument about the meaning of words, which the noble Lord, Lord Newby, in an excellent speech, has just pointed up. If one took the Government’s statements and sought to give the usual meaning to the words, then there would not be a problem here this evening.
I noted down what the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, said in his opening remarks: these are just some of the statements he made. My writing is not fast enough to recite his whole speech, but if one took his whole speech, one would think there was no disagreement between us at all. “More needs to be done”, he said. “Industry must play its part and pay its way,” he said. “I agree that leaseholders need more protection,” he said. “Forfeiture,” he said—the fact we are talking about forfeiture is a sign of quite how serious a crisis we are facing—“is a draconian measure”; my writing was not fast enough here, but I think he said, “which is to be discouraged.” He also said, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, just said, that these measures will be further addressed in the building safety Bill.
All those statements that the noble Lord made go to the heart of the protection we have been seeking to provide for all of those categories of people affected, not just those who live in buildings of more than 18 metres and not just those with costs directly attributable to cladding if they fall in the category of remediation costs which are essentially post Grenfell. This is the key point, because assessments that have been made about fire risks which are not just restricted to cladding are in the wider areas, some of which are in the expanded fire safety order which the Minister referred to.
The issue then is whether the scheme that the Government have said they will introduce to implement the principles that the Minister himself has set out to the House this evening is adequate to the task. We take the Minister at his word that it will be adequate to the task. There is some disagreement about how far it needs to be legislative and how far not legislative, though the fact that he constantly refers to the building safety Bill leads us to think that it will be substantially legislative. In so far as it is not legislative, these measures could be put in a legislative form, or he could make a categoric statement about when the Government will come forward with a comprehensive scheme.
So far, so good. What happens is that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and his understudy who is here this evening, if I may so describe him—anyway, he seems to be maintaining the line of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans—and other noble Lords then consistently, on now about 10 occasions during the passage of the Bill, have come forward with proposals to put into legislative form what the Government themselves have told us they want to do. What happens, because we are now back in Alice in Wonderland, is that we pass amendments saying that remediation costs should not be passed on to leaseholders which are attributable to the additional costs which have come post Grenfell, and then the Government come along and say, “Ah, but this does not take account of the following five concerns.”
These are the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, just mentioned about small costs, concerns about defining costs, concerns about costs which might be attributable to leases which applied and which tenants willingly engaged in before there were any additional costs put forward—we had a whole list of issues that were raised. What then happens is that the ever-receptive Bishop of St Albans, and other noble Lords change the amendments to take account of the Government’s concerns. Indeed, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, this evening meets most of the concerns that have been raised by Christopher Pincher in the House of Commons and by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, here.
It is worth dwelling on this, because these are hugely important issues potentially affecting millions of people, so we ought to be clear about it. Under the noble Baroness’s amendment, proposed new subsection (1) states:
“The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act”—
so defining clearly what should and should not apply. Proposed new subsection (2) states that the prohibition on remediation costs being passed on to tenants will have effect
“only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings are not required to pay more than £50 per month during the course of the lease”,
but it does not apply to a cost that
“is permitted under a lease or tenancy agreement that was made before this Act is passed, and … does not exceed £500, whether as a one-off cost, or in total across a 12-month period.”
This meets the concerns that the Minister has raised, unless he does not propose to bring forward a scheme that meets his commitments in due course, which is the reason why we go round in circles again.
We then come out of Alice in Wonderland and into the real world. In the real world, we all know what is happening. It is not a secret to those of us who are politicians what arguments have now been happening for two months. Two things are happening. First, a battle royal is going on between the Minister’s department and the Treasury about what costs the Treasury will meet and how narrowly defined they need to be. The Treasury is already concerned about the size of the fire safety fund, the £5.1 billion fund which the Minister referred to, and whether the costs even under that scheme will end up being significantly higher. It certainly does not want more costs to be recognised. The second thing going on of which we are all well aware is that, although the Government say—because huge numbers of people are affected by this, many of them first-time buyers, many of them who have, under Conservative schemes, bought council properties and are leaseholders —that they want to see them fully protected, they do not at the moment either have a plan to fully protect them nor, to be blunt, do they want to protect them any more than they think is politically necessary to get this and subsequent legislation passed, presumably in the run-up to the next election, in a judgment they make on the salience of the issue.
We then come to the role of this House, which is unusual in this case. We had a lecture from the Chief Whip earlier about the supremacy of the House of Commons, which we all recognise, but the supremacy of the House of Commons is in this instance qualified in two respects. The Salisbury convention is clear that the supremacy of the House of Commons applies to all matters which the Government have placed in their manifesto. This House does not seek to cut across clear manifesto commitments which the Government have made when they want to realise them. The Government’s commitment at the election was to sort out this issue; it was not not to sort out this issue. If we take that reading of the role of this House, we will actually be implementing the Salisbury convention this evening if we pass the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. We are seeking to hold the Government to their manifesto commitments to the people, not going against them.
The other reason why we are back in Alice in Wonderland in respect of the role of this House is that, when the Minister and the Chief Whip said this evening that the Bill will fail, it will fail only if, in response to the amendment being carried, the Government choose to let it fail rather than accept an amendment that puts into law the very commitments that they have said that they propose to meet.
We are in a conundrum as to what to do. If we vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, we be voting for something that will indeed send the measure back to the House of Commons and could, if the Government refused to give way, lead to the fall of the Bill. That is entirely in the hands of the Government. However, it is manifestly not the case that we are breaking the Salisbury convention, it is manifestly not the case that we are going against the commitments that the Government themselves have given, and it is manifestly not the case that we would be the cause of the Bill falling. The Government would be the cause of the Bill falling, because they were not prepared to accept the amendment.
We all have judgments to take as to how to vote, and I respect people who take different views on this issue, but it is very clear to me that this is not about the supremacy of the House of Commons. As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, in what I have to say is the most impassioned speech I have heard him deliver to the House, this is a matter of the good faith of the Government and whether, when they say something, they mean it. If this House has any role to play, it is to see that high standards of conduct in public life are maintained, that Governments are held to commitments that they give and that the ordinary meaning of words should be taken to apply when they are uttered by Ministers.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I will not trade Alice in Wonderland anecdotes with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, but I take issue with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, that this Government and Prime Minister have done nothing or sat on their hands.
The reality is that I was appointed a Minister, a little over a year ago, into this role. The previous Government had first committed £400 million and then, very reluctantly, an additional £200 million towards the costs of remediating the same cladding that was on Grenfell Tower—aluminium composite material. In the month I was made a Minister, the Chancellor committed a further £1 billion. Now this Chancellor and Prime Minister have committed a further £3.5 billion, taking the total funding to an unprecedented £5.1 billion. It is simply not correct to say that we are doing nothing; that is a considerable sum of money and a massive commitment to recognising that we need to dampen the impact of the costs of remediating the unsafe cladding—the major fire accelerant on these buildings—so that a tragedy like the Grenfell Tower fire never happens again.
I also take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, whose contributions I really enjoy; he is a property professional who speaks with great passion. The reality is that I spent the last year at the coalface, dealing with the tail of building owners who do not want to get on with the remediation—even when the funding is in place. There are two enforcement routes to get them to move even when they do not want to: one is the Housing Act 2004 and the other is the current fire safety order of 2005. It is recognised as an enforcement route, even for external cladding systems; it is just that some fire and rescue authorities feel that it is too ambiguous. That ambiguity, lack of clarification and operational disagreement between different fire and rescue services—I say this as Fire Minister—is a significant problem. However, one reason that remediation is happening today is that enforcement options are in place and this modest three-clause Bill is a very sensible clarification of the fire safety order of 2005.
We are at an impasse. I hope that we may get this vital Bill through, because it is important to get that legal clarity I have referred to. The safety of leaseholders and residents is paramount, and it will be compromised if we do not ensure that this Bill is placed on the statute book by the end of this Session. Tonight is the moment to decide that very fact. The Bill falling will not help leaseholders or make homes safer.
I turn to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. It lacks clarity in prohibiting all kinds of remediation costs being passed on to leaseholders. It means that, where costs are minor, as a result of wear and tear, or even where leaseholders are responsible for damage, they would still not be expected to pay, which is not a proportionate response. I think all Members would agree that the taxpayer should not pay for all and every cost associated with remediation. The scope is far too broad to be a sensible solution.
In several ways, this amendment has the potential to make things worse for leaseholders; for example, it is unclear who should take responsibility for remediation works until a statutory funding scheme is in place to pay for the costs. This would result in all types of remediation being delayed, which is an unsatisfactory outcome for leaseholders. Practically speaking, on the amendment’s requirement to deliver particular requirements to Parliament within 90 and 120 days, we must be mindful that drafting legislation is a complex matter, which cannot be dealt with in the timeframe proposed. I note that the noble Lord is unlikely to press for a Division this evening, so I will not go any further, but to impose an arbitrary deadline, as stated, is neither helpful nor practical.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate tonight. It is worth pointing out that for the second day in a row debating these issues not a single Member of the Government Benches has come forward to support the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, or the Government’s position. As I said yesterday, I am not surprised because the position of the Government, frankly, is a disgrace and is totally outrageous.
The Government claim that we have not got this amendment right, it lacks clarity and we do not have the time. If we were going to accept that as a serious proposition, we would not have had this Bill just sitting there for weeks and weeks not being tabled by the Government. After it was rejected by the Commons it could have been brought here. They chose not to table it. They left it sitting there. I really do not think that point holds water.
Of course, the problem for the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, is that the sums of money pledged—and I accept that they are considerable—do not deliver the Prime Minister’s pledges, or do his pledges count for nothing? I will leave that there. He makes a lot of promises and pledges. I hope they count for something or do they count for nothing?
If voting again for this amendment would change anything, I would divide the House, but I am also not prepared to mislead those affected that we can force the Government to change this Bill. Sadly, the Government are not listening and the House prorogues tomorrow.
This issue, however, will not go away. The Government will be forced to do the right thing by the leaseholders, by the campaigners, by the Cladiators and by Members of this House and the other place. They will be dragged kicking and screaming to do what the leader of their party, the Prime Minister of the UK, pledged to do. I quote the Prime Minister—I think that the House will hear this quote time and again, until the Government do what he promised. He said:
“We are determined that no leaseholder should have to pay for the unaffordable costs of fixing safety defects that they did not cause and are no fault of their own.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/2/21; col. 945.]
That was the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and leader of the Conservative Party, the right honourable Boris Johnson MP, in response to a question put to him by the Leader of the Opposition on 3 February. That statement was made after this Bill had been through both Houses and three weeks before the Government, in the other place, rejected our amendments for the first time. The PM’s Government voted against the PM’s pledge—his promise—at every opportunity. The position is, frankly, ridiculous; what complete and utter nonsense has come from the Government.
As I said, I will not test the opinion of the House on my Motion tonight. This issue, however, will not go away, and the Government will have to deliver on their pledges and promises. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
“Prohibition on passing remediation costs on to leaseholders and tenants pending operation of a statutory scheme
(1) The owner of a building may not pass the costs of any remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act on to leaseholders or tenants of that building.
(2) This section has effect only until a statutory scheme is in operation which ensures that leaseholders and tenants of dwellings are not required to pay more than £50 per month during the course of the lease in respect of remedial work attributable to the provisions of this Act.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a cost that—
(a) is permitted under a lease or tenancy agreement that was made before this Act is passed, and
(b) does not exceed £500, whether as a one-off cost, or in total across a 12-month period.
(4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a leaseholder who is also the owner or part owner of the freehold of the building.””
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
I thank all noble Lords for another excellent debate—the fourth in the series—and their contributions tonight.
Again, the tune from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister, has not changed—it is the same old record: “This is not the right Bill”. Well, if it is not the right Bill, where is the Government’s Bill to address the horrendous problems that are going to be faced by leaseholders? Where is the Bill that will keep the Government’s pledge that leaseholders would not have to face the unaffordable consequences of fire safety defects? Where is it? Its absence tells us more than anything else about the Government’s commitment to help leaseholders.
To pledge, as the Minister has done, that the building safety Bill will pave the way, forgets the fact that bills are landing on doormats as we speak. Time is of the essence, and still the Government refuse to move. It is a thoroughly depressing moment when people can be thrown to the wolves in order to save the Treasury from paying what it ought to pay and extracting what it ought to extract from those who have caused the problem. The construction scandal—the cladding crisis—is the Government’s, and the Government’s alone.
I thank the Minister for his criticisms, once again, of the amendment I have proposed today. I just wish he would do something about it rather than saying that he cannot do this and cannot do that. What is he going to do?
I have taken heart from the impassioned speech by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He is an expert in the housing field and has frequently shared his expertise in this House. The fact that he too cannot in all conscience vote for the Fire Safety Bill as it stands, unamended, gives me heart that we have got this in the right place from the point of view of those of us who want to protect people from exorbitant costs of putting right fire safety defects.
I will say one last word. Let us remind ourselves that leaseholders are those that have done everything right. They have saved up for their house, put down the deposit and budgeted for the expenses they anticipate. They have done everything right and nothing wrong, yet the Government—and, it seems, others in this House—are willing to make them pay the price. That is not acceptable, and the Liberal Democrat Benches will not stand by and let it happen if we can help it. It is a depressing moment, as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has indicated that he is not prepared to vote for the amendment to try to get safeguards for leaseholders. He has thrown in the towel, and I find that disappointing and utterly depressing.
However, with those words, I am prepared to have one more go to try to protect leaseholders and, indeed, tenants from the awful, if unintended, consequences of this Fire Safety Bill. I wish to seek the opinion of the House and I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, for consideration of the Commons reason on the National Security and Investment Bill, I will call Members to speak in the order listed. There is no counterproposition. The only speakers are those listed, who may be in the Chamber or remote. Members who do not intend to speak 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 discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question must email the clerk. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. As there is no counterproposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. We will now begin.
National Security and Investment Bill
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 11B and 11C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11D.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, here we are again. We return once more to parliamentary scrutiny of the National Security and Investment Bill. It is of course always a pleasure for me to be in your Lordships’ company, so to be here twice in one day on this legislation and once on a Statement repeat is obviously a treat of the highest order.
Noble Lords will have seen that the other place once again rejected the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord West, by a further significant margin. Let there be no doubt that I welcome and value the considerable expertise that noble Lords have put into their amendments and proposals. In addition to their expertise, I now have the opportunity to further compliment their stamina and resolve.
However, as I said earlier today in this House, in our view the BEIS Select Committee remains the most appropriate committee for scrutinising the operation of this regime by the Secretary of State for BEIS. I have already put forward the Government’s arguments in this regard on a number of occasions, so I will not try your Lordships’ patience much further. Assurances have now been provided, both in this House and the other place, that there will be no barriers to effective scrutiny by the BEIS Select Committee. In particular, its handling of material, be it confidential or classified, will be appropriately dealt with.
I know your Lordships have some scepticism on this claim. I am not sure what else I can say to reassure noble Lords, other than that my department will work closely with the BEIS Select Committee and its chairman to ensure that effective scrutiny can and will take place. Of course, there will be times when further scrutiny by other committees is appropriate—for example, the Science and Technology Committee or even the Intelligence and Security Committee. As this House has heard in previous debates, there is also nothing stopping these committees carrying out the important work that falls within their respective remits.
I now look to this House to respect the clear wishes of the other place and to acknowledge our rapidly dwindling time to pass this essential Bill. I therefore hope that this House will now support the Government’s Motion and allow the Bill to pass. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, has withdrawn. Accordingly, I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the sands of dissent are passing through the hourglass of incredulity. The Minister is right; there has been a long debate. It is very nice to hear that he values the expertise and that he has been able to hear it. It is disappointing that, having valued it, he considers it insufficiently valuable to take the advice that the expertise came up with.
Some time between our last meeting and this one, an email came through from Darren Jones, the chair of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, setting out the fact that an MoU has been exchanged on the subject that we are debating. There is one curious sentence in there, which states:
“I have had to protect the position of my own committee …”.
It is late and I will not press that, but it smacks a little of someone being strong-armed, which is a shame.
The other sentence comes at the end of the email’s penultimate paragraph, which states:
“Should my Committee find any of our scrutiny of the Investment Security Unit is inadequate, we will of course make that clear on the record.”
That is somewhat reassuring. I know that Darren Jones is someone whom one can trust, and I am sure that if he and his committee find that to be the case, that is what will happen and we will of course be listening and watching for it.
We look forward to the Statement being brought forward for debate in both Houses as a consequence of the Bill, and we look forward to debating the technologies that will be put into the Bill.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, it is a treat for us to have the Minister here again. He says that there is some scepticism in the House about this matter. I think that there is some mystification, actually. It is said that when he heard about Talleyrand’s death, Metternich said, “What did he mean by that?” There is a bit of me that, as a historian, wonders how historians looking at this in the future will ask, “What was going on? What did they mean by that?”—to have such a squabble, and to go back and forward at the end of a Bill that we all agree is important, over the possible addition of five words in a memorandum of understanding. That is what we have got down to. And I remain mystified. One day, maybe long into the future, when the noble Lord and I have gone on to other things but are still in the land of the living, we may sup together and hear what was really behind the resistance to amending the memorandum of understanding simply to allow one committee to look at the work of the unit.
Having said that, we are pleased that we are now at the end of the Bill. We wish it and the new unit in the Minister’s department well. We talked previously about the number of notifications that it may have to deal with. There is a real challenge there. We seriously wish that unit well as it begins to take on and embed what this soon-to-be Act will enable it to do.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the hour is getting late and I will not try your Lordships’ patience. It remains for me to thank the last two indomitable warriors on this subject, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, once again for their help, support and the valuable scrutiny that they have provided to this legislation.
The legislation has changed as a result of your Lordships’ efforts. I know that there will be disappointment in those noble Lords’ parties that we were unable to agree on this final point but, nevertheless, the House has done its work well. The Bill has been improved as a result of the work of this House, but it is now time to let this matter rest. As I set out earlier, the Government have made their case. Noble Lords will be pleased to know that I will not repeat that case, which was made both in this House and the other place. Let me finish by saying that I appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter and I am sure that we will have further discussions as the work of the ISU takes place. We must now ensure that the Bill is passed.