House of Commons
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
I have enormous sympathy with leaseholders who are being landed with bills for faults for which they were not responsible and for which the responsibility for remediation truly lies elsewhere. I and my Department are looking at every available means to ensure that the burden is lifted from leaseholders’ shoulders and placed where it truly belongs.
Fleur Anderson
I am glad to hear that response. Hundreds of Putney leaseholders are facing agonising waits to get funding through the building safety fund. People in the Radial development have been waiting for 16 months, people in Hardwicks Square have been waiting for 17 months and those in the Swish building have been stuck at stage 2 for 11 months. Meanwhile, one constituent is paying more than £4,000 in insurance for a two-bedroom flat following a 500% hike, which is not unusual. What is the Minister doing urgently to speed up and simplify the building safety fund application process and also to prevent insurers from cashing in?
Michael Gove
As the hon. Lady rightly points out, leaseholders find themselves caught in an invidious vice, whereby they are not only having to pay remediation costs, but also find that insurance costs and the capacity to sell on their flat are compromised by the situation in which we find ourselves. Making sure that individuals are in safe buildings is our first responsibility, and to do that we must make sure that the building safety fund pays out and that we get support for remediation from those in the private sector, who also have a share of responsibility. I hope to update the House on our plans shortly.
Marsha De Cordova
Leaseholders in Battersea should not be held responsible for paying for remediation works when their homes were sold to them with the assurance that they were safe. Due to the poorly regulated EWS1 assessments, there have been cases where homes were being awarded a B2 classification—the lowest category—leaving leaseholders expected to pay for the repairs. In one case, leaseholders in Battersea challenged that, providing evidence proving that the building was of A2 classification. What action is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that leaseholders are protected from erroneous EWS1 assessment outcomes and that the process is not a barrier to selling or remortgaging, including properties below 18 metres?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady’s question emphasises the complexity of the issue, but that is no reason not to take action to help her constituents and others. One of the principal concerns that I know many leaseholders have is that lenders will require the EWS1 form. The EWS1 form is a consequence of previous Government acts and decisions made by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and others. We need to ensure co-ordinated action across the piece to ensure we are in a stronger position to free people from the position in which they currently find themselves.
Mohammad Yasin
A number of my constituents are facing terrifying bills for remedial works. One couple made redundant due to covid need to sell their apartment urgently, but are trapped because of the safety issues. They have since heard that the developers have gone bust. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State recognise how unfair it is to expect leaseholders to pay remediation costs, but they are expected to, and people are desperate. The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill is a wasted opportunity to help them. When will this unjust mess finally be sorted out?
Michael Gove
Again, the hon. Gentleman reminds us in the case of his constituents how widespread this challenge is. The leasehold reform Bill can play a significant part in ensuring that the position of those in the future can be safeguarded, but we need to take action even before that legislation comes forward, and I hope to update the House shortly on a series of measures that I hope will help bring some relief to his constituents and others.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I have a constituent in my constituency who has been severely affected by the lack of progress on building safety fund funding. He is an example of the complexity and the “invidious vice” that the Secretary of State mentions from the Dispatch Box. Will he agree to meet me to discuss the particular complexities of this situation?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has been campaigning incredibly assiduously behind the scenes on behalf of those who have been caught in this vice. It is the case that 700 or so disbursements have been made from the building safety fund so far, but we realise that we need to take a number of measures to address this situation. He is right that we need to do so with a sense of urgency, but we also need to ensure that those measures are appropriately co-ordinated to have the beneficial impact we would all like to see.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I very much welcome the fact that a number of properties in Ipswich have been successful on building safety funding, but I am concerned about the conditions that many people renting flats are having to live through as the work is carried out. Yes, the work must be carried out quickly, but in one case residents are expected to live for 12 months behind shrink wrap with no natural light whatsoever. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must balance the need to do the work quickly and make buildings safe with the mental health and wellbeing of residents who are expected to live in properties while that work takes place?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I do not know whether the constituents to whom he refers are in private rented sector accommodation or social tenants. In the latter case, some of the changes that we hope to make with our forthcoming social housing Bill will help to ensure that tenants are treated as they should be by all registered social landlords. We are also looking at appropriate re-regulation of the private rented sector.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
Residents at The Wharf, a building of below 18 metres, are being asked by the management company to foot large bills for works to their building next year. Will my right hon. Friend outline how he will support those residents? Time is of the essence, and some residents will simply not be able to pay.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is vital that we proceed as quickly as possible on 18 metre-plus buildings rendered unsafe because of aluminium composite material or other forms of cladding whose unsuitability the Grenfell tragedy laid bare, to make them safe. For some buildings of between 11 metres and 18 metres, it is important that we take a proportionate approach to safety and cost. Safety must come first, but for a number of buildings between 11 and 18 metres, the action needed can be taken quickly and may not be at the level or intensity—or certainly the cost—of action required in other buildings.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
If I include the Secretary of State, Housing Ministers have promised 19 times to protect leaseholders from historical remediation costs, yet as we speak we know of thousands of people receiving invoices for astronomical remediation costs. Thirty-three such residents are in Oyster Court in London, and they could face bills of up to £80,000 each following an assessment using the Government’s new PAS 9980 form. We will hear a lot more about that in the media. Have the Government added yet another toxic layer to the mess? What will the Secretary of State do about it?
Michael Gove
I do not believe that the Government have added anything that is toxic to this mess. We need to ensure that we are in a position to reassure lenders, leaseholders and everyone in the market that buildings are safe. We also need to ensure, exactly as the hon. Gentleman indicates, that leaseholders are not paying and not shouldering an unfair burden for the remediation required. As I mentioned earlier, I hope to say more about that in due course.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State, like me, has been in the House a long time. Does he agree that this scandal measures up to some of the worst that we have seen, whether it be contaminated blood or the wrongful jailing of innocent postmasters? While I welcome his change of tone, does he agree that people are constantly paying out colossal sums for things such as waking watch, and that this must be remedied?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. In arriving in this role, I was struck by two things. The first was the combination of circumstances that come so unfairly on to the shoulders of people who bought their properties in good faith and now find themselves landed with wholly disproportionate and unfair bills. In fairness, to respond to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), I also realised that my predecessors had worked hard to deal with a situation that is intrinsically complex. That is not to take away from the urgent need to tackle it, but good people both in government and outside have been attempting to deal with an interconnected set of issues. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that they must be tackled, but, for a host of reasons, that requires not just Government but others to fulfil their responsibilities.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
I welcome the hon. Members’ attention to this important issue. Homes are among our biggest sources of emissions, and we are committed to reducing the carbon they generate. The recently published heat and buildings strategy sets out the steps required to improve the energy performance of our homes, and through the future homes standard, from 2025 we will deliver a 75% reduction in CO2 emissions compared with homes built to the current standard. However, we are not waiting until 2025 to take action: as a carbon-saving step along the way, we will introduce an interim uplift to the current standard before the end of this year—and there is not a lot of time left, as you will have spotted, Mr Speaker.
Rachel Hopkins
The cost of living crisis is hitting families in Luton South and across the UK hard, and it is set to get worse this winter. With rising energy bills, taxes and food costs, we have never needed a retrofit programme more than now, but the Government’s heat and buildings strategy is inadequate and unambitious. In advance of Fuel Poverty Awareness Day on Friday, will the Minister commit to Labour’s 10-year plan to invest £6 billion a year in home insulation and zero-carbon heating, which will improve our energy security, create jobs and reduce carbon emissions, while also helping to cut bills by £400 a year?
Eddie Hughes
Mr Speaker, I do not know about you, but I spent the weekend reading “My climate action plan: Becoming a carbon neutral borough by 2040”, by the hon. Lady’s local council, and I understand the effort the local council is putting into ensuring that all homes are going to be net zero. Obviously, the Government are committed to that. I am disappointed to hear her say we are unambitious given that we have committed £3.9 billion to the social housing decarbonisation fund and a further £450 million to the boiler upgrade scheme to ensure that people can claim £5,000 per property to replace their boilers with carbon-efficient alternatives.
Kate Osborne
There is a significant funding gap to meet the housing investment requirements of the Government’s energy performance targets. I am informed that housing organisations will be expected to fund the majority of this investment over a 10-year period. In my constituency of Jarrow and across the UK, local authorities have had more than half their funding cut over the last 10 years. How are local authorities expected to meet this required investment despite the obvious financial challenges that they are currently facing?
Eddie Hughes
I would say that many local authorities are already making considerable progress along these lines. I am delighted to see that the hon. Lady’s local council has joined the ambitious UK100 network—a network of councils committed to achieving net zero as soon as possible—and I understand that it has committed to being carbon neutral by 2030, so it feels to me as though councils are getting the funding that they need.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
There is very clear evidence that people who commission their own houses do so to much higher environmental standards, thus doing their own bit to protect against climate change. What plans do Ministers have to make it easier for ordinary people on normal incomes to get a serviced plot of land so that they can commission their own, much greener houses?
Eddie Hughes
My hon. Friend is a frequent champion of his cause in this Chamber, and I think the simple answer to his question is the funding that we are providing through the help to build scheme, but I look forward to further conversations with him in the future to see what else we can do to assist him.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Stroud residents are pleased and relieved about the potential reforms in place to build new net-zero homes and protect rural areas from overdevelopment, but we have a local plan going through now and there is a lot of unrest about the consultation process, net-zero homes not being built and mass development in places such as Sharpness. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss the areas where local plans are going through now to see how we may benefit from some of the fantastic work going on for the future?
Eddie Hughes
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion off all issues environmental and net zero. I am not sure I am the correct Minister to meet her, but if I am, I will, and if I am not, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing to do so instead.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
With energy costs rising exponentially and the Government having scrapped Labour’s zero carbon homes policy months before it was due to come in, abandoned the green homes grant and delayed the future homes standard, is it not the case that families and taxpayers pay the cost for the Government’s failures to make our homes more sustainable? This is an obvious case of false economy, with all of us paying more in the long run for higher bills and future retrofitting costs. The Minister has already been asked this question, but will he answer it this time: will he adopt Labour’s plans for a national mission to retrofit every home that needs it and bring forward all aspects of the future homes standard without delay?
Eddie Hughes
The simple answer is that this Government already have a pretty good plan, so we do not need to look to others and adopt their plans instead. It is unfortunate that the hon. Lady wrote her questions in advance of my previous answers, in which I mentioned, for instance, the £450 million that we have committed to the boiler upgrade. So there is significant investment in this area, we have a strong and sound plan, and progress is moving at pace.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Has my hon. Friend examined the advantages of ground and air heat pumps? I know it is difficult in smaller buildings to have ground pumps because of the large infrastructure required, but air pumps are a little more possible, so what encouragement can the Government give to retrofit such pumps to existing homes?
Eddie Hughes
In the summer I was fortunate to visit the Grey Mare Lane estate in Beswick and see the work going on through the social housing decarbonisation fund demonstrator. Heat pumps are being fitted, and we will have the opportunity very soon to see how people benefit from the experience of having those measures introduced.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
It is certainly not ideal, but time spent in temporary accommodation does that mean people are getting help and ensures families have a roof over their heads. We are committed to reducing the need for temporary accommodation by preventing homelessness before it occurs, which is why we are investing £375 million this year to support local authorities to prevent homelessness, an increase of £112 million on the sum last year. However, on 30 June this year 124,290 dependent children were living in temporary accommodation, although that is down 2.3% on the same quarter last year.
Siobhain McDonagh
Some 124,190 children will spend this Christmas in temporary accommodation, without a place to call home. They will wake up in hostels, bed and breakfasts and working industrial estates, often far away from their schools and friends. Homeless families in the UK are moved the equivalent of 400,000 miles around the globe each year, at a staggering cost of over £1 billion. Given that there have been over 100,000 children in temporary accommodation since 2015, what hope can the Minister give this House, and more importantly those children, that they will at some point have a place to call home?
Eddie Hughes
I completely sympathise with the cause trumpeted by the hon. Lady and would say two things. First, some councils are doing innovative work in this area: I understand Barnet Council is working with Opendoor Homes to purchase properties itself to use for temporary accommodation, as in that way it can at least control the quality and associated cost. But my personal preference is the work we are doing through Capital Letters, which has been very successful so far in helping London boroughs secure properties for use for temporary accommodation.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
As we know, local communities help to shape the identity of local places, and it is right that they should be at the heart of our planning reforms. I can tell my hon. Friend that public engagement through consultations is already required for new housing developments and in any preparation for local plans by councils. We consider plans for the future as a priority to ensure local people have a voice that is integrated much more effectively into the planning process.
Stuart Anderson
I welcome the Minister’s response on how we are making the system more responsive to local residents, but what steps will he take to ensure that residents have more of a say over the influence of developer contributions to local communities such as mine in Wolverhampton?
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Developer contributions, provided by developers to local authorities in order to undertake important infrastructure works, can often be slow to arrive, if they arrive at all, and they are often not what was expected in the first place. We want to put more power in the hands of local authorities and local communities, and not developers. That is one of the reasons why our infrastructure levy, which is under development, will provide greater transparency and greater certainty for communities about the important infrastructure that they will get.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I think there is a desire across the House for a planning system that gets homes built but also recognises the democratic rights of local residents. Looking at the Minister’s planning reforms, may I suggest that he drops his zonal proposals, which are really quite bureaucratic and time consuming, and looks instead to simplify the local plan system, allows for more residents to contribute and be involved in it, and brings in his digital proposals, which have been generally accepted? Once a local plan is in place and an individual application comes in, should there not be a presumption that that application will be accepted where it is in agreement with the local plan, subject to any remaining concerns from residents being taken into account and listened to as part of the consideration of the application?
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the Chairman of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, who makes some important and powerful points. He is right that we need to have more people engaged in the planning system. He will know that presently, about 1% of the local community engages in local plan making; that is, as near as damn it, local planners and their blood relations. That rises to as much as 2% or 3% of the local community engaging in individual local planning applications. We want to make sure that we have an engaging process and that we use digitisation to help us with that, and we will consider his proposals as we move forward with our important planning reforms.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)
Levelling up is an ambition that runs right across the Government. Ahead of the White Paper, the Transport Secretary and the Levelling Up Secretary met in recent weeks to discuss the critical contribution of transport to levelling up.
Esther McVey
Winnington bridge provides vital access to thousands of homes and businesses in Cheshire. It needs completely rebuilding to cope with the current demands and the increased housing scheduled for the area. May I urge the Government to provide funding for that as part of their levelling-up agenda?
Neil O’Brien
I know that this is something that my right hon. Friend has been campaigning very hard for. The next round of the levelling-up fund will be open in spring next year, and I am sure that, with her help, her local councils will be able to develop a strong bid for that important bridge.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
As the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), pointed out in response to the previous question, levelling up involves every Department working in a co-ordinated fashion to advance a series of policies that spread prosperity more equally across the country. The £96 billion integrated rail plan was the single largest rail investment ever made by a UK Government.
Judith Cummins
There was broad agreement around Lord Heseltine’s 2012 report that investment in rail infrastructure is central to a levelling-up agenda. The integrated rail plan really only delivers an upgrade to the existing lines, axing the eastern leg of High Speed 2 and the new high-speed Northern Powerhouse Rail line. How can the Secretary of State do his job now that the integrated rail plan has derailed progress in the north? With less than three weeks of parliamentary time left in 2021, when will he publish his long-promised levelling-up White Paper, which is due this year?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady makes two very good points. On the first, if we look at the integrated rail plan, we can see that there are significant benefits for communities across the north of England. Indeed, travel time between Leeds and Bradford is reduced from, in some cases, just over 20 minutes to 12 minutes. That is a real, material benefit for citizens of both great cities. It is also the case that the potential for further work in making sure that we can have a more effective mass transit system in West Yorkshire is inherent in the approach that was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary. More broadly, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her anxiety to see the broader set of plans that we are keen to bring forward shared with the House, and we will do so at the earliest possible opportunity.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
What my constituents in Rossendale and Darwen would have liked to have seen in the integrated rail plan was a rail line from Manchester to Rawtenstall, but they did not see it. With that in mind and with our shared ambition to level up Rossendale and east Lancashire, will my right hon. Friend look favourably on our levelling-up bid, which will have transport and other schemes in it, when it comes forward?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. East Lancashire and its success must be at the heart of a successful approach towards levelling up. Whether it is Rawtenstall, Bacup, Blackburn or Burnley, we need to ensure that all communities in east Lancashire feel they have the right investment not just in transport, but in skills, schools, and ensuring that streets are safe and communities can take back control.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail were never just about train lines and journey speeds; they are about regeneration opportunities. In the case of the cancelled eastern leg, 38,000 homes were planned on the back of that line, which now will not happen. Some £38 billion of economic growth in Bradford, reliant on Northern Powerhouse Rail, has been cancelled. Local government leaders in the north are united in their opposition to the £18 billion reduction in rail investment plans. Is the north not once again being let down rather than levelled up?
Michael Gove
I would contest that. Although the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the integrated rail plan creates opportunities for broader regeneration, it is important to recognise that transport is not the only tool that can promote regeneration across the midlands and the north of England. The work that Homes England does in making sure we can unlock the potential of brownfield sites for regeneration is critically important. I appreciate the disappointment felt by communities in Bradford and elsewhere, but there is more to come, both in transport and other investment, that will ensure that we meet our shared objectives to spread opportunity more equally across the geography of England.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
What conversations is my right hon. Friend having with the Department for Transport with regard to restoring your railway funding, in particular for the reopening of the Ivanhoe line in North West Leicestershire, where we currently have no railway stations at all?
Michael Gove
I was unaware that there were no railway stations in North West Leicestershire. For the citizens of Ashby de la Zouch and other communities, transport connectivity is as important as it is for citizens elsewhere. I will look at whether the Ivanhoe line can secure the investment it needs. I know my hon. Friend is a white knight for rail investment. North West Leicestershire could have no surer champion in the jousting required to secure the investment needed. [Hon. Members: “Groan.”]
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
The Government agree with the independent review of fire safety that EWS1 forms should not be required on buildings under the height of 18 metres. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has issued guidance to professionals, as the hon. Lady will know, on when EWS1 forms are required. That is being reviewed following the independent expert group’s statement.
Margaret Ferrier
In February, the former Housing Secretary announced his five-point plan to bring confidence to the housing market, committing to a state-backed professional indemnity insurance scheme for professionals. We still have not seen the scheme materialise, so will the Minister provide an update today on when that scheme will become available?
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Lady is quite right. We made that commitment and we adhere to it in the narrow circumstances that are required to give fire risk assessment assurers confidence that PII ought to apply. We believe that, collectively, the associated facts of the Fire Safety Act 2021 and the fire safety order, the withdrawal of consolidated advice note PAS9980, and the introduction of British Standards Institution standards, will ensure a much clearer approach to the sorts of challenges that she outlines.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O'Brien)
The UK community renewal fund and its successor, the UK shared prosperity fund, are examples of how we will have more flexibility to support communities now that we have left the EU. The CRF is funding eight projects in the Borders including on employment support, skills development and environmental sustainability. That will help to pilot new approaches and is helping to inform the design of the UK SPF.
John Lamont
I was delighted to see eight successful projects from the Scottish Borders secure funding from the community renewal fund. It is brilliant to see the United Kingdom Government delivering in all parts of this kingdom. I want to see even more successful bids from the UK shared prosperity fund, so will the Minister come to my constituency to visit the Burnfoot Community Futures trust to discuss how its application might be as strong as possible?
Neil O'Brien
I would be delighted to have an excuse to get back up to the Borders.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week, the Minister for Levelling Up Communities told us that many community renewal fund projects will finish late. That will further delay the UK shared prosperity fund, under which areas such as Cornwall have so far received only 1% of the amount that they lost in European funding, having been promised that they would get all of it back. Will the Minister tell us how the latest CRF delays will affect the roll-out of the UK shared prosperity fund?
Neil O'Brien
All the successful community renewal fund bids have been given additional time to deliver their good programmes. We have asked them all to be in touch if there is any issue and we stand by our commitments to Cornwall and other places to which we have made commitments to match EU funding.
Steve Reed
There is a worrying pattern with this Government of overpromising and underdelivering, is there not? We have had the great train robbery and the return of the dementia tax and now they have postponed levelling up. The community renewal fund is plagued by delays. More than £1 billion of towns fund money has not even been allocated yet, and two years after the scheme was announced, it still has not delivered anything. If this is the Minister’s idea of levelling up, does he accept that it is just not good enough?
Neil O'Brien
The hon. Gentleman says that the scheme has not delivered anything. I was in Norwich on Friday opening the first project ever funded by the towns fund. Whether it is the towns fund, the future high streets fund, the community renewal fund, the shared prosperity fund or the levelling-up fund, this Government are determined to put the financial firepower behind communities’ ambitions across this entire United Kingdom, so that we can level up and unite this country.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Institute for Public Policy Research has pointed out that the UK shared prosperity funding of £1.5 billion from 2025 falls far short of the £11 billion that would have been received from the EU between 2021 and 2027. Will the Minister explain why the UK Government have not delivered on their promise to replace EU structural funds in full?
Neil O'Brien
The UK Government will match the spending that different places had through the EU. We have had a delighted reaction from many of the places across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that have secured funding through the different routes that are now available, and we have all the additional flexibility and a reduction in the bureaucracy of those old EU schemes. The replacement funding not only matches the quantum of the funding that we used to get through the EU, but gets rid of that unnecessary bureaucracy.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
This year, councils will receive £375 million to prevent homelessness, with almost 50% of that funding going to London councils. The funding is part of an overall investment in England of more than £800 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping this year.
Catherine West
Will the Government consider a specific fund for the relatively small number of families with children who have a terminal illness? I have several cases where there are specific requirements around enlarged doorways and an extra bedroom so that nurses and doctors can get around the bed and the child can have care at home. Will the Minister look at specific funding for certain London councils to provide that sort of special housing need?
Eddie Hughes
I think it would be easier for me to agree to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the specific details of the case that she is talking about.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
It is a cracking private Member’s Bill. We shamelessly want to rip off all the ideas in it and take them for our own.
John Penrose
I am delighted to hear it. Will the Secretary of State look not only at those ideas, but at the related “build up, not out” proposals in my soon-to-be-launched policy paper “Poverty Trapped”? Both enshrine local democratic consent and style codes as essential steps for new developments. Does he agree that they are both vital to unlocking the scale of home building that will make buying or renting homes more affordable, reducing poverty and levelling up communities everywhere?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is rare that we have legislation that combines greater democratic control with the potential for the beautification —for want of a better word—of our urban and suburban environment, and also unlocks the potential for the value of individuals’ homes to be enhanced by additional development. It is a triple whammy of good news; we just need to make sure that it meshes with everything else that we want to do that is beneficial. I am really grateful to my hon. Friend and all the supporters of his legislation for helping the Government out so much.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Residents in Hull and Hessle are often fearful that the design of new homes and new housing developments will lead to increased flooding. Anybody who has been a victim of flooding knows how utterly devastating it is for everybody concerned, so will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss my ten-minute rule Bill, the Flooding (Prevention and Insurance) Bill, which is designed to improve and strengthen flood mitigation and flood protection measures for all new builds?
Michael Gove
I know how prone so many communities in the East Riding are to flooding. It is vital that we balance the need for new housing with making sure that there is appropriate mitigation, so I will ensure that I or another relevant Minister meet the hon. Lady to discuss her Bill and how we can take forward those provisions that mesh with our own ambitions.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Neil O’Brien)
The Government are committed to levelling up the whole country, and Dorset is no exception. The new community renewal fund is investing in enterprise and skills training for young people in Dorset. The local growth fund in Dorset has contributed more than £98 million to 54 projects. We are also investing nearly £12 million into Dorset through the getting building fund to stimulate job creation and support the region’s economic recovery.
Chris Loder
Dorset Council has historically been very financially responsible, spending wisely according to need, but now we are facing more pressure than ever, particularly from the cost of social care and the need to provide vital rural transport links. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Dorset will get its fair share in the upcoming local government funding settlement? Will he and his Front-Bench colleagues do all they can to support any future levelling-up funding requests from Dorset?
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Yes, the Government are providing approximately £1.6 billion in additional grant funding in the LGDEL— local government departmental expenditure limit— each year. That follows year-on-year real-terms increases for local government since the 2019 spending review. It will allow councils to increase spending on vital public services such as social care. We will set out more details in the upcoming provisional local government finance settlement later this year.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
My Department is considering responses to this very important consultation. We will publish a response that sets out next steps for increasing the supply of accessible homes as soon as possible.
Liz Twist
Housing association Habinteg estimates that more than 400,000 wheelchair users are living in homes that are neither adapted nor accessible. Having new accessible homes reduces the need to adapt as individuals change during their lifetime and allows them to live independently for longer. Will the Minister meet me and experts from the Centre for Accessible Environments to find out what good accessible design can mean for users?
Christopher Pincher
I salute the hon. Lady’s industriousness, the all-party parliamentary group that she leads, and the work that Habinteg and other groups undertake. She will know that as part of the affordable homes programme, between 2021 and 2026, 10% of the homes to be built—about 20,000 new homes—will require adaptation for living. I am very happy to meet her to discuss what more we can do and how quickly we can bring forward our response to the consultation.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
That is exactly what we are doing. As we consider new housing developments, it is important to ensure that infrastructure is in place for local communities. Our £4.3 billion housing infrastructure fund seeks to achieve that by investing to improve connectivity, healthcare services and vital infrastructure before housing is built.
Mr Robertson
I welcome the Minister’s words, but, having visited my area and observed the flood risk there, does he agree that the drainage capacity of an area should be assessed before any houses begin to be built, and that that assessment should be independent rather than being conducted by the water companies?
Christopher Pincher
As my hon. Friend will know, the national planning policy framework was amended in July this year to ensure that all sources of flood risk, including drainage, are fully considered before planning permission is granted by a local authority. Sustainable drainage infrastructure is hugely important. I should be happy to discuss the subject further with my hon. Friend, and I draw his attention to the speech that I made in last week’s Adjournment debate in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith).
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
I am very conscious of the additional responsibilities that I bear as Minister for Intergovernmental Relations, which is why I was pleased not only to be able to attend the British-Irish Council just over a week ago as a guest of the Welsh First Minister, but to have the opportunity this weekend, as we all consider how we deal with the shadow of the new omicron variant, to discuss with First Ministers across this United Kingdom how we can co-ordinate all our efforts in order to defeat this new covid threat.
Sara Britcliffe
The Secretary of State may know that I have campaigned tirelessly for investment in our town centres across Hyndburn and Haslingden, and those millions of pounds of investment would make a significant difference. Can he confirm that the second round will be confirmed in the White Paper, and will he visit my home of Hyndburn and Haslingden to see at first hand how the money would be spent?
Michael Gove
Absolutely, and we will be saying more about how we can ensure that the remaining tranches of the levelling-up fund are allocated fairly. Accrington and Oswaldtwistle speak to me even now as communities that I would love to visit, with my hon. Friend as my guide.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Not only have reforms of permitted development rights led to a new generation of slum housing, but the latest developments pose a huge risk to the beating heart of our high streets. Communities in this position have no voice and no say in these conversions, and councils are powerless to stop them. Will the Government at least give councils and communities some transparency, and release in full the promised regulatory impact assessment of the Department’s changes to permitted development rights?
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
The hon. Lady is quite wrong in her assertion. Local authorities do have powers to deny permitted development. Prior approvals are required in respect of matters such as aspect, parking and access before the buildings can be constructed. Authorities can also apply for article 4 exemptions for areas in which PDRs will therefore not apply. I can tell the hon. Lady that as a result of our PDR changes, 84,000 new homes have been built which otherwise might not have been built, often on brownfield sites and often in town centres, to the betterment of those people who want to live in them. These are advantages for home dwellers.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend has spoken frequently and passionately about the importance of a balanced approach to the assessment of housing need across the United Kingdom. It is certainly true that the way in which we assess it needs to be updated. I think it only fair to say that every part of England—indeed, every part of the United Kingdom—will have to share in making sure that we can meet the housing needs of the next generation, but we are seeking to achieve a fairer and more equitable distribution of need across the country.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
In contrast to what the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), said in his earlier answer, the Institute for Government has said that, far from reducing bureaucracy, the UK Government have, in the shared prosperity fund, established a system that fails to include devolved Governments to the same degree as previously, and that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 facilitates the UK Government riding roughshod over devolution. How can the Secretary of State in all honesty work to improve intergovernmental relations when the core thrust of his portfolio is about undermining devolution and overriding devolved Governments?
Michael Gove
I share the hon. Lady’s concern for enhancing and improving devolution, which is why we are working with local government in Scotland and, indeed, with Scottish National party Members of this House, to help to ensure that the levelling-up fund, the shared prosperity fund and the community ownership fund meet the needs of individual communities. That is why we are so pleased that the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn)—SNP MPs—and the SNP councils in Edinburgh and Glasgow were so happy to work with us on these funds. I have to say that I sometimes find it surprising—
Michael Gove
I find it surprising that local government in Scotland—
Mr Speaker
Order. Order. Secretary of State, it is not fair to take advantage. I know you enjoy teasing them, but my problem is that questions and answers are meant to be short and succinct—that is why they are called topical questions—and Mr Rosindell is desperate. Come on Andrew!
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Michael Gove
Companion animals are a really good thing—cats, dogs or whatever they are—and it is vital that we work with landlords to ensure that people have the right to have the animal that brings so much joy into their lives with them, whatever form of tenure they enjoy.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s suggestion that it has been abandoned. It certainly has not. The Government are committed to giving all people somewhere safe to sleep. We have the £10 million winter pressure fund and we have the winter transformation fund to help charities and faith groups to deliver single-unit accommodation, so this Government are very much committed to the cause and I would welcome working with the hon. Lady on this in the future.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Michael Gove
I think that the Vagrancy Act has to go. We do need appropriate legislation to deal with examples of aggressive begging, but the most important thing to recognise is that the work that Westminster Council and Greater Manchester have done to reduce rough sleeping has been exemplary. In partnership with my Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), the Minister for rough sleeping, we must redouble our efforts, but I want to congratulate Rachael Robathan, the hon. Lady’s successor, and Andy Burnham on their success in dealing with rough sleeping in the hotspots that have suffered most from that phenomenon.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Michael Gove
Conspiracy theories are all the rage these days, but I have to say that the hon. Gentleman should be above all that. He has a number of important constituency issues that I long to work with him on. I know that this raillery across the Dispatch Box can entertain others but—I say this in the most generous of spirits—let us concentrate on ensuring that we can work together for the people of Chesterfield, and if we have legitimate disagreements, that is fair enough.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Around 40% of workers who commute from the Charnwood Borough Council area commute into Leicester city. This is due in part to the lack of housing in the city. However, despite there being a derelict doughnut of brownfield land around the city that could be utilised for house building, more and more housing is being built in the Leicestershire countryside. Will my right hon. Friend set out what the Government are doing to encourage development on brownfield land? Will he provide greater incentives to councils to ensure this happens?
Christopher Pincher
We are doing exactly that. The brownfield remediation fund is providing significant moneys to ensure that brownfield is remediated. My hon. Friend will be hearing more about that shortly. We also made it clear when we uplifted the local housing need numbers for the largest cities in our country that we expect them to build within their own geographies and not to try to shunt building outside those geographies. That will be made clear to them time and again until they do so.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Michael Gove
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. The Post Office is a marvellous UK-wide institution, and the universal service obligation ensures that everyone across the United Kingdom benefits in exactly the same way. It is one of the strengths of our Union, and I look forward to working with her and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure we have a robust network for the future.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The Minister will know I am very concerned about rampant house building in east Berkshire and elsewhere in the south of England. Will he please assure me of what might be forthcoming in the planning Bill to protect assets such as farmland, school playing fields, golf courses, open spaces and the Pinewood Centre in Crowthorne?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for making that important point. He represents a beautiful part of east Berkshire, and it is important that we maintain our protections for areas of environmental importance and areas of aesthetic distinction. We all need to recognise that sustainable additions to the current housing stock are an important part of making sure the next generation also have a chance to own homes, too.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Michael Gove
I would challenge the hon. Gentleman’s arithmetic, but I know time is short. All I will say is that when I visited Merthyr Tydfil and Pontypridd less than a fortnight ago there was jubilation, not on my arrival but on the arrival of the money from the levelling-up fund that is helping fantastic figures in Welsh local government to deliver for their citizens. I hope I have the chance to visit Ceredigion to see how we can support more projects there.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I urge my right hon. Friend to increase protections for the green belt in the forthcoming planning Bill. In Sevenoaks we are 93% green belt, yet we are constantly inundated with speculative planning applications that worry the local community. The answer should be clear: if it is green belt, it is protected; and if it is a speculative planning application, the answer is no.
Michael Gove
I would hate to be a developer facing my hon. Friend. When it comes to these speculative and ill-thought-out planning applications, developers had better put on their armour because she fires truth bullets at them from the hip, and repeatedly. Of course it is vital that we protect our green belt. However, the best protection that any local authority can have is to make sure its plan is properly designed and adopted.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Michael Gove
Yes. I take this incredibly seriously. The right hon. Gentleman’s office may have already been in touch with the Department, but if it can be in touch with my private office directly, I will see what we can provide by way of additional information before he sees his constituents later. Whatever information we can provide in the meantime, let us try to make sure we can have a proper conversation about how we can resolve this problem in depth.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend meet me and other coastal MPs in Devon and Cornwall who are concerned about the deepening housing crisis, with no private rentals, no affordable homes and public services unable to recruit, as no one can afford to live in what were communities but have become holiday camps by summer and ghost towns by winter?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which emphasises the need for us to make sure that affordable housing is available for those in communities who are the vital workers—the productive workers who are at the heart of successful communities. Although of course it is legitimate for people to have second homes, that also means we need to look at one or two of the loopholes that allow some to not necessarily contribute to the community as much as they might.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Across Durham, social housing in in short supply, while much of the stock that is available is of poor quality, and housing associations, such as Believe Housing, are struggling to meet the needs of residents on repairs and maintenance. Does the Secretary of State share my belief that residents in social housing in places such as Sherburn Hill and Brandon deserve housing that is fit to live in? Will he meet me to discuss the problems?
Michael Gove
I do share that view, and our affordable homes programme will be part of making good on our commitment to more and better social housing. I look forward to working with the new administration at Durham County Council in order to achieve just that.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that culture can play a central role in levelling up throughout the north of England, and that an excellent example of this would be the proposed purchase and refurbishment of the Co-op theatre in Ramsbottom? May I invite him to visit this cultural gem from the 1870s, which has all its unique features still in place? What support can his Department give to supporting the cultural sector throughout the north of England, which is so important to levelling up?
Michael Gove
Culture is absolutely vital to levelling up. One thing I was discussing with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport earlier today was the importance of making sure that more of the Arts Council funding that is currently spent in London and the south-east is spent in the midlands and in the north. Our acting and performing talent is spread equally across this country, but funding and institutions are not. We must do more, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said earlier that his revised plans to solve the cladding crisis would be published shortly. Will that be before the forthcoming recess? All long-suffering leaseholders in my area want for Christmas is finally to hear that they will not have to pay sums they do not have to fix a problem they are not responsible for.
Michael Gove
Yes, I really do have to come back before Christmas with proposals. I cannot promise at this stage that they will relieve the burden on every leaseholder of every obligation, but we will do everything we can to help.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mike Amesbury
It is. The right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) referred to a priority levelling-up bid for Winnington bridge in my constituency, and too right, as this is much needed. How do I get it on the record that this is a joint bid, Mr Speaker? I am looking for your advice.
Mr Speaker
The best is answer is: what you have just done. It is on the record, and I think it was more a point of clarification than of order.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the omicron variant and the steps we are taking to keep our country safe. We have always known that a worrying new variant could be a threat to the progress that we have made as a nation. We are entering the winter in a strong position, thanks to the decisions we made in the summer and the defences we have built. Our vaccination programme has been moving at a blistering pace, and this weekend we reached the milestone of 17 million boosters across the UK. This means that even though cases have been rising, hospital admissions have fallen by a further 11% in the past week and deaths have fallen by 17%.
Just as the vaccination programme has shifted the odds in our favour, a worrying new variant has always had the opportunity to shift them back. Last week, I was alerted to what is now known as the omicron variant, which has now been designated a variant of concern by the World Health Organisation. We are learning more about this new variant all the time, but the latest indication is that it spreads very rapidly; it may impact the effectiveness of one of our major treatments for covid-19, Ronapreve; and, as the chief medical officer said this weekend, there is a reasonable chance that our current vaccines may be impacted.
I can update the House that there have now been five confirmed cases in England and six confirmed cases in Scotland. We expect cases to rise over the coming days. The new variant has been spreading around the world: confirmed cases have been reported in many more countries, including Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal.
In the race between the vaccines and the virus, the new variant may have given the virus extra legs, so our strategy is to buy ourselves time and strengthen our defences while our world-leading scientists learn more about this potential threat. On Friday, I updated the House on the measures we have put in place, including how, within hours, we had placed six countries in southern Africa on the travel red list. Today, I wish to update the House on more of the balanced and proportionate steps we are taking.
First, we are taking measures at the border to slow the incursion of the variant from abroad. On Saturday, in line with updated advice from the UK Health Security Agency, we acted quickly to add another four countries—Angola, Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia—to the travel red list. That means that anyone who is not a UK or Irish national or resident and who has been in any of those countries over the previous 10 days will be refused entry. Those who are allowed entry must isolate in a Government-approved facility for 10 days.
Beyond the red list, we are going further to put in place a proportionate testing regime for arrivals from all around the world. We will require anyone who enters the UK to take a PCR test by the end of the second day after they arrive and to self-isolate until they have received a negative result. The relevant regulations have been laid before the House today and will come into effect at 4 am tomorrow.
Secondly, we have announced measures to slow the spread of the virus here in the UK. We are making changes to our rules on self-isolation for close contacts in England to reflect the greater threat that may be posed by the new variant. Close contacts of anyone who tests positive with a suspected case of omicron must self-isolate for 10 days, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not. Face coverings will be made compulsory in shops and on public transport in England unless an individual has a medical exemption.
The regulations on self-isolation and face coverings have been laid before the House today and will come into force at 4 am tomorrow. I can confirm to the House that there will be a debate and votes on the two measures, to give the House the opportunity to have its say and to perform valuable scrutiny. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will set out more details shortly. We will review all the measures I have set out today after three weeks to see whether they are still necessary.
Thirdly, we are strengthening the defences we have built against the virus. We are already in a stronger position than we were in when we faced the delta variant: we have a much greater capacity for testing, an enhanced ability for sequencing and the collective protection offered by 114 million jabs in arms. I wish to update the House on our vaccination programme. Our covid-19 vaccination programme has been a national success story. We have delivered more booster doses than anywhere else in Europe and given top-up jabs to more than one in three people over the age of 18 across the United Kingdom. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the NHS, the volunteers, the armed forces and everyone else who has been involved in this life-saving work.
Our vaccines remain our best line of defence against this virus in whatever form it attacks us. There is a lot that we do not know about how our vaccines will respond to this new variant, but, although it is possible that they may be less effective, it is highly unlikely that they will have no effectiveness at all against serious disease, so it is really important that we get as many jabs in arms as possible. Over the next few weeks, we were already planning to do 6 million booster jabs in England alone, but against the backdrop of this new variant we want to go further and faster.
I asked the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the Government’s independent expert advisers on vaccinations, to urgently review how we could expand the programme, and whether we should reduce the gap between second doses and boosters. The JCVI published its advice in the last hour: first, it advised that the minimum dose interval for booster jabs should be halved from six months to three months; secondly, that the booster programme should be expanded to include all remaining adults aged 18 and above; thirdly, that these boosters should be offered by age group in a descending order to protect those who are most vulnerable to the virus—priority will be given to older adults and people over 16 who are at risk; fourthly, that severely immunosuppressed people aged 16 or above who have received three primary doses should now also be offered a booster dose; and finally, that children aged between 12 and 15 should be given a second dose 12 weeks from the first dose. I have accepted this advice in full. With this new variant on the offensive, these measures will protect more people more quickly and make us better protected as a nation. It represents a huge step up for our vaccination programme, almost doubling the number of people who will be able to get a booster dose to protect themselves and their loved ones.
I know that we are asking more from NHS colleagues who have already given so much throughout this crisis, but I also know that they will be up to the task. The NHS will be calling people forward at the appropriate time, so that those who are most vulnerable will be prioritised. I will be setting out more details of how we are putting this advice into action in the coming days.
Our fight against this virus is a global effort, so I will update the House on the part that the UK is playing. We currently hold the presidency of the G7, and, earlier today, I convened an urgent meeting of G7 Health Ministers to co-ordinate the international response. We were unanimous in our praise for the leadership shown by South Africa, which was so open and transparent about this new variant. We were resolute in our commitment to working closely with each other, the World Health Organisation and, of course, the wider international community to tackle this common threat.
Our experience of fighting this virus has shown us that it is best to act decisively and swiftly when we see a potential threat, which is why we are building our defences and putting these measures in place without delay. Scientists are working at speed, at home and abroad, to determine whether this variant is more dangerous. I can assure the House that if it emerges that this variant is no more dangerous than the delta variant, we will not keep measures in place for a day longer than necessary. Covid-19 is not going away, which means that we will keep seeing new variants emerge. If we want to live with the virus for the long-term, we must follow the evidence and act in a proportionate and responsible way if a variant has the potential to thwart our progress. As we do that, we are taking a well-rounded view, looking at the impact of these measures not just on the virus, but on the economy, on education, and on non-covid health, such as mental health. I am confident that these balanced and responsible steps are proportionate to the threat that we face.
This year, our nation has come so far down the road of recovery, but we always knew that there would be bumps in the road. This is not a time to waver, but a time to be vigilant and to think about what each and every one of us can do to slow the spread of this new variant—things such as getting a jab when the time comes, following the rules that we have put in place, and getting rapid, regular tests. If we all come together once again, then we can keep this virus at bay and protect the progress that we have made. I commend this statement to the House.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I start by sending my best wishes to the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), who cannot be here as he is off with covid; we all hope that he gets better soon.
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This variant is a wake-up call: the pandemic is not over. We need to act with speed to bolster our defences and keep the virus at bay. It is also an important reminder that no one is safe until all of us are safe. Ministers have not met the commitments that were made at the G7 this summer to get the vaccine rolled out to other parts of the globe. What update can the Secretary of State give on the Government’s global commitments?
Given that omicron is already here, what we do at home truly matters. There are measures that we can put in place right now to keep infections down and ensure that the country has the best possible protection. Will the Secretary of State set out the rationale for not introducing pre-departure testing? Surely that would be an effective way of preventing people with covid from travelling into our country.
We support the decision to introduce measures on masks on public transport and in shops, but we believe that those requirements should never have been abandoned in the first place. Keeping in place requirements for masks would always have been our plan A. Will the Secretary of State extend measures on the use of masks to hospitality and other settings, or does covid not spread in pubs? Most importantly, what is the plan to enforce mask wearing? Shop workers have given so much during the last 20 months, alongside our emergency services. Asking shop workers to enforce mask wearing is yet another pressure that they do not need and do not deserve.
If masks had been mandatory, it would have been harder for this new variant to spread. A global study published in The BMJ argued that face mask wearing can bring transmission down by as much as 53%. This Government’s flip-flopping on masks has created confusion across schools, colleges and universities, so will the Secretary of State today confirm the new requirements across all education settings? The Prime Minister is not the best person to tell people to wear masks, when he cannot even be bothered to wear one himself when he goes into a hospital full of vulnerable patients—and may I ask the Secretary of State when Conservative Back Benchers will start wearing their masks?
Will the Secretary of State update the House on when he expects there to be a decision on vaccinations for younger children? The Government have fallen far short of their own target to offer all 12 to 15-year-olds the vaccine by October half-term, so can he say what action will be taken to speed up vaccine roll-out?
Our NHS has done us proud, and has done a fantastic job of delivering the vaccine, offering first, second, third and booster jabs, all at the same time as treating patients who are suffering from covid and trying to recover when it comes to elective procedures. I thank everyone who works in our NHS and care sector. We are putting even more demands on them at the moment. Our NHS has stepped up to the challenge; it is a shame that this Government simply have not.
Among those with mental illnesses, vaccine rates are low and mortality rates high. The Government need to stop weaponising mental health, and must instead recognise that good, clear, honest communication, which they have failed to have so far, is so important in a crisis. I know that I have mentioned this time and again, but the Government must acknowledge the trauma for people with severe covid and long covid, and for NHS staff, so where is their plan?
Labour has been clear throughout this pandemic that proper sick pay will help people to isolate. The Government have chosen to ignore us time and again, so I ask again: what support will be available to people who need to self-isolate? Is not this the time to finally fix sick pay? I would appreciate it if the Secretary of State updated the House on the new antivirals and how they will be used. Why are the Government not already giving antibody tests to the immunocompromised? The situation we find ourselves in was entirely predictable. Yet again, this Government have shown that they are incapable of protecting our communities, protecting our NHS and saving lives.
Sajid Javid
I, too, extend my best wishes to the shadow Health Secretary and wish him a speedy recovery.
I have to say that I think the hon. Lady has misjudged the tone of the House. This is a very serious matter. The whole country will be looking for all Members of this House to work together and support the nation. Surely she is not blaming the UK Government for the emergence of the new variant. Perhaps she was just auditioning for the reshuffle that is going on in her party right now.
The hon. Lady asked about international donations. The UK is leading the world on international donations—quite rightly. It is absolutely right that that be treated as a priority. We would like to see other countries step up as well. A few months back, the Prime Minister pledged 100 million donations by June 2022, 80% of which will go through COVAX, of which we are a huge supporter; 20% will be made bilaterally. So far, we have donated over 20 million doses—more than many other countries. COVAX, which we helped found, and which we support, has donated, I believe, some 537 million doses to 144 countries.
The hon. Lady asked about the rules on travel and masks, and other rules that I set out. I think I have addressed that. I believe that the measures are proportionate, and that this is a balanced response. We have just set out a huge expansion of the vaccine roll-out programme, and it is a shame that the hon. Lady could not find it in herself to welcome that. As I said, I will set out more details in coming days on exactly how we intend to meet the requirement to vaccinate more.
On antivirals, we are one of few countries in the world to have procured the two leading antivirals. Our independent regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, was the first in the world to approve one of those antivirals. I am pleased with the over 700,000 courses that we have for citizens across the United Kingdom, but of course, given the emergence of the new variant, we will be reviewing that and seeing if more needs to be done.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
The late Donald Rumsfeld coined the phrase, “known unknowns”, and that is what we face with the new omicron virus. The Secretary of State is therefore absolutely right to take sensible and proportionate measures to buy time while we wait to understand how dangerous this new variant can be, but does he not agree that the fact that we face this danger is a symptom of the failure of western countries to make sure that vaccines are distributed adequately around the world? I recognise the enormous contribution that the UK has made through COVAX, the development of the AstraZeneca vaccine and so on, but is it not a moral and practical failure that while richer countries have managed to vaccinate 60% of their populations, for poorer countries the figure is just 3%?
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. I agree with his words. It is important that all rich countries do everything they can to support the donation of vaccines to developing countries. I set out earlier what the UK has done, and we can be proud of that, but we need other countries to step up. In the G7 meeting I chaired earlier today with Health Ministers, we all agreed on the importance of this, and about redoubling efforts to make sure that all commitments are met.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and I add my own thanks for the work that the NHS does and continues to do in all parts of these islands to keep us all healthy and safe. The emergence of omicron, including the six cases in Scotland, along with the evidence of community transmission, shows that this is absolutely no time to be complacent. For all the measures being taken at the border, with day two PCR testing, we risk missing a number of cases as they cross the border because of the incubation period. Surely a more effective approach would be to introduce day eight PCR testing, accompanied by eight days of isolation—and surely it would be better to do that now, than to be bounced into doing that by events further down the line.
Secondly, the Secretary of State issues a call for us all to work together, and I am sure we all wish to be able to do that, but does he share my disappointment that when the First Ministers of Scotland and Wales today called for a Cobra meeting to be convened, that possibility appeared to have been dismissed out of hand already? Will the Secretary of State prevail on the Prime Minister to convene and attend an urgent Cobra meeting involving all four nations, so that people might be persuaded that he is on top of this development, as we would all expect him to be?
Finally, does the Secretary of State agree with the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the Chair of the Select Committee and me that the emergence of this variant shows that none of us is safe until all of us are safe? However much is being done, and however much the UK has done to date, more still needs to be done to achieve as close to 100% global vaccination as possible, including through the vaccination programmes we are in, and by increasing global vaccine production and overcoming the barriers that patent law might place in the way of our achieving that.
Sajid Javid
First, on the hon. Gentleman’s question on day two testing, we believe that the day two testing requirement for international travel is the proportionate response. He will know that it applies to all arrivals to the UK, and that the individual would have to self-isolate until they got a negative test result, and I think that is the right response.
In terms of meetings and the UK nations working together, that has been one of the successes of the UK’s response to the pandemic. The way that nations across the UK have worked together, especially on vaccines, testing, surveillance and antivirals, shows that we are stronger together.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Sir Andrew Pollard, who developed the Oxford vaccine, predicted in June to my Select Committee that new variants would escape the vaccines by being more infectious, but said that protection against severe illness should continue. Will my right hon. Friend avoid taking any panic measures if we see a rise in infections in the weeks ahead, as seems inevitable, and concentrate instead on the vaccine’s effectiveness against severe illness and hospitalisation?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said in my statement, even in the case of the dominant delta variant, we have seen some rises in infections, but also falls in hospitalisation and death rates, thankfully. The reason for that is the power of the vaccines, and especially our booster programme, which is the largest in Europe. He is absolutely right: with the new variant, as we look ahead, what matters more than anything is hospitalisations.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The second line in the Secretary of State’s statement was:
“We have always known that a worrying new variant could be a threat to the progress that we have made as a nation.”
With that in mind, does he think it was wrong for the Government to abandon mask wearing in public places and confined spaces? Will he listen to the recommendations of Doreen Lawrence’s report and start to issue full-face protection masks to care workers and health workers?
Sajid Javid
Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that if we had had different rules on masks over the summer, this variant would not have emerged.
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am sure that my right hon. Friend will want to pay tribute to the South African Government for raising the existence of the omicron variant, which resulted in their having a travel ban imposed. I have constituents—and, in fact, a family member—stuck in South Africa. For how long does he expect cancellations and suspensions of flights to occur? It is a worrying time for anyone stuck overseas.
Sajid Javid
First, I join my right hon. Friend in again expressing thanks to the South African Government for how they have handled this difficult situation. I understand her point about her constituents. Many of us will have constituents in a similar position. It is hard to say when direct flights might start. We have started our hotel booking programme, which is one part of trying to get our citizens back, but we will do everything we can to support them in that way.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
We have quite rightly praised the South African doctor, but she saw her patient face to face. What advice, guidance or instruction will the Secretary of State give to GPs? I know that my constituents are keen to see their GPs face to face, which may be more effective than Test and Trace.
Sajid Javid
The right hon. Lady asks an important question. One thing that we are doing is updating guidance throughout the NHS, including for primary care.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Secretary of State said in his statement about the legislation that he has laid before the House—incidentally, it is not yet available on legislation.gov.uk for Members to study—that close contacts of anyone who tests positive with a suspected case of omicron must self-isolate for 10 days regardless of whether they have been vaccinated. First, will he confirm that that is in the regulations? Secondly, for the benefit of the House, will he set out what he did yesterday in television studios: the mechanism by which the omicron variant will be identified and communicated to people contacted by Test and Trace, so that we all know how it will work? It is more complicated than the system that we have had to date.
Sajid Javid
I can confirm that the new regulation on close contact will be anyone who is a close contact of someone with a confirmed positive case of suspected omicron. The UKHSA is working at speed on the best ways to determine a suspected case. One way is the so-called S-gene drop-out test, but there are other quick ways to ascertain that. The tracing work will be carried out by Test and Trace.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is often said that how a society treats its most vulnerable is a measure of its humanity, yet a quarter of the clinically extremely vulnerable have yet to receive their third primary dose because of confusion that persists about the third primary dose and the booster. One in five of the clinically extremely vulnerable are still shielding without any Government guidance or support. For them, the uncertainty of the new variant is terrifying. Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers please meet me and patient groups to discuss our five-point plan on how we can protect the clinically extremely vulnerable this winter?
Sajid Javid
The vaccines Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), is meeting patient groups this week and she is also happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con)
May I join others in welcoming the well-judged and rapid action this weekend as well as the acceleration of boosters, including the new provision of a mass vaccination this weekend in Newmarket? Existing vaccinations—including boosters—are effective against all known major variants before omicron, but will the Secretary of State set out plans for a variant vaccine, should that be needed in the worst-case scenario?
Sajid Javid
I thank my right hon. Friend for his support. The UK has been supporting a new vaccines programme largely thanks to his efforts when he was in my position. That work continues. If it is necessary to procure new vaccines that we believe are safe and effective and will help with the new variant, we will do so.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Gordon Brown said yesterday that the chief medical officer urgently needs to teach the Prime Minister “some basic medical facts”, and I would say that that could probably be extended to some of those on the Government Back Benches as well, meaning that we are not going to stop the threat of variants—
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Why don’t you learn food mechanics then?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Shelbrooke, I thought you might have been going on the NATO delegation, and I do not want to hear that you have missed out on it.
Sarah Owen
We are not going to stop the threat of variants derailing our progress until we vaccinate the world. Our country has enough vaccine to give at least three doses to everybody, yet of the 100 million doses that were pledged by the Prime Minister to the world’s poorest, less than 10% have actually been delivered. Can the Secretary of State tell us if the PM will meet his ambition to help vaccinate the world by the end of 2021, or is that yet another broken promise with catastrophic consequences?
Sajid Javid
I said earlier that, out of the 100 million commitment that the UK has made to international donations, over 20 million have already gone and been delivered, and another 10 million are about to go.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The return of PCR testing will be met with some apprehension by the international travel sector, which has just been getting back on its feet, but it will at least be cheered by the Secretary of State’s statement that we will not keep measures in place for a day longer than is necessary. Can I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that the providers of PCR tests are those that will actually give accurate, good-value testing back to the public, and that we will not see some of the issues that arose over the summer repeat themselves?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I know he rightly takes a close interest in this; we do want to minimise any impact on our excellent transport and travel sector. He is right to raise the importance of making sure that PCR tests are available, the pricing is correct and the Government website where providers are listed is properly monitored so that anyone who breaks the rules is delisted.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Although the measures taken so far are welcome, now that we have community transmission of omicron in Brentwood and in Scotland, we need more protective interventions. Mask wearing can obviously play an important part, so can the Secretary of State say whether he agrees with the call from the British Medical Association to extend it to all indoor and enclosed settings? Will he also consider measures to increase ventilation in enclosed settings, encourage working from home and give proper sick pay to those who need to isolate?
Sajid Javid
I think we have been clear about why we have set out the new rules on masks, and I think our response is the proportionate one. The hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of ventilation. That is why it is very clear in the guidelines, and many places are following that. When it comes to sick pay, it is right that we have kept the rules in place that allow people, should they test positive or have to self-isolate, to claim sick pay from day one.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
If the situation deteriorates—we all hope it will not, but if it does—please can the Government do everything possible not to shut down the hospitality and events sector again? The livelihoods of millions of people depend on it, and they are just getting back on their feet. Please, let us not knock them down again.
Sajid Javid
I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The emergence of omicron is not really much of a surprise; it is more a case of when, not if. Anecdotal evidence from South Africa suggests that, while it may be more infectious, the potency seems to be more limited. Of particular concern are the mutations to the spike protein in two specific areas, so what action are the Government taking to put in additional resources to adjuvant therapy development, especially given the impact on monoclonal antibody therapies and the vaccine, and what is the status of genomic surveillance in the UK at present?
Sajid Javid
First, I think it is fair to say that our genomics surveillance has never been so strong. It was getting stronger even before the pandemic, but because of the pandemic, there has been a huge amount of investment, and it has paid off UK-wide. On the treatments, there is some concern about this new variant and Ronapreve, which is one of the key monoclonal antibodies that we use for treatment, but it is just concern at this point; there is no particular evidence. However, part of the reason for taking these measures is to buy the time we need—two to three weeks—to give our scientists time to assess the risk of this variant properly.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
First, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the early reports from South Africa that the variant may actually lead to less severe illness than the previous variants? Secondly, I welcome the fact that we will have both a debate and vote tomorrow on these regulations, but would it not be better if we had the debate and the vote before the restrictions come into force, rather than after?
Sajid Javid
I believe that right after my statement the Leader of the House will be making a statement about the debate and vote tomorrow.
On the severity, there are reports, as my hon. Friend has said, but it is early days and we are looking into them, talking with our South African friends and getting more details. It is worth pointing out the difference in age profile and demographics: in South Africa, people with covid are on average younger, and we are taking that into account as well.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Secretary of State set out the booster programme for the vaccines in his statement but has not mentioned what steps he will be taking to support those areas where take-up of the vaccine is still very low: what additional resources will be provided to those areas?
Sajid Javid
That is an important point and the hon. Lady is right to raise it. We estimate that 5 million people across the UK have not even taken up the offer of their first dose of the vaccine, putting themselves and their loved ones at great risk. A lot of work has been done over the past few months and it is bearing results: we are seeing ever more people coming forward, especially in the past few weeks. Indeed, many came forward this weekend, perhaps out of concern about the new variant. A lot of work is being done with community leaders, and there is an existing communications campaign but a new one will start imminently.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Over the last few months there has been a useful control experiment on face coverings, given the different policies pursued in Scotland and England. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the result? It is mumbo-jumbo, isn’t it?
Sajid Javid
If my right hon. Friend is suggesting that there are mixed views on the efficacy of face coverings in helping to fight the pandemic he would be right, but I would point him to UK work by Public Health England—published, if I remember correctly, last month—referring to a number of reports setting out how in certain settings face coverings could help.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What urgent action is being taken to vaccinate people who are bed-bound?
Sajid Javid
For those who are bed-bound, home-bound or vulnerable for other reasons and who cannot make it to vaccination centres, vaccinations are primarily carried out by GPs. I do not have the numbers of how many have been done, but recently to encourage more people to be vaccinated more quickly we changed the GP payment system, which seems to have helped as well.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Opposition often call for more restrictions, but it was the relaxation of restrictions this summer, which the Government took under scientific advice, that has put Britain in a good position prior to the emergence of this variant. While I welcome the statement and the proportionate precautionary measures the Secretary of State has taken today, will he assure me and the House that this is a temporary measure, and that when we get more information and have bought more time, we will get new measures to react to that information?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I am very happy to give that assurance to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right that this is all about buying a bit of time that our scientists need to assess this variant properly and to determine what it really is and whether we should really be worried about it or not. He is also right to point out that we took measures in the summer removing almost all domestic rules and controls and that they turned out to be absolutely the right measures. Many of my counterparts in Europe now believe they should have taken a similar route, but I remember that all those measures were opposed by the Labour party.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Immuno-compromised people continue to be worried: many still do not know whether the vaccination works on them. The OCTAVE—Observational Cohort Trial-T-cells Antibodies and Vaccine Efficacy in SARS-CoV-2—study showed that around 150,000 people potentially have reduced or no antibody response, but OCTAVE-DUO is not due to report until early next year. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the immunocompromised population has access to antibody tests, thus allowing them to know their level of protection? Will he ensure that those with little or no protection have the support they need to stay safe?
Sajid Javid
Yes, of course. We want to make sure that we are helping people who are immunosuppressed in every way possible, including with access to any tests that might be clinically required. The hon. Lady may have noted that in the JCVI advice that I referred to, there is a recommendation, which we have accepted, that those who are immunosuppressed and are able to benefit from the vaccine to some extent should be offered a booster dose on top of the third primary dose. The antivirals are also very important for that group of vulnerable people, and it is good that the UK has procured them.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State, on behalf of the Government, reassure me that the Foreign Office and its consular service will be doing all they can? I am already receiving calls from Islanders stuck in southern Africa who are worried about their ability to get back.
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have been working closely with colleagues in the Foreign Office, and that will remain vital work so that we can help people—UK citizens or Irish citizens—who might be stuck abroad to come back.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Given the change to the rules for booster vaccinations announced by the JCVI this afternoon, how long does the Secretary of State think it will be before all the people between 18 and 40 who have had their first and second jabs can come forward and receive the booster jab, so that as much of the population as possible is protected?
Sajid Javid
First, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we have already done 17 million, which is almost one third of the adult population. That is more than any other country in Europe. However, he is right to ask how quickly we can do those who will become newly eligible. I will have to come back to the House and set out details about how we intend to meet this advice. The advice was received very quickly from the JCVI over the weekend; it did stellar work to turn it around so quickly. I have already asked the NHS about operationalising it. We are not quite there yet, but we will be very shortly, and I will set that out.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
None of us underplayed the threat of any new variant. As my right hon. Friend has said today, covid is not going to go away. It is not; it is here for the rest of our lives. The country is learning to live with the disease, which is the only way forward. Will he please reassure me, the House and the country that he will never, ever go back to locking this country down?
Sajid Javid
No one wants to see those kinds of measures. I agree with my hon. Friend that covid is with us to stay and we need to learn to live with it. I think the best way we can do that is with the primary form of defence that we have, which is our vaccination programme. I hope he agrees that we are absolutely right to basically put the booster programme on steroids, because that will really help us.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
One of the most covid-vulnerable settings in the country is school classrooms. Children have a much lower vaccination rate than adults, and children come from all over communities to one place and then return to families in the afternoon. Masks are being returned to corridors, but they are not being returned to classrooms. I take no pleasure in advising the Secretary of State to make children wear masks in classrooms. However, it is absolutely clear what the stakes will be if we get this wrong. Students have already been absent from schools in their hundreds of thousands this term, and we are approaching the exam season. If we just act cautiously in the next few days, exams will be able to be sat as normal; if we get this wrong, exams will be wrecked for the third year running. That will play havoc with students’ futures, and it will play havoc with teachers and their ability to get the job done on behalf of our country.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Department for Education today set out fresh guidance on masks in communal areas—
Sajid Javid
Not in classrooms. I think what the Government have set out is the right approach. In terms of protecting children from the pandemic, the vaccination programme for children—especially secondary school children—is important. I think over 40% of 12 to 15-year-olds have been vaccinated. That has certainly increased since we opened up the national booking system to that cohort. I think the figure for 16 and 17-year-olds is almost 60% now, but we continue to work on it.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has outlined the Government response to the emergence of the omicron variant and the restrictions he wishes to place on the public. This House will quite rightly have a vote on those measures. He has also stated that the measures will be reviewed in three weeks’ time. He knows that in three weeks’ time this House will be in recess. How will there be parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s review measures, or will we be having Government by diktat?
Sajid Javid
The review should take place as soon as possible. That is how the Government determined the three weeks. Unless Parliament was called back from recess or the Government took longer than three weeks, I think the approach the Government have set out is the right one.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The Secretary of State says that rich countries must do everything they can to ensure more vaccines reach the global south. Judging by his actions, he means doing everything except the main thing those countries are actually asking for: waiving intellectual property rules at the World Trade Organisation so they can manufacture vaccines themselves. This is about justice, not charity. Will he admit that his Government’s failure to work with the vast majority of countries in the world, including the United States which does support a TRIPS—trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights agreement—waiver, is endangering us all? When will he start putting the need to end the pandemic in front of the financial interests of big pharma?
Sajid Javid
I heard what the hon. Lady had to say, but the UK does not believe that waiving patent rights and intellectual property rights on these vaccines would be helpful. It would certainly mean that in the future there would be a huge disincentive for pharmaceutical companies to come forward and help the world with their technology.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I say to the Secretary of State that injecting people, not just in this country but around the world, is a huge logistical undertaking. I believe that in India nasal vaccines are used for the administration of the flu vaccine. Please can the Government bring forward nasal vaccines? We did it in nine months for an injectable vaccine—March 2020 to December 2020. It is now nearly December 2021 and there is still no nasal vaccine, despite high levels of efficacy being proven in trials.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of vaccine delivery mechanisms. If there was an approved nasal vaccine delivery mechanism, it would be helpful. He will understand that we have to allow the regulators the time to assess new delivery mechanisms, but we do take this very seriously.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree that no one is safe until we are all safe, and the UK and other G7 countries need to take some responsibility for the emergence of this variant. I just wanted to touch on the fact that we already have community spread of this variant. If we are to contain it, we must ensure that contact tracing is relevant and as widespread as possible. Can the Secretary of State confirm—I have asked him about this in the last few weeks—that the contain outbreak management fund will be extended beyond March; that those places that do not have it will have it; and that those that have already spent it will be properly resourced?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady makes an important point about contact tracing. On the contain outbreak management fund, especially given the emergence of this variant, we are actively reviewing it.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I welcome the widening of the booster programme that the Secretary of State announced, but my constituents still have no walk-in access in Winchester. I would therefore really appreciate his help with that, on behalf of the increasing number of constituents who are contacting me.
The measures we will be asked to approve tomorrow night will likely appear rather small in and of themselves, but the Secretary of State knows that the wider impact of the past few days is absolutely huge. Nativity plays have been cancelled or moved online—these are moments that we just do not get back—and community events are being cancelled just in case. The Prime Minister said this lunchtime that if you are boosted, we know your response to this variant is strong. What evidence base is that drawn from, and when might we reasonably expect data from the scientists on how, if at all, the variant hits vaccine efficacy?
Sajid Javid
First, I noted what my hon. Friend said about walk-in access in Hampshire, so I will take that away and get back to him. Secondly, he is right to talk about the impact of these measures. Although I believe that they are right, proportionate and balanced, we must never forget the impact that they have on individuals and their daily lives. That is why they must be removed the moment it is safe to remove them. In terms of when we will have more data, we have set a three-week review point because that is the time when we believe that we will have more information—not just the information that we will have come up with, but information through our international counterparts.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State and his team for all they do to combat covid-19 in the UK. This has an effect on Northern Ireland; the Northern Ireland Health Minister said yesterday that Northern Ireland will follow the guidance that comes from Westminster. With that in mind, having heard a leading Northern Ireland scientist say this week that he believes that the current vaccination and booster roll-out will have an effect on the new variant, will the Secretary of State assure us that any and all curtailments, such as those faced by the travel industry, will be proportionate and scientific, taking into account transmission and the seriousness of the new covid variant?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
As someone who, very thankfully, received his booster jab last Thursday at the outstanding St Thomas’ Hospital, may I ask the Secretary of State why certain groups and communities seem to fear vaccination? Which are those groups and communities, and what can be done to persuade them that they are wrong?
Sajid Javid
There are many communities where vaccine take-up is lower than others. That has particularly been the case in the black African community in Britain and in some other black and minority ethnic communities—that has improved significantly over the past two to three months. The same is also the case in many other European countries and the US. A huge amount of work is being done through community leaders and communication campaigns, and by offering access to the vaccine in as many different ways as possible to encourage take-up.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State talk a bit more about the transmissibility of the omicron variant and the efficacy of vaccines on it, given that Australia has some of the toughest entry requirements of any country in the world, yet the variant has basically got through a concrete wall?
Sajid Javid
That is an important point. It is fair to say that we do not know enough yet—I do not think Australia or any other country does, for that matter—but we know enough to justify the action that has been taken. From that, there is emerging evidence that this variant is more transmissible, but I do not think we can describe that as conclusive at this point. On vaccine efficacy, I point to what I said earlier about taking the time to determine that.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I welcome the speedy and decisive action taken by the Government over the weekend in response to the new variant. I also welcome the delivery of 17.5 million boosters. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking not only my pharmacy-led vaccination centres, where I had my first and second doses of AZ, but my GP-led clinics, where I had my Pfizer booster? Is he confident that the infrastructure and the robust supply of vaccines are in place as we try to deliver 6 million more booster vaccines over the next three weeks?
Sajid Javid
We are very confident about the supply that we have, including accommodating the new advice that I have accepted from the JCVI. I join my hon. Friend in thanking the many thousands of GPs across the country who have been crucial to our vaccine programme.
May I take a moment to address the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) asked about the timing of laying the regulations? I want to clarify that the regulations setting out the new measures have been made by the Minister for public health and vaccines—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup)—and are in the process of being registered with the National Archives. They will then be laid before Parliament and should be available to review online at around 5 pm.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
It does not feel as if the pandemic will be over any time soon; we have only got to omicron so far, not omega. May I urge the Secretary of State to look at two things? The first is the deliberate campaign of disinformation that is going on around the country. Some of these people are dangerous—their views are certainly dangerous. I hope that the Secretary of State will work with the Home Secretary to make sure that we check on all these campaigns about “new Nuremberg laws” and that nobody does damage to people working in the health service.
Secondly, will the Secretary of State tackle the problem of profiteering? Frankly, some companies are now charging completely disproportionate prices for PCR tests. There should surely be a fixed price across the whole UK.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point about how the danger of disinformation is costing lives, not just here in the UK, but across the world. Rightly, we have talked a lot about South Africa today. He will know that there is very low take-up of vaccines in South Africa even when they are available; that is partly due to disinformation campaigns. I assure him that we are working across Government with the Home Office, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and other Departments to counter such disinformation as best we can.
On PCR tests, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the remarks that I made a moment ago.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking swift and efficient action in relation to the additional protections that are necessary, but when he reviews, as more data becomes available, the wearing of face masks and the additional restrictions that he has introduced, will he consider real-life scenarios? He has heard the calls from Opposition Members for mask wearing and working from home. Is he aware that in Wales those measures have been in place since the summer, yet infection rates are still much higher?
Sajid Javid
My right hon. Friend is right to raise the difference between Wales and England in the approach taken. I feel—like him, I think—that we have taken the right approach to face masks. I welcome his support today.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly highlights the role of South Africa’s excellent testing and analysis system in identifying omicron. It would be perverse if South Africa were treated less favourably as a result of the resources that it has put into such analyses. Will he look at neighbouring red list countries that have much lower testing and analysis levels, to see whether travel restrictions for some of those countries might be appropriate to keep people in this country safe?
Sajid Javid
We will keep that issue under review. My hon. Friend is right to speak, as hon. Members across the House have done, about the importance of South Africa’s handling the matter in such a professional and exemplary way. It might reassure him to know that in the G7 meeting that I chaired earlier, we agreed unanimously about that issue and about the importance of continuing to work with and support South Africa.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
We know that if the Government just sit back and wait for the development of new vaccines for new variants, we will be left at the back of the queue, because the industry will always go to the highest bidder, such as the EU or the US. Back in April, Clive Dix, the outgoing head of the vaccine taskforce, sent the Government a specific proposal about setting up a new taskforce to fast-track the development of new vaccines for new variants. Yesterday, Mr Dix revealed that the Government completely failed to respond to his proposal. Can the Secretary of State explain why the Government have chosen to ignore Mr Dix’s expert advice?
Sajid Javid
I do not think it would be correct to say that the Government have ignored the advice that the hon. Gentleman refers to. I also think it would be incorrect to say that when it comes to vaccines, the Government are somehow going to sit back and wait. I mentioned earlier the huge expansion of the vaccine programme, on the back of advice from the JCVI, and the fact that the UK already has the supply to meet it. The reason we have that is that we have a fantastic vaccine taskforce—better than in any other country in the world.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Most countries in Africa missed the World Health Organisation target for a mere 10% of their populations to be vaccinated by the end of last month as they struggled to secure supplies of vaccine. As the Secretary of State has heard today, no one is safe until everyone is safe. What more will his Government do, with international partners, to ramp up the sharing of vaccines with developing countries to lessen the risk of further variant emergence, and what support can be given to those countries to tackle the mistrust of the vaccine among some sections of their populations?
Sajid Javid
In the call that I had today with G7 members, we all agreed about the importance of working with developing countries, looking into not just how to provide the vaccine but also—I hope the hon. Lady agrees that this is important—what more can be done, once the country has the vaccine, to deliver it locally, through local logistics or through other delivery mechanisms. We will be working hard to see what more we can do together.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he is doing, but I understand that children are at very little risk from the new variant, so can he confirm that schools will not be closed any earlier than the run-up to the Christmas holidays? May I also ask him about the mask policy? Given that masks are not required in offices, can he explain the scientific evidence on which the decision to ask students to wear them in corridors was based?
Sajid Javid
The risk to children from covid in general is, thankfully, much less than the risk to adults, but we do not know enough about the new variant to talk specifically about its potential impact on children. There are no plans of which I am aware that would require us to close schools early, and I think that that would be very detrimental to children’s education. As for the rules on masks, my right hon. Friend will know that the rules set out today by the Department for Education are guidance for schools in relation to communal areas, and the DOE will be able to give him more evidence and information.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
If we are to win the fight against the omicron variant, it is essential that people comply with public health guidance, but with the UK’s statutory sick pay ranking among the lowest in Europe, far too many people in this country simply cannot afford to self-isolate. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to working with colleagues in the Cabinet to raise the rate of sick pay to at least the equivalent of a week’s living wage, so that no one is forced to choose between doing the right thing and heating their home this Christmas?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have kept rules in place that will allow people to claim sick pay from day one. As for the question of whether further support is needed, we keep that under review and provide further support if it is necessary.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that he has been doing and the speed with which he has been doing it. Can he confirm to my constituents that as soon as more is known about the new variant and if it is deemed to be less of a threat than first thought—as is starting to emerge from the evidence in South Africa and the people who first identified it—he will act swiftly to remove restrictions, particularly the one on self-isolation, regardless of vaccine status, especially in the run-up to Christmas?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give us his opinion on whether every Member in the Chamber should be wearing a mask?
Sajid Javid
All Members know what the guidance is, and it is a decision for them.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Like many other Members, I welcome today’s statement, and I agree that further measures and restrictions would only be a necessary evil. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the many millions of people and businesses throughout the UK who are clawing back jobs, livelihoods and freedoms after a difficult two years, and does he agree that these further restrictions should only be an absolute last resort?
Sajid Javid
I do agree with my hon. Friend. We all know from our experience of the pandemic thus far that while many of the restrictions may well be necessary to fight covid, they have other impacts, especially on the economy, on people’s life chances and on children’s education and social lives. I am very much aware of the impact that they have had on non-covid outcomes, so I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s plans to extend the vaccination programme. However, with our NHS under severe pressure after two very difficult years, what extra resources is he willing to put forward to support our frontline NHS, particularly our GPs and our A&E and ambulance services?
Sajid Javid
This year alone, we have provided an additional £34 billion of support to the NHS and the social care system. All the extra funding is in place in each of the areas that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned—whether it is the winter access fund for GPs or the support for the ambulance trusts, which I think have had more than £55 million for the winter pressures—and it is making a real difference.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Having received my booster vaccination yesterday, I would like to thank the Leicestershire and Rutland vaccination service, and particularly Rachel and Abbie, for their excellent work. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is vital that constituents take up their vaccinations, including their booster, to help us all through the winter period?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I do. The vaccines remain our primary line of defence and I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting her booster shot yesterday. I wholeheartedly agree that everyone who is eligible should come forward, to protect themselves and their loved ones.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Without in-country manufacturing of the vaccine in the global south, we will never get the protection that we need against this pandemic, and no matter how many donations the Government make, supplies will never meet the demand. Will the Secretary of State therefore look again at the issue of in-country manufacturing, whether that involves release of the patent or other mechanisms, so that we can see a proper scaling up of the delivery of the vaccine in the global south?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady is right to talk about the importance of in-country manufacturing in the developing world. She will know that India, for example, is one of the largest manufacturers of vaccines, including the covid-19 vaccine, but she rightly points out that this capacity needs to grow and become available in other countries, and it is right to look to see how we can support that.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I welcome the acceleration of the booster programme, but may I ask the Secretary of State to do all he can accelerate the approval by the JCVI of the vaccine for the under-12s, particularly those who are clinically extremely vulnerable? I have a constituent who is seven and who is desperate to go to school without fear, and all his parents want is to be able to give him the jab.
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend is right to raise that, and I hope she will agree that the JCVI has acted very quickly since the emergence of this new variant. If there are other things that can be taken forward to help to vaccinate the population, we will certainly be looking at that with great interest.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I think that the Secretary of State briefly mentioned hotel bookings in answer to an earlier question. He will be aware that over the weekend there have been reports of a shortage of quarantine hotel spaces. How will he ensure that this does not undermine his reasonable attempts at a rapid response to the new variant, and where can someone currently find reliable information about the capacity and availability of such accommodation?
Sajid Javid
The Department already had contingency plans in place for countries being rapidly added to the red list. I believe that more than 600 rooms were made available on Sunday morning, and that will rapidly increase during the next few days. I think it has already increased since then. I believe that most of the information is available on the Government website.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Clearly the problem here is uncertainty. I welcome the analysis, along with the three-week review and the ambition to do it sooner, but following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), does he agree that if the review takes place after the House has risen, we should be recalled to debate its findings?
Sajid Javid
That is a decision we will have to make closer to the time.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Shop workers and transport workers will bear the brunt of asking people to comply with these new restrictions. What measures do the Government propose to ensure those workers get the protection they deserve?
Sajid Javid
These new rules on face coverings will be enforceable by law, and the police and other law enforcement authorities will be able to issue penalty notices—I think the penalty starts at £200. That should be a last resort but, if necessary, it should be enforced.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
My North Devon constituents are keen to get boosted, with a big queue last night at the Barnstaple leisure centre vaccination drop-in. Although I am delighted that the booster programme is being extended, will my right hon. Friend please reassure me that more help will be given to rural constituencies like mine where residents are struggling to get local appointments, despite the hard work of the clinical commissioning group and vaccination team?
Sajid Javid
I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend’s constituents are so keen, and I assure her of that support, especially as we expand the booster programme on the back of the latest JCVI advice.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will know very well that the omicron variant has alarmed people who are immunocompromised, particularly those who are uncertain about whether their third jab was a booster or a specific jab for immunocompromised people. There are also people in anomalous positions with respect to the vaccination programme. As Members of Parliament, how can we get fast-track information from the Department about what is right for individual anomalous constituents?
Sajid Javid
Most people in that situation will be contacted either by letter or directly by their GP, but I understand the importance of the question. The hon. Gentleman may have heard earlier that one piece of advice from the JCVI that I have accepted is that the severely immunocompromised who have received three doses as part of their primary course will now be offered a booster dose—a fourth dose—so long as there has been a three-month gap since their third dose. In many cases, if an individual is unsure, the best place for advice is their GP. If the hon. Gentleman would find it helpful to meet the vaccine Minister to get more information, I can set that up.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. He mentioned reviewing the evidence as quickly as possible. Will that include evidence from countries that had the variant before it got here?
Many health academics have said that the virulence of flu is growing with social distancing, the wearing of masks and so on, and that our immunity is not what it was because we are not mixing. With attention rightly being given to covid, are we looking at other viruses such as flu? What plans will be put in place if a very virulent strain takes hold?
Sajid Javid
Work is being done on this variant not just in the UK but by our friends across the world. At the G7 meeting I attended earlier today, we all agreed to co-operate and share whatever information we get. My right hon. Friend is right to mention the importance of the flu vaccine, and I am glad he has reminded the House that, although we have understandably been talking about the importance of the covid vaccine, and of the booster vaccine in particular, the flu vaccine remains vitally important this winter. That is one reason why we have the largest flu vaccination programme this country has ever seen.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear there are no plans to close schools, but what assessment have the Government made of the potential for new self-isolation requirements that could keep children out of school? What steps will be taken to mitigate time out of education, because our children and young people cannot afford to spend any more time away from their educational settings?
Sajid Javid
We will keep the new self-isolation requirements under review. At this point in time, I think very few children will be affected because, as the hon. Lady knows, the new requirements apply only to close contacts of those who have tested positive with a suspected case of the new variant. We will keep it under review, and the education of children will always be a huge priority.
Business of the House
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Mr Speaker, I should like to make a short business statement following the statement that has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Tomorrow’s business will now be: a debate to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Wearing of Face Coverings) (England) Regulations 2021 and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021, followed by an Opposition day (9th allotted day—part 1). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party.
The business for the rest of this week remains unchanged to that previously announced, and I shall make a further business statement in the usual way on Thursday.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of his statement on the change of business. Of course, we are pleased that this is happening so quickly; the questions on the statement we have just heard showed that issues need to be debated, and scheduling this debate so promptly means that there will be an opportunity for those questions to be put and discussed.
There are also questions about the rules on education. If I heard the Secretary of State right, a statement will be made by the Secretary of State for Education. Constituents are asking questions of Members across the House on this and it came up in the briefing on Saturday that the Secretary of State kindly gave, so if no such statement is going to be made, will there be a further briefing on education? Will that be separate from this? May I also just ask a technical thing: how long is the Leader of the House intending to allow for the debate tomorrow? I ask that so that Members can be aware of the timing that is likely to happen.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for the shadow Leader of the House’s kind words. We gave a commitment to debate matters of national importance as soon as possible, and therefore we are delivering on that. Tomorrow’s debate will last for three hours, and there will be three hours of protected time for the debate in the name of the SNP. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary did refer to the importance of education and protecting children, but I will pass on her request for more details to my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
First, I thank the Leader of the House for organising a debate for tomorrow and for it being three hours long, rather than the 90 minutes required by statute—that is welcome. May I press him a little on what the Secretary of State said in his statement? This relates to a point made by my hon. Friends the Members for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). The Secretary of State said that the Government will be reviewing
“all the measures I have set out today after three weeks”.
That takes us to Monday 20 December, which is in the recess. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to allow these measures to lapse. However, may I have a commitment from the Leader of the House that if the Secretary of State feels he needs to renew them or, worse, to bring in stronger measures, the House will be recalled to debate and vote on such measures ahead of their coming into force? The Leader of the House will know that in the past couple of weeks, particularly due to the way the Government handled the standards measures, that there has been a diminution in the trust between Back Benchers and Ministers. Giving a clear commitment to treat Parliament seriously would help to heal that rift.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is being a little unfair on the Government. He will recall, as he was part of these discussions, as was I and as was the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, that we assured the House that it would get to debate and vote upon important national measures. Bringing forward the debate tomorrow is a statement of how importantly I personally, and others in government, take that commitment that it is only right that this House should approve matters of that kind. There was of course a caveat in that agreement, which is that we needed sometimes to act during recesses. Mostly that has not in fact happened; we have been able to do this when the House has been sitting. However, I cannot give guarantees as to what will happen in three weeks, nor can I give them as to what the desire of the House will be—it was only Oliver Cromwell who made us sit on Christmas Day.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for advance sight of his statement. I am disappointed that we will lose half our Opposition day but appreciate the need to introduce the legislation. Why could the debate on the legislation not have come after we had had our full Opposition day or, given that the Government are in charge of the timetabling of business, why could they not have found another way such that we did not lose half our business? I welcome the Leader of the House’s assurance on protected time tomorrow, but when will we get the second half of that debate? Perhaps it could be on Wednesday this week.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I take seriously my responsibility to ensure that Opposition parties get their Opposition days and can give the undertaking that we will try to reschedule the second half of the SNP’s Opposition day at the earliest opportunity.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I appreciate the prompt three hours of debate on mask wearing. Will the motion be specific to the wearing of masks, or will we be able to raise issues such as air flow, the ultraviolet filtering of air, infection control and treatments, which are also important in combating the virus?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend has promoted me to your role, Madam Deputy Speaker, in respect of deciding what it will be orderly to debate tomorrow. As I said, the three-hour debate will cover the wearing of face coverings and the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2021. I think, although I look with trepidation at the Chair in case I am overruled, that that will allow for quite a wide debate and would be surprised if it were interpreted too narrowly.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The thing is that during covid we have started to develop really bad habits. As I understand it, the measures have not yet been laid—they are not available for any of us to see and will not be available until later today. They will start to apply at 4 o’clock tomorrow morning and we will then legislate for that retrospectively tomorrow afternoon. This is not the right way to do legislation. Every single statutory instrument Committee in which I have been involved in recent months has been on retrospective legislation that has already come into force. This is not the way the House should progress, surely to God.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman’s quite long question was going to go on slightly longer, because I understand that the regulations will be laid by 5 o’clock. Had he gone on for another three minutes they would by then have been laid—
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman, who is currently getting a little bit grumpy, is ignoring the fact that these matters are genuinely urgent. Of course it is right that laws should not come in retrospectively in the normal course of events, but our statutes provide for statutory instruments to be brought in and debated subsequently for a very good purpose, which is that sometimes things need to be done with dispatch. The Opposition, who would have kept us in lockdown forever, should remember their dither and delay when they ask questions about the speed with which we introduce things.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
To follow up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), I have a lot of sympathy with what the Leader of the House is saying. We have acted quickly—we are learning lessons from early in the pandemic—and he is respecting the House by holding a timely three-hour debate as soon as is reasonably possible, so he gets brownie points in both respects. However, come three weeks, when we extend or—God help us not—worsen the situation, we will not be able to discuss it or do anything for at least another two and a half weeks afterwards. That is an issue.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I obviously understand that. Christmas comes but once a year and when it comes it brings a parliamentary recess as well as good cheer. We have been recalled under certain circumstances—we were last year—but it is extraordinarily rare to do it over the Christmas recess, for very good reason. We all hope that in three weeks the measures will expire, but I cannot give any guarantees on that and nor can I give any guarantees on when the decisions on the renewal date will be made. I will always do my best to facilitate Parliament, but in a way that recognises how Parliament actually wants to be facilitated. I am not convinced that all 650 Members want to be back here on 24 or 25 December.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Tomorrow, we will be debating restrictions that are designed not just to reduce transmission, but, I presume, to protect the NHS. I was disappointed that, on 16 November, a Health Minister responded to a parliamentary question of mine, saying that they had no intention of publishing any assessment of the impact of the current covid hospitalisations on the availability of NHS beds, staff and elective procedures. In order for Members of this House to have an informed debate tomorrow on the impact of restrictions and whether they are sufficient to protect the NHS this winter, will the Leader of the House please confirm whether he will ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to publish a statement tomorrow morning about the impact of covid hospitalisations on beds, staff and elective procedures?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not want to be unhelpful, but that question might have been better asked during the statement of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care who would have been able to give a direct answer. I suggest that the hon. Lady raises it in the debate tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now move on to the next item of business. I will delay for a moment to let people leave the Chamber quietly and safely with the usual social distancing.
We now come on to the House of Lords (Elected Senate) Bill.
Bill Presented
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have a feeling that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) might be there on that day.
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]
Monday 29th November 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 View all Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 1-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (15 Jul 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As hon. Members may know, I have long championed a root and branch comprehensive reform of our leasehold system. It has been a long journey to get here from my private Member’s Bill—Ground Rents (Leasehold Properties) Bill—to try to overhaul the regulations on ground rents. It is particularly gratifying to be standing here today as the Minister responsible for this hugely important legislation.
The Bill will make home ownership fairer and more transparent for future generations of leaseholders. We will do this by reducing the ground rent on new residential long leases where a premium is paid to a peppercorn. I am sure that this change, which will benefit thousands of future leaseholders, will be welcomed right across the House.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I lobbied for an exemption for the retirement living industry, which was granted and then withdrawn in January this year. Why was that?
Eddie Hughes
I appreciate my right hon. Friend’s strong lobbying on this matter. I think the Government decided that it was appropriate to treat all leaseholders the same and therefore we made that change, although we did allow an extension in the introduction of that to April 2023.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The bit I do not understand is why we have leasehold at all. It is just preposterous nonsense, is it not? It is a feudal relic. Would it not make far more sense to have some kind of commonhold situation for flats, which is what they have in nearly every other country in the world and, I think I am right in saying, also in Scotland? Does that not make far more sense? We can then just get rid of leasehold completely.
Eddie Hughes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wonder why, in the brief periods when Labour has been in control, it has not done so itself. I guess English law is pretty complex, so it would not be so straightforward to simply withdraw it on the basis that he suggests. Perhaps when Labour is in power again at some point in the distant future, it will be able to return to this matter.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Minister is being generous in giving way. He may not wish to be as radical as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is suggesting, but does he share my concern at some of the greedier developers, which are insisting on a year-by-year, annual increase? For example, ground rents are going up and up in New River Village in Hornsey. I have to name the Berkeley Group, because it really should know better. It has done very well, including throughout coronavirus, given all the leg-ups that it has had from the Government through various coronavirus packages, and it really should not be demanding multiples every year from my poor old leaseholders.
Eddie Hughes
I largely agree with the hon. Lady, not least because the ten-minute rule Bill to which I referred, which I brought to the House when I was a Back Bencher, completely endorsed her points. It is unfortunate that some people include such egregious terms in ground rents.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that this issue is about not only ground rents, but the admin fees that are often associated with any minor changes that the owner of the property wants to make? A lot of these properties are also linked with extra charges for management fees for the land and other things. The levels of charges placed on leaseholders are becoming totally unacceptable.
Eddie Hughes
I do not want to jump forward several pages in my speech, but the right hon. Gentleman is predicting—or at least pointing to—the fact that we have identified this problem and have ensured that when we reduce ground rents to a peppercorn, people will not be able to cheat by introducing associated management fees and other charges. If he is looking for further changes, the second part of our seminal legislation, when it comes in due course, will no doubt satisfy his needs.
The starting point for this legislation has to be our shared recognition that for many people, to be a leaseholder is also to be a homeowner, and we are clear that homes that have been bought should be theirs to live in and enjoy, not be treated as cash cows for third-party investors. This Government are on the side of homeowners, which is why in our manifesto we committed to introduce this important legislation.
Hon. Members will be well aware of the problems that many leaseholders have faced in recent years, including, as pointed out by Opposition Members, spiralling ground rents and onerous conditions that have turned the dream of home ownership into a nightmare for some leaseholders. This Bill is the first of our seminal two-part legislation to reform and improve the leasehold system. Further legislation will follow later in this Parliament to continue to address the historic imbalances in the leasehold system.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Minister for the work that he has done so far. He may know that constituents on Steinbeck Grange in Warrington South have been calling for changes for almost 10 years. Will he give an update on the current Competition and Markets Authority investigation, which is vital to people living in Warrington?
Eddie Hughes
The work of the CMA has been pivotal so far in already changing the behaviour of a number of significant developers. I have spoken to it recently; further work is ongoing and I hope that it will have further successes in the future. My hon. Friend is completely right to raise that point.
Both this Bill and the wider leasehold reform programme have been informed by consultation. I thank those present here today, including the Opposition Front Benchers, who have taken the time to discuss the issue. I look forward to further discussions over the coming weeks and months.
The Bill has a specific focus: the ground rent in future long residential leases. Some existing leaseholders face substantial difficulties, including costly enfranchisement, a lack of transparency and burdensome lease terms. Escalating ground rents in particular can reach unaffordable levels and make some properties difficult to sell. That is not right, which is why we have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct a thorough investigation into potential mis-selling and unfair terms in the leasehold sector.
Eddie Hughes
Once again the right hon. Gentleman points out an egregious and unfortunate practice that hopefully we will be finding ways to address in future.
Sir Desmond Swayne
That prompts the question of what proposals the Minister may have to enable leaseholders to enforce the purchase of freeholds from such companies. Does he have plans for that?
Eddie Hughes
As my right hon. Friend will know, unfortunately I am not the Secretary of State, much as I would like to be. [Interruption] Not yet, anyway. It is best to leave the fine detail of the formation of future legislation to the Secretary of State to decide. However, I look forward to discussing the matter further with my right hon. Friend as we progress.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I have listened to my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and others. The Minister is waiting for the Competition and Markets Authority report, but is he prepared to say, even before that report has concluded, that on the basis of all the evidence we are hearing from right across the House, what we are seeing is nothing more than a financial scam from a bunch of greedy speculators?
Eddie Hughes
I am not sure I can go so far as to agree, but, as a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, it is an unfortunate practice that we will be seeking to address in future legislation.
Catherine West
The Minister is being very generous with his time; he remembers well what it is like to be on the Back Benches. Does he agree that many of the points under discussion will be good for future generations, but it is all a bit “jam tomorrow” if we cannot help our constituents today?
Eddie Hughes
I would say that we are doing a very important thing with today’s legislation, which effectively draws a line in the sand to prevent future onerous ground rent clauses. Once we have done so, we will then have the opportunity to work, hopefully quickly, to deal with the existing ground rent problem.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I have been known to swim against the tide once or twice with regard to this particular debate. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a leaseholder, not a freeholder, in this context. Nevertheless, it is not right to think that effectively scrapping leasehold and moving to commonhold is a panacea. For evidence of that, hon. Members should look at the system in Scotland, which moved to a commonhold system. Some 80% of buildings require maintenance and there is a £2 billion unfunded maintenance backlog. We should step forward very carefully. Leasehold does need reform, but I am very concerned that if we effectively scrap it altogether, we will create ourselves a new problem.
Eddie Hughes
I thank my hon. Friend, who is incredibly knowledgeable in this area. I remember discussing my ten-minute rule Bill with him at the time. I completely assure him that we will proceed with caution and seek advice from experts both across the House and outside the House. I look forward to discussing this with him again in the future. I also take this opportunity to thank the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick)—I am delighted to see him in his place—for all the work that he put in in driving forward this agenda. Back in January, he announced measures to make buying a freehold or extending a lease cheaper and easier for many leaseholders.
I now turn to the specifics of the Bill. Ground rent is usually paid annually by leaseholders to their freeholder or landlord, but, crucially, no tangible service is provided in return. The industry is also familiar with the term, “peppercorn rent”, to describe a token or nominal rent used as a payment in forming a contract, which typically is not actually collected in practice. Historically, ground rents were generally very low. The past two decades have seen a surge in properties sold with significant and escalating ground rent. At its worst, this practice can lead to properties becoming unsellable. These unfair practices have caused real misery for those affected and, in turn, have undermined the reputation of the leasehold system. Regardless of whether the ground rent is a nominal peppercorn or thousands of pounds, the fundamental issue is that no meaningful service is provided in return. We want to end this for new leases, and that is why we are legislating so that new residential long leases will have no financial demand for ground rent. Instead, nothing more than an actual peppercorn can be collected from the leaseholder.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will the Minister acknowledge that the situation is slightly different in relation to retirement housing, where the practice has been for ground rents to more or less fund the shared spaces, and ground rents have been part of making retirement housing viable? Will he take care to ensure that the Bill does not have unintended consequences for retirement housing?
Eddie Hughes
The reason why we extended the timeframe for the introduction of this legislation for those properties is to allow people time to adjust their business models, so that they can cope with the change in legislation. To avert the risk of possible future shortages of peppercorns, and to ensure that our meals continue to be well seasoned, I should clarify that we do not expect any landlord to require the actual payment of a physical peppercorn each year. In reality, the new genuine peppercorn rent for future leaseholders means that they will not pay the rent.
The specifics of the Bill apply to residential long leases in England and Wales of over 21 years for which a premium is paid. The inclusion of the requirement for a premium clarifies that normal and legitimate practices relating to rack rents can continue. For leases regulated under the Bill, the rent demanded will not be any more than literally one peppercorn a year.
Following much careful deliberation, we have arrived at a broad and flexible definition of “rent”, using the real-world meaning, and therefore including anything in the conventional nature of rent. The Government are clear that landlords should retain the ability to collect legitimate charges. The definition will ensure that landlords can still collect legitimate charges where the market reserves them as rent, such as charges for services, including building maintenance. The broad definition will deter freeholders or landlords from trying to circumvent the new system by disguising ground rent as a different charge. It will also enable appropriate tribunals to make sound judgments on whether a leaseholder has in fact been charged a prohibited rent.
We plan to leave no loopholes for unscrupulous individuals, so we are also banning the charging of an admin fee for collecting peppercorn rent. Where a prohibited rent or administrative charge is paid, leaseholders will have the right to apply to the first-tier tribunal in England or the leasehold valuation tribunal in Wales. Provided that the tribunal deems the payment inappropriate, the relevant authority can then order the amount to be repaid. In the case of prohibited rent, that must be within 28 days and potentially also with interest.
There are a limited number of exceptions from the provisions of the Bill. The first is leases used purely for a business purpose. The intention behind the Bill has never been to reduce business leases to a peppercorn rent, so through careful consideration, we have excepted business leases that include the use of a dwelling in any way that protects the interest of residential leaseholders and commercial landlords. For mixed-use properties, such as a flat above a shop, the exception will apply only if the residential use significantly contributes to the business purpose of the lease.
Community-led housing may have few other feasible funding schemes that they can use to continue to grow developments that benefit the community, rather than secure profits. To maintain this growth, we have excepted community-led housing schemes. Home finance plan leases are also excepted. That includes regulated home reversion plans, such as equity release and rent-to-buy agreements, where the consumer purchases the freehold at the end of the term. We will also allow shared ownership landlords to continue to collect a market rent on their share of the property. That practice is integral to the shared ownership model.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister is setting out a list of exemptions. Are complex developments included in that—for example, a tube station with a cinema or shopping centre attached, and a block of flats above it, all in effect part of the same development? Who will manage the complexity of that development? If I was a long leaseholder in that block of flats, I would not be keen to manage all the mechanical and electrical systems stuff in that development.
Eddie Hughes
I am not sure that I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. The Bill will not change the management of that building’s operation; it will just prevent ground rent from being charged. If a leaseholder feels that they are being charged ground rent inappropriately, they will have a right of appeal, and the issue will be determined by the ways and means authority.
Kevin Hollinrake
I am sorry; I should clarify my point. The Minister is quite right that a management company could look after the whole entity, but things such as common areas and insurance of the whole building —among many other issues—affect the whole building, and they require somebody to have an overarching view of the entire development. I not sure how that is provided for. In fact, in 2019, when I was a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, it looked into that and said there should be an exemption for complex developments on that basis. However, that does not appear in the Bill, despite having been referred to in debates in the Lords.
Eddie Hughes
As I said, the Government’s intention is to ensure that, for fairness, the provision applies in as many circumstances as possible. I am happy to pick that up with my hon. Friend for further discussion after the debate, to which I hope he will contribute.
Statutory lease extensions are the subject of existing legislation and so are not covered by the Bill. The peppercorn limit will apply to the extended portion of any lease extended through the voluntary process.
I should note that there is no longer an exception for the retirement sector. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), we believe that all new leaseholders should benefit from the reforms. The measures for retirement properties will apply no earlier than 1 April 2023. Hon. Members, some of whom are in the Chamber, have raised that as a concern in correspondence, and it has been debated at some length in the other place. We feel that the transition period strikes the right balance between the sector and consumers.
The Government recognise that these provisions require a robust and effective enforcement regime. Freeholders and landlords who abuse the system and deliberately seek to charge a non-peppercorn ground rent on leases in contravention of the Bill will be subject to steep fines of up to £30,000. After listening to and considering carefully the view expressed in the other place, we concluded that the level of fines should be higher. The new maximum fine of £30,000 is in line with other housing penalties, including those in the Tenant Fees Act 2019. Fines can be even steeper for more egregious abuses of the system. For example, if a freeholder breaks the law by charging unfair rents at multiple locations, such as in a block of flats, they will pay a penalty per lease. It does not stop there; penalties can be supplemented by the repayment of all prohibited rent collected. Enforcement will be the responsibility of local trading standards authorities, which already do an excellent job of enforcing similar housing regulations. District councils in England will also have the power to take enforcement action if they choose.
We recognise that enforcement will require additional resourcing. That is why authorities can retain any penalties imposed, and put them towards the costs incurred in enforcement of residential leasehold property rules. Taken together, the enforcement regime will act as an effective deterrent, while giving authorities the flexibility that they need to ensure that any enforcement action taken is proportionate.
The Government’s vision for a reformed and improved leasehold system is one anchored in fairness and transparency. For too long, too many leaseholders have been let down by institutional inertia and a ground rent system that has not worked in their interests. The system has been dogged by opaque rules and left many people in the dark. This legislation is targeted on exactly what it should target. By reducing future ground rents to a peppercorn, we will deliver a tangible and meaningful improvement to home ownership for future generations. We have engaged extensively to get to this point, and this process is by no means over. We are clear-eyed about the challenges ahead, and know that there is more to do, but today is a significant step towards fixing our broken leasehold system for good. I commend this Bill to the House.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill sets ground rents on new leasehold homes to peppercorn levels. We welcome this very small step towards reform, and will not oppose the Bill this evening.
Generating income through high ground rents is an outrageous practice, as has been discussed, but serious leasehold reform is long overdue. Leasehold has been the main way that properties in shared blocks or converted flats have been owned in this country. It stems from arcane feudal laws that date back to an era of landed gentry and aristocracy, and it needs reform urgently. In its more recent manifestations, there has been what can only be described as a scam on an industrial scale, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), against innocent leaseholders—and it increasingly affected new houses, not just flats. It is totally wrong, and it needs ending.
Mark Tami
I have been struck by the way that two houses, next door to each other, may be exactly the same, but one can be leasehold and the other freehold. We see that all the time. When a house is advertised, the advert often says, “This is not leasehold”—it points out that fact. Leasehold properties are being devalued by the day.
Lucy Powell
My good and hon. Friend makes an extremely well-made point. The practice of new homes being built as leasehold, and sold as leasehold—buyers often do not even know that at first—has got out of all kilter lately, especially in north Wales and north-west England, where it has been a particularly egregious practice. I welcome this Bill, albeit that it is a bit too little, too late, but it does nothing to protect those trapped in the injustice of leasehold. It does not do anything for those facing excessive ground rent increases today or yesterday, nor does it put an end to some of the most egregious practices, such as selling new houses as leasehold.
The ground rent scandal typifies everything that has gone wrong with our housing market. Housing has become a commodity to be traded, packed up in financial products and thrown into an unregulated market. Large-scale developers and investors have been given free rein to create ever more complex financial products, in order to squeeze money out of homeowners. Many people do not even realise when they buy their house that they will not own the land underneath it, as my right hon. Friend has just made clear. Even worse, the leases often contain clauses that double the ground rent—in some cases, every 10 years, which means that a homeowner in a property worth a modest £200,000 might pay £10,000 a year in ground rents after they have owned the property for 50 years or so.
Catherine West
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that this has got so out of hand? The amounts being charged are rising in excess of the retail prices index, which we would expect to be a basic marker. People feel trapped, in that they cannot sell on.
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a really good point. People are trapped in this situation, because we all know that when we look to buy a home, we look at the overheads, and the ongoing service charges, ground rents and other costs. In recent years, those things have rightly been added to the affordability criteria, so people often cannot get a mortgage for these homes. That leaves the people living in them trapped in that situation with an unsellable home.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Does this not give rise to an extraordinary question about the legal advice provided by solicitors to those who made such purchases?
Lucy Powell
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman raises that point, because I am sure colleagues around the House will be keen to highlight—
Lucy Powell
I will first try to answer it, and then when I do not answer it very well, I will give way to my right hon. Friend to give a better answer. What I do know is that, unfortunately, many people who bought houses in this situation were advised to use the solicitor of the marketing company or company selling the houses—I have many in my constituency. So they were given poor advice, and this is a mis-selling scam as well. Would my right hon. Friend like to give a better answer?
Mark Tami
My hon. Friend has in many ways made the point I was going to make. These people were often first-time buyers, keen to get on to the housing market and get their first home. They were told, “Don’t use this solicitor or that solicitor; use these ones, and we will give you a discount to use them”, and—shock, horror—many were not even aware, as my hon. Friend has made clear, of the property being leasehold, let alone of all the other charges associated with that.
Lucy Powell
Absolutely; my right hon. Friend makes a very good point as well. Many people, especially first-time buyers, do not understand the difference between leasehold, freehold and so on, and many of these issues come to light only as problems arise later or when they try to sell the property.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On legal advice, it is worth pointing out that not only were some people told that they had to use particular solicitors, in breach of Law Society guidelines, but some were also told that they had to complete within a certain period of time, so even if they had used a different solicitor, it just would not have been practical for them to analyse or understand the documents correctly. That suggests to me that there needs to be a complete overhaul and inquiry into how the scandal was allowed to develop in the first place.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and there is a very strong basis for a wider mis-selling scandal inquiry. Many properties are affected: in terms of houses, for which the practice has been particularly egregious, more than 500,000 leasehold houses have been built over the past 10 years. The vast majority of them are in the north-west of England and north Wales, which is why so many colleagues from those areas are here this evening.
The rights to collect the ground rents are bought and sold on the financial markets as steady income streams to investors, while leaseholders get nothing back for—in some cases—thousands of pounds a year. There is hardly a clearer illustration of the damaging pervasive tendency to treat housing as an investment opportunity—as a product to trade on the market—rather than as homes where people live and build their lives around. That should be the basis of housing in this country. We have lost somewhere what housing is: homes, places where we live, where lives are built, where we become successful —or not—and where we bring up a family. Housing is not a commodity to be traded on the financial market. We have seen more starkly than ever over the past two years that housing is also a public health issue, an educational issue, and a work, security and happiness issue, and we should begin to treat it as such.
Although we welcome this Bill, it is a very narrow first step; there are many glaring omissions—measures which could have been included even in such a narrow Bill. First, there is nothing to prevent freeholders from simply transferring their income stream from ground rents to service charges or administration or other charges, as has been highlighted. As shown by the ground rent scandal itself, there is no limit to the ingenuity that some freeholders will draw on to capitalise off the back of leaseholders. Service charges and administration charges are opaque at best, and far too hard to challenge. Will the Minister address that issue later on?
Lucy Powell
I will, because my right hon. Friend is an expert on this issue.
Mark Tami
To list just a few examples that I have come across, some leaseholders who—in theory—own a house and the land around it are asked to pay if they want a pet or want to change the flooring in the house or the layout of the garden. People have said to me, “I’m paying a mortgage on a house that I don’t really feel I own.”
Lucy Powell
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and he gives good examples, some of which I was going to use later. He makes a very good point—some of these charges are outrageous. Will Ministers respond to that and address how we can stop that practice?
Secondly, the millions of people already trapped in leasehold homes will see no benefit whatsoever from the Bill, so none of the examples that we have heard will end as a result of it. The Government have chosen to limit the scope of the Bill to new homes, which means those already facing these bills will see no benefit at all. Delay has real costs for them; the Minister can pass the buck on to us for what happened 11 years ago, but more than 2 million new homeowners have been trapped in this feudal leasehold system since his Government came to power.
The Competition and Markets Authority has done some good work taking down the largest and worst-offending of the freeholders, but we cannot wait for it to take on every single company involved in this outrageous practice. Will the Minister work with us and support our proposal, which we will table in Committee, to protect existing leaseholders?
Thirdly, the Bill does nothing at all to stop new houses being sold as leasehold. Leasehold houses are straightforwardly wrong, for the reasons that we have already heard. At the same time that the Government promised to set ground rents at a peppercorn, which the Bill does, they committed to ending the practice of newly built homes being sold as leasehold.
Half a million houses have been sold as leasehold since 2010, 60% of them in the north-west. Those homeowners face not just exorbitant ground rents but restrictions on how they can alter their homes. We have already heard some examples: if someone wants to have a pet, or if they want to make changes to the building, they have to ask permission. All too often, people are left feeling that they do not really own the home. When the leaseholder tries to escape this nightmare by buying out the freehold, they often discover all kinds of other restrictions that they were not told about when they bought their home. This needs to change.
As recently as 2017, the Government promised legislation to prohibit the granting of new residential long leases on houses. When will that come in, and why is it not included in the Bill? It makes no sense to me whatsoever that that has not made it into the Bill. Again, perhaps Ministers will work with us, and with some of my colleagues who are in the Chamber today, in Committee to end new leaseholds on houses altogether.
There was a lot more that the Government could have done in a simple first-step Bill, but I hope the whole House will recognise that wholesale reform of leasehold is long overdue. The building safety crisis has brought into stark relief how terrible our feudal leasehold laws are. Innocent leaseholders can be passed remediation bills totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds with no right of recourse. It is a David and Goliath situation that is hitting more and more homeowners across the country. Fixing the building safety crisis truly must mean fixing our outdated leasehold laws too.
As the last few years have shown, this is now an urgent task, so we call on the Government to do these simple things when it comes to wider leasehold reform: enable leaseholders to extend the lease or buy the freehold; make commonhold the norm, and make it much easier for properties to operate that way; abolish marriage value, as they promised they would; strengthen leaseholders’ voices and simplify the right to manage; give real teeth and real recourse to the bodies that are supposed to arbitrate and act on behalf of leaseholders, or create new ones altogether; and prevent freeholders in law from passing on extortionate costs for remediation works, or for putting right problems that they have created that are not the problems of the leaseholders, as well as the things that I have already discussed. Those are just some of the reforms that are urgently needed to ensure that no leaseholder is trapped against their will in this broken, outdated system.
In conclusion, the Bill is a tentative attempt at reform. While it is welcome, it represents a massive missed opportunity to transform a leaseholder sector that continues to scam working people on an industrial scale. Even in a slimmed-down Bill, the Government have failed to close loopholes, protect those already in leasehold homes or end the sale of new houses as leasehold altogether. Wholesale reform is urgently needed to ensure that nobody continues to be voiceless, trapped in leasehold homes they cannot sell, and facing ever-growing bills and charges.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
It will come as no surprise to right hon. and hon. Members to hear that I strongly support the Bill. It would be surprising if I did not, as I was one of the Ministers who instigated it, although stranger things have happened in politics.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his hard work in bringing the Bill to the House, the noble Lord Greenhalgh who has worked extremely hard on this issue for many months, and the fantastic civil servants at the Department who have taken this forward. There is a very strong, albeit very small, team of civil servants who have been beavering away on this issue for many months and will have a lot of work to do ahead of them not just in taking the Bill forward but, perhaps more importantly, in preparing the next Bill, which I will come on to speak about in a moment.
This is an important step on the road to leasehold reform. It is a road that really began with the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which gave tenants of houses the right to buy their freehold. It then took the next step forward with the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which gave leasehold tenants of flats the right, collectively, to buy their freeholds. There was a great deal of opposition, back during the Major Government, to that reform in this House, the House of Lords and from propertied interests, who said that it would be a disaster for the housing market. It was not and those rights have been enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of people pursuing the dream of home ownership across the country. Then the last Labour Government took it forward one further step, with the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, which introduced commonhold, albeit not nearly as successfully as they would have hoped or as I would like to see taken forward in the years ahead.
The destination of those reforms is not just a better situation for leaseholders, but the gradual elimination of leasehold altogether. It is, as some have said here today, essentially a feudal form of tenure: a product of our rich and ancient history as a country, but one that is no longer fit for purpose. It does not exist in any other developed country and it does not, in essence, have a place in a modern society.
The Bill is, as my predecessor as Housing Secretary, the noble Lord Young, said in the House of Lords, the appetiser for the main course. It is a comprehensive piece of legislation to remove more of the iniquities of the present leasehold system, and to pave the way for the wholesale introduction of commonhold.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am very encouraged to hear that my right hon. Friend is so forward-looking on this matter. May I ask him to explain to the House how one rather backward step took place some months ago, which was the allowing of it to become routine that additional storeys could be added to existing blocks of flats? I have lived through that experience and found not only that it is terrible to have a floor inserted above you, but that when things go horribly wrong with the construction and the company goes bust or winds itself up, it is the leaseholders who have to pay thousands upon thousands of pounds to put right the faults. Would he not like to revisit that change that was made and perhaps suggest that it ought to be looked at again?
Robert Jenrick
It would not be for me to revisit that even if we wanted to. The purpose of that legislation, which was supported by many Members, was to deliver more homes—particularly on brownfield sites and in urban areas—as part of the mission of us all to deliver more homes and to tackle the housing crisis, and particularly to enable individual homeowners to build upwards on their home as their household expands, particularly if they have young children or if elderly relatives move into the home. That is an important step forward, but, as with any of these changes, we should keep it under review. If there are common instances of abuse or malpractice, we should see whether there are ways to eliminate them.
Robert Jenrick
I will make progress, if my right hon. Friend does not mind.
The Bill was born out of two issues. One is a recent phenomenon, which the Front Benchers and other hon. Members have mentioned: the abuse of leasehold in recent years. A system that was never perfect and that many of us would wish to see reformed was subject to wholesale abuse and rip-off practices by developers and freeholders, who used ground rents as an income stream and escalated them, leaving leaseholders in a perilous position. Leasehold was used for properties for no good reason, purely to benefit from ground rents. We have heard about such examples, and particularly the use of ground rents for houses. It is difficult to see that any house needs to be built as a leasehold property. In different times, I have bought into the argument that there might be exceptional reasons why one would need to build such a home, but it is very difficult to think what those would be. The system is not used in other countries around the world, including in the United States, where there are gated communities, communities for the elderly—all manner of different homes. They are not being built as leasehold properties, so I do not see why they should be in this country.
Mark Tami
I agree fully with that point. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this practice had largely gone away. For years, houses were not built as leasehold properties, but in the north-west and in north Wales, a group of builders decided that this would be an extra way of scamming—I use that word deliberately—even more money out of the people buying the properties.
Robert Jenrick
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; I do not disagree in any way. The north-west was particularly targeted, for reasons that I do not understand, with tens of thousands of homes built in this manner. It really was disgraceful. It gave leasehold a very bad name and necessitated these changes and others that will be introduced in future. The Bill ends these practices for new properties; that is key. It will ensure that the business model behind ground rents—the creation of such properties as leasehold to benefit commercially—will come to an end. We are already seeing its gradual reduction, and the Bill will lead to its elimination.
I want to address the point that was raised about why the proposals should be extended to retirement properties. As Secretary of State, I came under fierce resistance and lobbying from the retirement property sector. Its lobbyists approached Members of Parliament and my Department and threatened judicial review of our proceedings. I considered it to be an unfair practice, targeted at the most elderly and vulnerable in our society, that in addition to paying their service charge they should pay a ground rent that might escalate at a significant pace. Why not have a fairer and more transparent system where an elderly person knows exactly what they are getting when they pay the purchase price on their property and then when they pay the service charge on an annual basis, instead of receiving two bills every year? I think that is a simple matter of fairness and transparency, and it was the right decision to bring that to an end. We did, however, give a longer period for businesses to transition and to change their business model, which is why that part of the industry will not feel the force of the Bill until 2023.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I appreciate the work that the right hon. Gentleman has done to try to get the right balance and stand up for the interests of homeowners rather than large corporations. Does he have any reflection, further to the point made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), on the knock-on effects of allowing additional storeys to be built on existing blocks of flats? In my experience, there is an exploitation issue both for people who live in flats with top-hatted development—I think that is the word—and for the neighbours. In the area that I represent, there have certainly been a number of problems for neighbours to those blocks. Does the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) have any further reflections on that point? If he were still Secretary of State, would he have allowed that development to go ahead?
Robert Jenrick
I think it should be kept under review, like any permitted development. As we have seen with past examples, there are always cases at the edges that concern us, and there are usually ways to refine the permitted development over time to ensure that those cases do not happen again. With the permitted development that the hon. Gentleman mentions, I think—from memory —that we ensured that the developer has to work with the local council to ensure that there are not issues with building safety or loss of amenity to the leaseholders in the building, and that the design of the extra storeys is broadly in keeping with the neighbourhood. I certainly think that the issue should be kept under review.
Robert Jenrick
I will, but I appreciate that many other hon. Members want to speak.
Sir Desmond Swayne
As I do!
It would be quite unlawful for the capital cost of the communal areas in a retirement living community to be paid for through an administration charge, so we come back to the question whether it is in the interests of the purchaser to pay a ground rent or to pay the up-front cost in the purchase price. For a category of elderly people, it may well be in their interests to pay the former.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend gets to the nub of the issue. The debate, exactly as he says, was whether it would be better for a retired person looking to move into such a community to pay a somewhat lower purchase price for the property or the share in it that they were taking, and then, for as long as they live there, pay a ground rent, which might escalate at an unfair level, and a service charge. That is not a system that occurs in any other country in the world, including countries such as the United States that are far more advanced in their take-up of retirement properties. I took the view that it would be much fairer and more transparent for an individual to know exactly what they had to pay from the outset: they pay their purchase price and then their service charge, but they do not have to face escalating ground rent. That makes sense to me; I appreciate that there will be differences of opinion, but it was done as a matter of basic fairness.
I make it clear that the reason for the Bill’s very limited scope was to bring an end to unfair practices as quickly as possible. That was the advice of the Law Commission, which said that it was better to have a two-step process so that the iniquity of escalating ground rents could be brought to a close, and then we could move on to the much more complex piece of legislation that will inevitably take the Department and Parliament a great deal of time to prepare and pass. I think that that was probably the best way to proceed.
Two further points emerge as a postscript to the events of the past few years. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, we need to think about the conveyancing solicitors who gave or failed to give advice in the process of house sales. They failed in their duty to their clients: many constituents have come to my surgeries who were oblivious about the homes that they were buying. That applies not only in the situation we have discussed, but with respect to management fees, which may be very high or—as the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) mentioned—may involve charges, for example for putting up a satellite dish, building a conservatory and so on. Conveyancing solicitors need to take much greater care to bring such matters to the attention of their clients.
Secondly, the work of the Competition and Markets Authority must move forward at pace. It has already ensured that some of the major developers have settled, but I encourage all developers behind the sale of these properties, many of which they mis-sold to members of the public, to do the decent thing—the inevitable thing—and settle, so that the purchasers get some compensation for the issues that they have faced. I see that many are on the cusp of doing that, but I hope that the remaining ones will do so quickly.
I also hope that the Government will ensure that the second Bill features in the next Queen’s Speech and is delivered early in that Session. There is, as I have said, a great deal of work for the Department to do in preparing that Bill and ensuring that it is sufficiently comprehensive, but I think it extremely important that it does so, and that within the course of this Parliament we deliver comprehensive reform to leasehold. It should include 990-year leases, a simpler, cheaper enfranchisement process, ending marriage value, improving the position of leaseholders in the management of buildings, and ending—as has already been suggested—the building and selling of new houses as leasehold, because there really is no justification for that.
Finally, I hope that that Bill will look to the destination of a world beyond leasehold. That is the end point towards which we must work. I established the Commonhold Council to see how we could chart that course, and it seems to me that all the complex issues that are raised are surmountable—that is the evidence from the council so far. It also seems to me that commonhold will never take shape to any substantial degree in this country without a major Government intervention, which means indicating that it is our tenure of preference, or setting an end date for new leasehold properties. I favour the latter: I think we should say clearly that, beyond a certain date, no property, whether it be a flat or a house, should be built unless it is commonhold. I hope that the Bill to be introduced in the next Session will set that course, because I think it would be an important step towards ending a feudal system and helping us to move forward as a country.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Let me first put it on record that, alongside the hon. Members for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), l am a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform. The group is assisted by the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which has been campaigning for many years for the kind of reform that we are debating today.
We might have expected the Bill to be a cause for celebration, and indeed any legislation that puts another nail in the coffin of leasehold is to be welcomed, but we are left with a feeling that it is a rather modest measure. Given that it took four years for us to reach this point, it seems that we are making glacial progress. Perhaps four years is not much in comparison with 1,000 years of leasehold, but for those who are still trapped in unsellable or seriously devalued homes because of the leases they signed, progress is not being made quickly enough.
I am not generally a fan of market-based solutions—the market is responsible for most of the egregious injustices that we have seen in leasehold—but, to a significant extent, the market has already moved away from imposing ground rents for most houses, not because those who concocted the leasehold scandal have had a prick of conscience but because a spotlight has been shone on the devastating consequences of their sharp practice. In that respect, I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the National Leasehold Campaign, which has done more than just about anyone to bring the unfairness of leasehold to the public’s attention. It is an irony that those campaigners do not stand to benefit from the Bill because, as has been pointed out already, it does nothing to tackle the existing problems. That said, however, their influence has already benefited my constituents and many others.
A new Redrow estate not far from where I live originally had properties being sold on a leasehold basis. After some pretty determined campaigning from the National Leasehold Campaign, Redrow decided to stop the sale of homes in the second phase as leasehold, but unfortunately not before several hundred people had already bought their homes as leasehold. To be fair to Redrow, I should add that it did then offer them the opportunity to purchase the freehold after two years, although it was a little unfortunate, to say the least, when it subsequently lowered the purchase price for the freehold again, creating another unfairness. While I give Redrow credit for stepping back and weaning itself off the leasehold drug, that should not obscure the fact that all this could have been avoided had it not sold the properties as leasehold in the first place. That takes me back to the basic concern that remains with the Bill, which is that it enshrines in law a two-tier system of home ownership when really we should be ending it altogether.
Very few new houses are now being sold as leasehold, but around 1.5 million houses will remain leasehold after this Bill becomes law. Is there a risk that choking off income streams from those who see other people’s homes as an investment will cause them to turn their attention to redoubling their efforts to squeeze as much as they can out of the existing properties? A number of Members have already mentioned that, and I will return to it later.
Turning to the details of the Bill, I know that a lot of consideration has been given to how we define a ground rent. That debate is instructive, because how can a payment for which nothing is received in return be considered a proper legal payment? The short answer is that it cannot, and I believe that that is another reason to abolish leasehold altogether. The reality is that ground rent is a legal fiction and a method of maintaining control and securing an income for which the recipient is required to do precisely nothing.
It is therefore disappointing that lease extensions for houses are exempt from the Bill, because there is significant concern that freeholders will put in massive multipliers when offering informal lease extensions, just to make the premium look lower and more attractive. They would then make their money back through allowing the ground rents to continue. Let us not forget that both parties do not have equal bargaining power. This all just adds weight to the argument that what we have here is a minor change that will help people in the future, when what we really need to do is to deal with the injustices of the present, and the best way to do that is of course to abolish leasehold altogether.
As I said earlier, we also need to keep an eye on whether those who have been involved in the systematic deception and mis-selling change their sights to deal with the new environment that the Bill represents. They have not gone away, those offshore accounts, those trust funds and those private equity investors who see people’s homes as an opportunity to cream off the cash long after the people living in them think that they have bought them. In particular, we have to keep a close eye on estate management companies, because that is one area in which charges could easily be inflated to more than cover the loss of a ground rent.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an important speech and he has hit on a number of central issues, particularly when dealing with his own legal experience of these dysfunctional markets where on the one hand we have developers with enormous financial power and legal resources and on the other we have humble first-time buyers. Does he agree that there needs to be a rebalancing, with far greater protection for first-time buyers and ordinary householders, and with a much greater attempt by the Government to hold these large developers to account?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. There is clearly an imbalance. We have already talked about how some enthusiastic first-time buyers who just want to get into their new homes put their trust in the people who have been assigned to deliver the legal niceties such as putting a value on the property and doing the conveyancing. They put their trust in those people, and sometimes that trust is betrayed through the egregious injustices that we have talked about.
Mark Tami
My hon. Friend has mentioned management fees, which I see as the next scandal coming down the road. People who bought their properties and were being charged perhaps £100 or £200 a year will have thought that that was okay, but that might now have gone up to £500 or £600 and there are often additional charges because, for example, fences or certain parts of the ground are not covered. People have told me that they feel they are paying their council tax twice. That is how they see it, and it is totally unfair.
Justin Madders
I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for his intervention, which leads me beautifully into the next section of my speech, in which I shall talk about exactly that.
I will never accept that it is right for developers to choose not to pay a sum to councils to adopt the communal areas, and that they instead save themselves money by passing on that cost to the homeowners and then make even more money from the homeowners by charging them for things that ought to be coming out of their council tax. Like my right hon. Friend, I worry that this trend will be accelerated because the ground rent gravy train is coming to an end, and that we will hear more and more stories of homeowners having no choice but to pay inflated annual service charges that, given the choice, they would prefer to pay through their council tax.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about what is referred to as “fleecehold.” Does he agree it is entirely within the gift of the local authority to require the development to be made to adoptable standards in terms of roads and drainage, for example? It can then be adopted by the local authority, so people do not have to pay twice for such services.
Justin Madders
That is a fair point in theory, but I find it does not happen in practice. I have estates in my constituency that were built a dozen years ago and still have not been adopted because the developers have not put them up to the required standard. The to and fro never ends, because the developers have left town and they have no interest or incentive to bring those areas up to the adoptable standard.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful for the advice my hon. Friend has given to me and my constituents on this matter, as he is a neighbouring MP with particular expertise. He will be aware of one estate in my constituency that has been parcelled up and given to different developers, and it has been developed at different times. Not only do we have a problem with the local authority, but he will recall that we have a problem with different developers playing themselves off against each other in order not to bring the estate up to standard, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) suggests.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes the point well. It all points to the lack of capacity in local authorities to tackle these issues. I do not want to make a party political point, but we have had a decade of austerity and we are now seeing the consequences in how local authorities police these things.
I would like to see a crackdown on unfair fees and contract terms by having an enforceable list of what are considered to be reasonable charges. We should require transparency on those charges and give leaseholders the right to challenge rip-off fees and poor performance. We should also try to ensure that residents are given greater powers to take over the management of their homes, if that is where we are going.
As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) said, I do not want to be standing here in a few years’ time talking about another PPI for the house-building industry because the Government have once again failed to act on the warning signs that are there for us all to see.
This Bill must be promptly followed with the promised wider leasehold reforms, particularly the promised reforms for which we have been crying out that will enable leaseholders to buy their freehold quicker, easier and cheaper. I have had a private Member’s Bill ready to go for three years that would allow us to do just that. It could have already become law if there had been the will to take on the freeholder interests that would lose out as a result.
I have now got the message that my Bill will not find favour with the Government. I am aware the Bill would not have meant an end to leasehold, but it would at least have given the victims of this industrial-scale con an opportunity to take back control of their property at an affordable price. I thought this Government were all about taking back control. Do they not realise that leaseholders do not have control?
What is stopping firmer action being taken against freeholders? I know there are legal opinions floating about on freeholders’ human rights, but what about my constituents’ human rights? Do they not have the right to live in their own home without someone else trying to make it into a cash cow? Do they not have the right to expect that the biggest purchase they ever make will be done fairly and will be properly regulated? Do they not have the right to have a Government who are serious about stopping the industrial-scale foul play we have talked about tonight?
It is disappointing that, although on the one hand the Government accept that unfair practices in the leasehold market can turn people’s home-ownership dreams “into a nightmare,” we are still waiting for action for the many leaseholders who have been trapped in this web that they did not sign up to. We have made it clear that there are a number of reasons why they have found themselves in this position, not all of which are resolved by the Bill.
We know that one in three houses sold in the north-west in the past 10 years is leasehold, and those people will not benefit from the Bill. My constituents and my hon. Friend’s constituents have been disproportionately affected by the leasehold scandal, and they are still waiting for something that will help. If we are to talk about levelling up in this place, we should be looking at something like that as it will deliver true justice, fairness and levelling up.
We need some clear timescales from the Minister for when existing leaseholders can expect to see action on their concerns. What commitments can they expect? I think we all agree that what has happened is unfair and a significant injustice, but when are we going to see action to put things right for existing leaseholders? The right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), when he was Communities Secretary, promised an outright ban on leasehold for all houses four years ago. That is four years of people being trapped in homes that they cannot sell because of onerous ground rents, and four years of stress and uncertainty about whether they should try to buy their freeholds now or wait until the law is reformed. I get asked regularly, “What should I do? Should I wait until the law changes?” It is very difficult to give an answer on that because we still have no clarity on when that law will be changed. So let us end four years of jam tomorrow. Let us deliver solutions for leaseholders today. Let us stand up to the vested interests and please, finally, abolish leasehold.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I have had the nub of my argument with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), but it comes down to this: the retirement living industry’s business model funds the capital requirement for the communal areas through a flow of future ground rents from the outset. The Minister said that he has given the industry time to change its business model. My answer to that is: if there was a problem with an escalating ground rent, it would be perfectly appropriate to have dealt in a measure such as this with that specific problem, rather than telling the industry to change its entire model. Nevertheless, this is where we are.
The business model must therefore have changed by 1 April 2023. The difficulty is with the time it takes to sell properties in the retirement living sector. The industry’s estimate is that some 4,000 apartments will remain unsold in part-sold developments. If someone was to complete on one of those properties on 1 April, they would be paying all the capital costs up front, whereas someone who had completed on 31 March would be expecting to pay a ground rent for the remainder of their tenure. That creates a huge legal confusion and a sense of injustice among the tenants in those properties. So I put a solution to the Minister: a technical amendment to the Bill to enable part-sold developments to continue to sell the unsold properties with a ground rent, provided those properties were built when it was lawful to charge a ground rent. That strikes me as proportionate. We are not dealing with a huge problem or a huge number of properties, but with some 4,000. My proposal seeks to avoid the confusion and difficulty that would arise with two different types of tenures in the same development. That seems a not unreasonable thing to ask Ministers to consider in Committee and on Report.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in tonight’s debate. I wish not only to address a number of issues that colleagues have raised, but to add in further details that I hope are particular to my constituency but fear may be common around the country.
First, I wish to support the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). Obviously, I welcome this Bill, which will help, but the broader point about the deep inequities of leasehold still stands true and we should be moving much faster on this important matter, trying to remove leasehold from the system of ownership in this country. Is it not incredible that the UK still has this medieval system of ownership, which, as has been mentioned, so discriminates against first-time buyers, people on lower incomes, older people and many other groups, which in many ways deserve more support and encouragement to get on to the property ladder? They deserve not to have their lives blighted by what is, sadly, sometimes the behaviour of irresponsible developers. I am not saying that all developers are irresponsible, but Members have clearly highlighted some awful and appalling examples of behaviour.
First, Loddon Park is a pleasant development on the edge of Woodley, a suburb of Reading. It is a relatively new and really quite beautiful development, with many attractive homes. The homes are freehold properties but some of the shared areas in the large development are subject to charges. In many ways, the sort of problems described so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) are also occurring for those at Loddon Park—several hundred people living in an attractive new development on the edge of an urban area in the south-east of England. The residents potentially face unlimited extra costs for the maintenance of some attractive grounds—including meadow areas, large ponds and other areas where children can play—because no cap was written into the charging policy and they did not realise that when they bought their properties.
As explained earlier by my hon. Friends the Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), as well as other colleagues, some of the first-time buyers we are talking about are unfortunately not always aware of some of the difficulties into which they might get themselves. There is an unequal situation in which on the one hand there are powerful and articulate developers with an excellent team of lawyers and on the other hand there are first-time buyers. That is deeply unfair. In this case, young families face potentially unlimited additional costs to pay for the upkeep of the rather attractive communal areas around their houses. That is very sad and deeply unfair. I respect the fact that the local authority had difficulties in trying to provide the properties, but I wish it had been more careful. There is also an element of involvement from Wokingham Borough Council, which is the local authority involved. Will the Minister look into that issue? I will write to him to explain the situation and ask for his help and support.
Before I mention another egregious example from the Reading East constituency, I offer my support to colleagues who have mentioned the issue of snagging and the problems with developers that prevent the adoption of roads. I know of cases in both Reading borough and Wokingham borough in which different developers have started to build a new estate and completed all the properties, which have been sold, but the roads, street lighting and other services have not been properly completed. Although the issue has gone on for years, there has been an ongoing tussle—similar to what the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned—between council officers and developers. It has been deeply problematic for local authorities, which often have low levels of resource in their planning departments so are not well equipped to argue the case.
Mark Tami
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Quite often, the moment the developers sell the last property, that is it: they are not interested any more. They are not interested in snagging or doing the roads; they are off to build somewhere else. The problem is that, as my hon. Friend was saying, local authorities do not have the money to chase these people. In my opinion, if they do not finish an estate—what they were allowed to do under the planning permission—they should not be granted permission again to build anything else.
Matt Rodda
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There should be much stricter rules on this issue, because such sharp practice by developers helps no one. It does not help the building industry as whole, homeowners, local authorities or, indeed, other businesses that have to operate. In one estate near me, drivers can feel the difference as they drive on to the unadopted piece of road because their vehicle goes over a huge bump. That is not good for anyone, including many of the small businesses that have to deliver to that estate. It is surely in everybody’s interests, including those of the wider building industry, to get on with it and come up with a clear, simple and fair solution to the problem so that we can all move on and not spend vast amounts of unnecessary energy chasing after developers to sort out problems such as lamp posts that do not work or roads that have not been finished off.
I wish to address a specific issue that relates to a social housing enterprise in my constituency that operates across large parts of Berkshire. I have been deeply disappointed by Housing Solutions and ask for the Minister’s help. This organisation appears to have badly let down a number of residents in Woodley, the Reading suburb I mentioned earlier. It applied for planning permission to build properties next to a transport depot, where there are a lot of heavy goods vehicle movements, and on an industrial estate. The properties have been sold in a part-ownership scheme to local residents who were desperate to get on the housing ladder and were finding it quite difficult because they are on modest incomes. The local authority gave planning permission and carried out all the relevant checks—again, this is Wokingham Borough Council not Reading Borough Council. There was nothing in planning law to stop these flats from being built next to a haulage yard. The local authority looked into it and it was not able to reject the plans on that basis—on the basis that the flats were close to a noisy and polluting business. However, it did try to insist on conditions on the development. Sadly, though, it appears from lengthy inquiries from my office and also from one of the local councillors—Councillor Shirley Boyt—that these conditions have not been met. Residents, including a constituent of mine, Elise Maslen, who lives in the development, were not told of the additional changes that would need to be made to these properties—in particular, the need to adapt to air quality problems, such as mechanical ventilation and other forms of enhancements to the properties. They were also not told about the noise and pollution from the depot when they purchased the properties. That has resulted in around 20 families being trapped in flats that they do not want to be in, suffering from noise and air pollution.
The local authority has tried to find a way of bringing these properties up to spec. It has insisted on Housing Solutions doing that, but there has been a great deal of delay. This has gone on for five or six years. Sadly, some of the residents have moved away and are now having to pay for the cost of living in these properties while also living at a new address. They are deeply concerned about the health of their children and of themselves. This seems to be an egregious abuse of the situation. While it is not directly related to leaseholders, it has many of the same features, with powerful organisations, sadly, abusing their position of power and ordinary householders struggling and being provided with incorrect information. I wish to write to the Minister to ask for his help on this matter because it is of huge concern to me, to the local community and to the residents concerned. They have been treated appallingly by the housing association.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some incredibly important points. I have parallels in my constituency, as I am sure do other Members across the House. In one example, we have a managing company, a massive social housing provider and a partnership scheme, as he describes it, and the builder. It is a big organisation, but there is no overall ownership of the issues. Residents get utterly frustrated—I am thinking about Ellie, Matt, Sarah and others. There are 200 of them in this one development and they cannot get answers from anybody because no one is really taking ownership of the problem.
Matt Rodda
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he shows that there is a wider issue with this type of behaviour. It is deeply worrying. These are ordinary families trying to get on with their daily lives. They want to be able to find a home of their own in a high-cost area and they are being treated in the most appalling way by an organisation that should be much more responsible. As I have said, I, my office and local councillors have been struggling to find a way of solving this problem, but we have not had much success so far and would appreciate the Minister’s help. We hope that, at some point, Housing Solutions will compensate these poor residents for the way that they have been treated and, indeed, buy them out of their properties if possible. It is absolutely appalling to live next to a haulage yard. People are constantly interrupted by noise from HGVs, driving past at all hours of the day and night. The air pollution from diesel particulates and nitrous oxide is deeply worrying. There is no way of protecting children and other vulnerable people in that situation. I am sure the whole House would agree that no one wants that for their constituents. There is also an issue with planning law that needs to be addressed, by which I mean looking at the risks from air pollution and from putting housing in close proximity to an industrial development. I would appreciate the Minister’s help with that.
Finally, let me reiterate the points made by other colleagues about the wider issue of leasehold, which is a completely out-of-date system and totally unfair to first-time buyers and other householders—whether they be young residents, people in leasehold properties for long periods of time, or, as the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, older residents. This system should come to an end. It is a feudal system. Our country is unique in having such a system. Surely we need to end it once and for all and move on from it.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which includes an investment property that is a flat held on leasehold.
I join other Members in strongly condemning the abusive practices that have prompted this legislation, including the sale of new leasehold houses where there is no justification, and spiralling ground rents that double every few years. All the rip-off practices about which we have heard in the Chamber this evening are simply not acceptable. I, like others, very much welcome the investigation initiated by the Competition and Markets Authority into some of the major developers in relation to unfair contract terms and what looks like mis-selling.
It is clearly right to legislate to stop sharp practices in the leasehold sector. It is also correct not to apply the ban on ground rents to existing leases, as that would retrospectively impact on long-standing investments, many of which are held by pension funds that support millions of people in their retirement. Instead, the Government will be helping existing leaseholders by making it easier to enfranchise or buy themselves out of ground rent obligations, and through their second-stage reforms.
As the Bill proceeds through Parliament, we need—as I said in my intervention earlier—to consider the retirement homes sector, where, as we have heard, ground rents are often being used to generate the capital to fund communal areas and shared facilities. Including retirement homes in the ban could affect future investment in this type of much-needed housing. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said, there is a case for considering a technical change to the Bill so that at least the retirement homes built but not sold prior to the commencement of the Act in 2023 are covered by the current rules, rather than the new ones.
A second potential alteration that should be looked at carefully is whether to allow the continued use of ground rents for some large, complex apartment blocks. This matter has been raised with me by a constituent who is worried that the exit of professional freeholders from the market, which is the expected consequence of abolishing ground rents, will leave leaseholders moving into such buildings with extensive financial and legal responsibilities. These complexities are intensified if there is mixed residential and business use.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee acknowledged this issue in its 2019 report and advocated at least a temporary exemption for large, mixed-use buildings. If this carve-out were made, there would need to be a robust code of conduct to ensure that the remaining freeholders acted fairly. Violation of such a code should be subject to enforcement mechanisms. Having spoken to my constituent and his colleagues in the professional property sector, I think we need seriously to consider whether some leaseholders in some new blocks might want to have the option of leaving stewardship of their block to a professional freeholder.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend is making an important point. Would the code of conduct to which she refers—for those kinds of complex developments—include a cap on ground rents of, say, £100 or 0.1% of the value, whichever was lower, to ensure that the ground rent was always affordable?
Theresa Villiers
We would certainly need a cap, and the sort of levels that my hon. Friend mentions sound reasonable to me.
Let me turn to how this legislation will interact with new building safety laws. New building safety legislation will impose stringent responsibilities on freeholders, whether they are professionals or just flat owners who are banded together to manage their building. Frankly, not all leaseholders will want to take on such liabilities, yet this Bill will mean that for new flats, residents—whether they want this or not—will be jointly responsible for the safety, maintenance and upkeep of the apartment buildings in which they live, regardless of the size or complexity of those buildings. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) highlighted in his earlier intervention, worrying research in a 2019 report commissioned by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and Built Environment Forum Scotland indicates that the removal of professional freeholders in Scotland has contributed to buildings falling into disrepair. A key problem that has been identified is that difficulties in securing a majority agreement among leaseholders and getting all flat owners to fund the repair works needed can significantly slow down remedial work, and that pushes up costs.
Matt Rodda
I appreciate that the right hon. Lady wishes to make a point about the importance of shared ownership and the difficulties of managing the shared parts of a large block of flats. Has she looked into the way that this issue is managed in other countries, given that all western countries other than the UK do not have the leasehold system? Surely there are ways to manage communal areas other than by maintaining leasehold, which involves all the difficulties that we have heard about.
Theresa Villiers
The fact that English property law is unique does not necessarily mean that it is wrong, but I acknowledge that it is important to look at how other countries manage these issues. That is partly why it is instructive to look at what has happened north of the border. Of course, Scotland has a different legal system. Leasehold and commonhold have been a fundamental part of its system for a long time, and it seems that, in some instances, that is making it more difficult to keep buildings in a decent state of repair.
This is a very important Bill, but it needs careful scrutiny if we are to ensure that it protects leaseholders effectively from abusive and unscrupulous practices, operates fairly and avoids unintended negative consequences for the very people whom it was designed to protect.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Let me say to my hon. Friend the Minister how much I think everyone across this House supports his aim—I certainly do—of getting rid of some of the egregious behaviour that we have seen in the market in the past five years. That behaviour undermines the work done by those professional freeholders who have done a good job for leaseholders for many years.
We are right to look at the whole process of leasehold. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) described this Bill as the appetiser before the main course. A lot of us will welcome the main course, in which we can look at making it easier for leaseholders to extend their leases through simplification of the extension process, which I assume will come in that very complex Bill. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) was right to say that although progress has been not as fast as many would have liked, it is coming. I warmly welcome that.
This Bill is fairly tightly drawn: it is very much about the ground rents on future leases. I make only four points, and I would like those on the Treasury Bench to respond to them. First, a practical point: while we all welcome and recognise the work done by the Competition and Markets Authority, it is missing half the problem. On the many people who may or may not have been instructed to use solicitors recommended by the developer or their agents, those solicitors had an obligation and a duty to the client purchasing the property, for whom they were working. I strongly advise Ministers to talk to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about whether this should be looked at as a corollary of the work being done by the Competition and Markets Authority.
Secondly, I heard what the Minister said about doing away with ground rent and moving to a peppercorn that will not have to be paid. What I am not clear about—perhaps if I am on the Committee, we can explore this a bit more—is why anyone would not just transfer all the increase in ground rent to other charges. He said that there are protections in progress, but some of those will be really difficult to establish. We have talked about “excessive” admin charges, repair charges and service charges; I think that will be quite difficult for the Minister to define, and I look forward to exploring that with him. If I am not on the Committee, I hope he will meet me to talk about how we might make sure that that is more tightly defined.
My third and fourth points have already largely been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). If ground rents are taken to a peppercorn, freeholders are unlikely to want to be involved, so we will move to a system of commonhold in reality, rather than by legislation. That raises two issues. The first is: who will manage the blocks of flats, and how will that come into place? The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) mentioned that there are systems in other countries, but in complex buildings—those large buildings with mixed use underneath, or large-scale blocks of flats—a number of people will not want to actively participate in the management of that building; nor will it necessarily always be possible to bring them to resolution and agreement with the rest of the commonholders. For things to work, there may have to be an obligation on the commonholders to have a management company; otherwise, a number of repairs simply may not happen. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet talked about Scotland a moment ago.
My other major concern is this: if that provision is not there, and we no longer have professional managing agents or freeholders, who will ensure future building safety? I am interested to hear how the Minister intends to protect complex buildings. Commonhold can easily be seen to work in smaller buildings, but there is real concern about buildings over 18 metres and large buildings. If safety standards change in the future, who will force through building safety measures? I am keen to hear a response to that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher).
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in support of this Bill. I have one or two points to raise, but in general this is an excellent Bill.
For too long, many of my constituents who have realised their dream of owning their own home have been trapped in a cycle of cumbersome bureaucracy and additional, unnecessary and, frankly, unfair expenses in the form of both ground rent and service charges. Since becoming an MP, I have supported a number of these constituents, some of whom have told me that they were not clearly informed about the additional costs they were signing up to when buying their house—costs that have caused significant stress and hardship. I had hoped to provide an example, but unfortunately, all the cases are currently undergoing legal action, which only reinforces my point that change is necessary. I therefore welcome the Bill, which seeks to end these unfair practices.
Matt Western
I share a lot of the hon. Lady’s concerns about what her constituents are experiencing. Many thousands of new homes are being built, and constituents are frustrated and surprised when they discover that they have just bought a leasehold house. We understand that a third of leasehold properties are typically houses. Does she agree that where houses have been built as leasehold, surely the simplest thing would be to make them all freehold, and to get agreement with all the developers to reduce the cost of transfer?
Jane Hunt
I wonder whether that is part of the main course that is coming up. I am not sure; we will see, I suppose.
I think I got the same memo as my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), as I am going to talk about retirement homes for a moment. I draw the Minister’s attention to an issue I have previously raised with him. I have been contacted by a leading developer and manager of retirement communities, which has recently completed Mill Gardens and Farnham House retirement living in my constituency. McCarthy and Stone is concerned about the impact the Bill could have on the retirement sector, following the decision not to provide it with a concession from the ban on ground rents. While it is welcome that the Bill provides for a short transition period, it does not take into account developments that were in the pipeline before the position changed, and the impact that the provisions will have on schemes that will be part-sold when the legislation comes into force.
The proposals are likely to mean that retirement developments on which building started when ground rents were expressly permitted will find themselves split, with two lease structures operating in the same building. That is likely to cause legal complexity and on-site management issues, and to complicate future apartment transactions. It could throw into doubt the financial sustainability of some communities, on the basis that the collective ground rent income on which a development’s funding was predicated will be substantially reduced, even though the development has already been built.
Furthermore, financial contributions to the development costs of communal areas, which were previously shared transparently and equitably, will become complicated, and that risks a sense of unfairness and disunity arising between residents in the same block. I wonder, therefore, whether a modest technical change could be made to the Bill to allow for developments already part-sold to complete sales, so that all apartments operate on the same basis.
I heard the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the previous Secretary of State, on retirement homes and wonder whether a longer transition period for retirement homes would be better than one ending in 2023. That said, it cannot be right for buyers of new properties to face further financial demands for ground rent. House buying must be made fairer and more transparent, and freeholders and landlords must not be able to continue to amass significant profits from ground rent and, indeed, administration charges to the detriment of homeowners. The Bill is therefore an incredibly important piece of legislation that I wholeheartedly support.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after my former colleague in the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt). She made some good points, not least on part-built developments. I support the Bill’s intent.
There is an expression that you should never take down a fence until you know why it was put there. As I set out in my intervention, I have one or two particular concerns. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have been involved in the property sector for a long time. I am not directly involved in it today and I have no vested interest—that is for the people who make comments on Twitter in particular, because I will not agree entirely with many of the points made about completely scrapping leasehold, in effect. I am actually a leaseholder, rather than a freeholder, in this context.
On the leasehold system, for most of my life, when it comes to selling and renting property, leasehold has been a perfectly workable form of tenure for most people—for most leaseholders and indeed freeholders. In recent years, there is no doubt that the system has been tremendously badly abused. It is right of the Government to act on that in no uncertain terms. However, the fence to which I referred is between freeholders and leaseholders, and it was put there to try to ensure a proper mechanism for resolving disputes. That is why we ended up with a professional landlord who had an overall interest in an entire block, rather than in a specific unit in that block. The Bill will in effect remove any interest that a professional landlord would have in a future block. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) is therefore right that the default will become commonhold.
On freehold, in my formative years of selling property in York, most flats were leasehold, and those flats were perfectly saleable and rentable. However, if ever we came across a development of freehold flats—a block where all the owners were freeholders, or commonholders, in modern-day parlance—we found that those properties were almost impossible to sell. In fact, mortgage lenders would not lend on them because of concerns about maintenance. If there was not a method to ensure that the building was maintained or that its insurance continued, the building might fall into disrepair and the lender’s security over the property would not be sufficient to cover the mortgage. That is the concern we potentially have here, as we move to this system of commonhold. I think commonhold can work for quite a number of flats—most blocks of flats, indeed—if it is simple and easy to operate.
However, commonhold is far and away not, in any shape or form, a panacea. We can see that from the current experience. There are some effective leasehold or commonhold ways of managing blocks, with residential management companies or right to manage agreements, where in effect the leaseholders manage the block and take on the responsibility of a freeholder. However, there are disputes within such blocks or organisations. The trouble with the commonhold rules—as I understand it, and the Minister may tell me differently—is that each commonholder has the right to raise their own dispute regarding the particular property, and I do not think there is any clear means of resolving such a dispute.
Previously, in a leasehold agreement, the freeholder would have been able to say, “This is what is actually going to happen. These are the terms of the lease, and these are the terms of the lease that you must adhere to.” A simple example of that is the payment of insurance. As I am sure most Members in this debate will know, in a leasehold agreement the freeholder will normally arrange the buildings insurance for the entire block, which obviously covers communal areas, as well as things such as the roof. That would be the responsibility of the freeholder, who would pass on the costs to each individual leaseholder in proportion. If one leaseholder decides not to pay the insurance, the freeholder can say, “Well, you must pay the insurance”, and they can actually carry out debt collection on that leaseholder. If it is an absentee leaseholder, they can go even further: ultimately, they could disenfranchise that leaseholder completely, and take the apartment back from the leaseholder.
I know that that has been used in some draconian ways in leasehold, but generally there is a mechanism that makes sure everybody in the block pays a fair amount for maintenance and things such as the insurance, but I am not sure how that happens in commonhold. If somebody stops paying for their particular element of responsibility for the charges, I do not think there is any such mechanism. The others could take that person to court, but again, the problem is that the fellow residents—fellow commonholders—in that block would have to take one of their own residents to court, instead of a freeholder doing so who does not have a cheek-by-jowl relationship with the resident.
This is why I think we have some of the maintenance issues in Scotland, and in Scotland there are some big maintenance issues, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) mentioned. The hon. Member for Reading West asked about other jurisdictions. Australia has a very similar system, which I think is called the strata system. There are issues there about the recruitment of people to sit on the management boards, with 37% of companies expressing difficulties in recruiting residents to sit on these management boards.
Matt Rodda
I absolutely appreciate the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman is outlining, including indeed in relation to my constituency. I should say that my constituency is Reading East; Reading West is the COP26 President’s. In Reading and Woodley, which I represent, there are a number of private roads and other shared facilities where residents come together and share the ownership of assets. Certainly in my experience as the local MP and previously as a councillor, that can be done quite effectively. I do appreciate that there may be issues with very large blocks, and the point I was making to the right hon. Lady from Chipping Campden—[Interruption.] Sorry, I mean the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers); there are various interesting places around the country that we come from today. The point I was making is that we really should look at the wide range of jurisdictions overseas and try to work through some models of what is most appropriate in each given set of circumstances.
However, it is possible to bring residents together. Certainly, that is my experience locally, and in the example of shared private roads, that has been extremely successful. We have a number of areas where they are maintained to a very high standard, the residents all work together effectively and that is absolutely fine. So I do not think we should try unduly to put obstacles in the way of progress on this matter. At the end of the day, the real issue is moving on from this totally unequal system to one where individual householders are treated more equally, and work together in a collaborative and sensible way.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes some good points and I am not saying that in certain circumstances commonhold cannot work. He pointed to the simple situation of a non-adopted road to which local residents have to contribute for the upkeep and it can certainly work in those situations, but I am just trying to point out that there are situations where it would prove difficult to make the system work.
Every jurisdiction—those in Australia or the US or Scotland—is different, and the UK is unique in various ways, one of which is in having a high proportion of absentee owners, such as in central London, where we all see blocks of flats that seem to be rarely occupied. Problems might arise in managing such blocks with for instance 100, 200 or 300 commonholders; there might be disputes and difficulties, such as in debt collection.
On the point about simple things to manage, the biggest issue is complex developments, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet mentioned. Let us consider a block of 300 or 400 flats built above a tube station or adjoining a shopping mall; effectively there will be a common freehold in that development but would anybody here be keen to sit on a committee managing that entire block with, for example, joint M and E—mechanical and electrical—so joint electrical, heating, ventilation and broadband installations, managed not just between the 300 units but the other infrastructure in that development? There are concerns that that would be beyond the appetite of many commonholders who manage that kind of development.
Robert Jenrick
Yet it is done in every other country in the world—is that not the point? I share my hon. Friend’s reservations yet every other country in the world with equally complex cinemas and tube stations and infrastructure manages it in a way that is broadly commonhold.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend raises a good point and has an advantage over me as I do not know in depth how that would happen in, for instance, Manhattan, but I think we should understand that situation more before pushing ahead and ruling that commonhold will effectively become the default for every single development in the UK. The Government have done a great job in many things and one of them is in increasing the rate of development in the UK, and I have a concern that some developers might be inhibited in taking on a very complex project because of fears about selling the residential units or renting the commercial units. I just think we need to understand more before pushing ahead and rolling complex developments into the legislation, rather than exempting such developments from it as we on the Select Committee recommended and Lord Lytton recommended in his speech—he tabled an amendment.
I just think we should look at this area and make sure we get it right, because one law we constantly effect in this place is the law of unintended consequences and we must avoid that. So peppercorn leasehold and commonhold are fine, but we need to make sure we look at those complex situations. I personally think that if we do not find a simple solution and cannot demonstrate that it will work in the UK, because the UK clearly has some unique elements to the property market, then we should set a cap on the ground rent in exempted developments, for instance of £100 or 0.1% of value, whichever is the lowest, to make sure it is always affordable for leaseholders. I absolutely understand that this has been a problem, but we must make sure that developers do not avoid exploiting development opportunities—particularly brownfield development opportunities in city centres—because of complexities.
Aside from that, I am very happy to support what the Government are trying to do.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
This is a Bill not for the many but just for the new leaseholders. Ministers have now heard the speeches of all Members taking part in the debate and in one sense they all spoke with one voice: they welcome this Bill in its narrow scope as far as it goes. We agree that abolishing ground rents via peppercorn, and beginning to rebalance the system so that it works for those who live in homes rather than for investors who use them as income streams, looking only for returns, is a good thing. However, as Members have stated—I think we heard from around 11 speakers, including interventions—the Bill deals only with ground rents, and only with the future. The feudal system now unique to England and Wales is still alive and kicking; that is something that I and the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), agree on.
That is the issue with the Bill. For people already trapped in leasehold properties with high and escalating ground rents, it does nothing. For those trapped in flammable flats, facing soaring costs and crippling remediation bills, it does nothing. For leaseholders facing extortionate service charges without any transparency on where the money is going, or suffering from other unfair terms and conditions or limitations on enfranchisement, it does nothing.
We heard from my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who has constantly referred to this as the new payment protection insurance scandal. People across the House have referred to the obscure practices of recommended solicitors and so forth. The right hon. Member for Newark—I name check him again—referred to the Bill as an “appetiser” before the main course. I and Members across the House—certainly those of us on the Opposition Benches—would prefer an all-you-can-eat buffet of reform. My right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), who is a good friend, referred to the scamming in north Wales and the north-west, with a plethora of dodgy clauses creating a cash cow for some interesting people in the market.
This Bill could do so much more, and given that it has taken this long to get any progress on leasehold reform from the Government, we expect it to do more. It is, in many ways, a missed opportunity for the Government to make good on a long-held promise. This is a story we are becoming familiar with—a Government on the side of vested interests. They are a Government on the side of some big developers who see housing as an income stream rather than as homes to be owned or lived in; developers who contribute £1 out of every £10 that the Conservatives receive in donations—developers who should instead be held to account for bad building and bad management.
We expect from Ministers at the very least a clear timetable for the more substantive second-part reforms of the leasehold landscape. We expect to hear that those will happen in the not-too-distant future. The Bill tackles only new homes yet to be built. As Members across the House have said, it will leave us with a two-tier system with nothing to help people, including those in my constituency, who are experiencing problems right now. Will the Government outline why, instead of using the Bill as an opportunity to help people currently exploited through leasehold, Ministers have left them waiting once again by failing to apply this legislation retrospectively, as the shadow Housing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), spoke about?
Do the Government have any numbers on how many more people will join those currently scammed into buying leasehold properties on bad terms while we wait for more legislation? It is those current leaseholders—people such as Katie Kendrick and Jo Darbyshire at the National Leasehold Campaign—who have been pushing for these changes over the years. Alongside the brilliant people at the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, they have made the case time and again for doing better for those across the country who have been misled and taken advantage of. I also pay tribute to all members of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform.
Can the Minister answer why this legislation has arrived without banning houses being sold as leasehold properties? Just take a look at properties advertised on Rightmove for evidence. Local authorities will be keen to hear how Ministers will resource Trading Standards to conduct its new roles, as will I. I am also keen to hear what further action will be taken against those in the legal profession, as well as developers, who mislead. We also need to hear assurances from the Government on how they will tackle developers looking for new streams of income, for example so-called informal leasehold arrangements. Tackling ground rents only, this time around, means a risk of playing whack-a-mole. Banning freeholders from charging ground rents leaves them open—this was referred to by other Members—to finding new ways of replacing that income stream with other charges.
In conclusion, campaigners such as the National Leasehold Campaign, representing millions of leaseholders, are tired of consultations and bland statements uttered by Ministers about “When parliamentary time allows” giving the green light to foot dragging. This feudal system from a medieval era should be kicked into history, with commonhold as the default position. Our call to action and our amendments to the Bill intend to do just that.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I thank the Front Benchers from the official Opposition for their support for the Bill. I am grateful to them, as is the whole House. It is a pleasure to see them still in their places. We know there is an Opposition reshuffle going on. It must feel to them that it is taking as long for the Leader of the Opposition to conduct his reshuffle as it is to reform leasehold. We trust that we can get on a little bit quicker than he can.
It has been a real pleasure to listen to the debate unfold. We have had a valuable and considered set of speeches. One of the ornamentations, one might say, of our Standing Orders is that they allow right hon. and hon. Members to range freely across the terrain in a Second Reading debate, and that is what has happened tonight. As the House will know, the Bill is narrowly focused on leasehold ground rent reform, but the debate has allowed the House to debate more freely the wider question of leasehold reform, retrospection and other matters. We will be addressing them in future, but let me say, before I make some further and more detailed points, that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for his very thoughtful contribution. It sounds to me as though he is going to write me and the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), a very long letter. We look forward to working with him to resolve the issues he raised.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), and my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) for raising the issue of retirement sector ground rent reform. As the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, said, we have made it absolutely clear that the retirement sector has had an exemption of a further 12 months to get its business model in order. We believe that that is a right and proper amount of time, because there are a number of business models that the sector can use to effectively and appropriately levy reasonable charges that are transparent and fair on residents. It sounds as though my right hon. and hon. Friends may be interested in amendments. They know the process by which to pursue those, if they so wish. However, there will always be disparities between one set of buildings and another and between new buildings to which ground rents will not apply and older buildings to which ground rents will apply. I suspect that those differences will be factored into market calculations or will have little effect on the actual challenges that face residents.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The case for an amendment—I thank the Minister for his guidance in that respect—on the retirement sector is that it was clearly given an exemption and was assured throughout last year that that exemption would hold, but that exemption was suddenly withdrawn in January this year. Given the time that it takes to change the model and to sell such properties, this is crying out for amendment.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend; he is not so much an ornament as an energetic battery in this House. We look forward to seeing what further proposals he has in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) put his finger on it when he described how complicated the matter of wider leasehold reform is. He asked whether the Solicitors Regulation Authority and conveyancers will be engaged; whether tighter definitions will be employed; what happens in more complex developments to repair charges; and what the interaction is with the Building Safety Bill. That is why the Bill is so narrowly defined, as the Law Society advised—so that we can get on and deal with the most egregious offences on ground rents and then move on to the more complicated matter of wider leasehold reform.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) said in what I thought was a very eloquent and forceful speech, making it clear without saying a word how integral he has been to the advancement of these reforms, they are really quite challenging. We know that leasehold is woven into the tapestry of our law and our tort. We know that in parts of the country, particularly the north-west—I think you know it as well as anybody, Mr Deputy Speaker—businessfolk of yesteryear, factory owners, would buy land in order to build houses and tie workers to those factories. Unpicking those sorts of complicated arrangements needs to be thought through carefully. With an all-you-can-eat feast, as the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) knows full well, if someone stuffs themselves rather too quickly and rather too much, there may be unfortunate consequences down the line. We want to avoid those sorts of challenges with this Bill.
A great deal of thought has gone into the definition of rent to avoid the sort of loopholes that the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) mentioned. We want to ensure that we close loopholes that would allow freeholders or landlords to collect ground rent. We considered a closely defined meaning for “ground rent”, but at the end of the day, we came to the conclusion that that would be something of a fixed target, because experience teaches us that clever operators with clever lawyers often find loopholes in such circumstances. A flexible definition of rent will help us to ensure that the tribunal will have the flexibility to consider what actually represents a prohibited rent, even if it is not explicitly called “ground rent”—the sorts of prohibitive and prohibited charges to which she referred.
We have made it absolutely clear that we will introduce legislation to ban leasehold houses; we have made that manifesto commitment and will introduce legislation as soon as we are able. We will also ensure that the second part of our legislative reform addresses the challenges with respect to existing leaseholders and retrospection, because we are committed to addressing the historic imbalance in the system.
Meanwhile, I am grateful for the work that the CMA has done, which I hope the whole House will welcome. We want to make sure that the CMA moves as quickly as possible to tighten up on egregious practices; we look forward to its report and to the next steps that we will then undertake. I assure the House that we will move as rapidly as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) is not in his place, but he has certainly raised with me the issue of ground rent in future long leases. In January, we announced that we would legislate to change the way in which the cost of buying a freehold or extending a lease is calculated to make it cheaper and easier for leaseholders. I hope that that gives my hon. Friend some reassurance.
The Bill is the beginning of a process that we, the Conservative Government, have started and that others, for too long, have shirked. It will ensure fairness and transparency in our leasehold system. I look forward to working with right hon. and hon. Members across the House in the coming weeks to get this vital legislation on the statute book and working for leaseholders. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 9 December 2021.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.
Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords] (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. No Minister came to this House today to address the appalling situation for the 155,000 people across the United Kingdom who remain without electricity, following damage caused by Storm Arwen. Thousands of people in Cumbria—in Coniston, Haverthwaite, Torver, Hawkshead, Grayrigg, Shap, Alston, Troutbeck, Garsdale, parts of Windermere, parts of Kirkby Stephen and parts of the Cartmel peninsula—are now facing their fourth night without electricity.
We need support tonight to help the hard work and increase the numbers of the engineers who are working around the clock to fix the connections. That may well involve bringing in the Army. We also need support for the amazing community volunteers who are helping vulnerable people and families who are cold, hungry and suffering in other ways. After four nights without power, most people become vulnerable. Could you advise me, Mr Deputy Speaker, how we can make representations to Ministers so that we can see immediate action tonight?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. He mentions a number of areas in and around his constituency; areas in my constituency and those of others have also been affected.
I have been given no indication that there is to be a statement today on the matter, but you are a seasoned Member of Parliament, Mr Farron, and you will know that there are other devices that you may be able to use to raise the issue, either directly with Ministers or in the House. Also, the Table Office is always there to assist Members in pursuing the interests that they have.
I thank the hon. Member for raising that vital issue.
Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill (Ways and Means)
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Animals (Penalty Notices) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Victoria Prentis.)
Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act arising from the Approved Premises (Substance Testing) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Kit Malthouse.)
Business without Debate
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I ask your advice on how best we can congratulate Mr Speaker on the flying of the Lancashire flag for Lancashire Day—it is the first time in history that a county flag has flown from the Palace of Westminster—and congratulate and thank him for acknowledging the historic counties of the United Kingdom? Could you also, perhaps, gently relay to him that 26 October next year is Essex Day, and that I, along with my colleagues from the historic county of Essex, would be thrilled to see the flag of Essex flown proudly from the United Kingdom Parliament? If you could relay that to Mr Speaker, I should be most grateful.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I remember that when the flagpoles were dedicated, he suggested to Mr Speaker that it would be wonderful to see the flag of the county of Essex flown from one of those flagpoles. Mr Speaker said, “Aye, but not till after Lancashire.” He has been as good as his word, and I shall make absolutely certain that he is informed before tomorrow’s Prayers about the approval that the hon. Gentleman has given and his request that in October the Essex flag also takes its place on one of the flagpoles.
Andrew Rosindell
On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a matter of great sadness that this evening one of Her Majesty’s realms will cease to be a realm. Barbados is to become a republic. May I say how deeply sorrowful I feel, as I hope all Members will, at the loss of a realm that has been loyal to Her Majesty the Queen, and at the fact that this is being done without a referendum and without the consent of the people of that realm?
These, sadly, are the last few hours of Barbados as one of Her Majesty’s realms. May I also express my sorrow at the loss of those wonderful people who have been part of Her Majesty’s realms and the Commonwealth for so long? I trust that any other realms that decide to adopt a constitutional change of this magnitude will do so, but only once the people have given their consent, rather than simply as a result of a decision by the Government of the day.
I hope that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will relay this to those who need to know, because we are part of a great family, and to lose a member of that family today is a matter not just for sorrow, because it also feels like a great loss: it is like losing a proud member of our family. I hope you will take that on board.
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman knows that this is not a matter for the Chair, but I am aware of the importance that he ascribes to matters concerning commonwealth countries, and he has put his views on the record.
Civil Service Pay
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
In raising this important issue, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group.
May I begin by saying a few words about a personal matter? Today would have been my grandfather’s 99th birthday. My grandfather was a keen supporter of the Scottish National party, and, indeed, voted for it every time it featured on the ballot paper. He was a great influence on me, in ensuring that politics was discussed and debated. I want to pay tribute to my grandpa, and to thank him for everything he did for me. I hope that he is proud of me. He was of course a public sector worker too, and I am sure he would approve of the fact that I am raising the issue of public sector pay this evening.
The covid-19 pandemic has presented the United Kingdom with its biggest national crisis in decades. Workers in the civil service and its related areas have risen to the challenge, and have rightly been lauded as heroes by the Government. Plaudits, however, are not enough. Those workers have faced over a decade of pay freezes and pay caps which have seen their living standards fall by about 20% in real terms.
I am sure we will hear the Minister say that austerity is necessary in order to manage public finances, so let me start by putting that myth to bed. Austerity has done enormous harm to the public finances through the strangulation of living standards, investment and economic growth. It is a policy widely recognised by every reputable economist as a complete and utter failure, and workers in the civil service have been hit particularly hard by that failure. A study by Dr Mark Williams of the University of Surrey in 2018 found that average annual growth in median pay in the civil service had been up to 1.9% below inflation since 2010; that the erosion of pay in the civil service had been greater than in the rest of the public sector and that it had fallen up to 11.4% behind the rest of the public sector since 2010; and that women had been particularly hard hit, with the gender pay gap standing at 12%.
Let us not attempt to explain this away with false comparisons with workers in other sectors, or with references to the national finances and the economy. In my view, Ministers constantly change their position on this issue when it suits them. If borrowing is up, they say that they cannot afford pay rises, and if inflation is going up, they say the same. Despite the squeeze on living standards, private sector wages are going up, but they simply ignore that comparator. The Government need to stop doing this, and start taking responsibility for the welfare of the staff.
I happen to believe that the Government’s approach has been a disaster, particularly for workers on low pay. They cannot claim to want a high-wage civil service while Departments scramble around on an annual basis to find the funding to raise pay levels to the minimum wage. During the pandemic, they laud civil servants as heroes, but their pay policy makes them paupers. There is little doubt that civil servants have become the poor relations when it comes to pay in the public sector, and it is frankly disgraceful that the Government should treat their own workforce in this manner.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He has a substantial amount of time in which to put forward his case. Does he agree that middle-income families who receive no help from the Government in any shape or form need to have a pay rise to help with the substantial cost of living? Does he also agree that Ministers must be mindful, when rightly uplifting pay levels, that they should increase the cap for child benefit at the same time? If there is one thing they could do to help the middle-class, it would be to increase the cap for child benefit.
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He will know the importance of the role that the civil service has played in Northern Ireland in developing the peace process and helping the Northern Ireland economy. I am sure that, like me, he will pay tribute to civil servants in Northern Ireland for that. I agree with his point, and he will hear later some examples of what the pay freeze has meant for civil servants and the real pressures that they are under. I hope he will intervene again when we come to that.
To add insult to injury, in November 2020 the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a pay freeze for those workers for 2021. In my view, that was totally unacceptable, and it is high time that the Government properly recognised the contribution that their workforce make to society, particularly in an atmosphere of rising inflation and falling living standards. It was therefore welcome to hear the Chancellor’s recent autumn Budget announcement on the lifting of the pause on public sector pay. That announcement was accompanied by a statement that the normal process of independent reviews and recommendations would be resumed.
However, as the Chancellor should know—I am sure the Minister does—the civil service does not have a pay review body. The question therefore arises as to what mechanisms will be used to determine civil service pay, and I am now going to ask the Minister my first question. Assuming that the Chancellor is sincere about the pause being lifted, can he confirm that there will be no fetters on pay bargaining in the civil service this year, and that there will be no arbitrary cap on pay awards contained within any civil service pay remit guidance?
That brings me to the importance of pay coherence and coherent pay policy. Ever since the financial crash in 2008, and more recently during the pandemic, the Government have insisted that we are all in it together and we must be united in our efforts to overcome the difficulties we face. However, they continue to foster a divisive approach to pay arrangements for their own workforce through the delegated pay system. This needs to change if the Government’s words are not to ring hollow.
Against that backdrop, I highlight PCS’s long-standing objective of securing a return to national bargaining on pay and terms and conditions covering all workers in the civil service and related areas. The delegated bargaining system has created a wholly unacceptable situation where workers doing broadly the same job at broadly the same grade suffer huge disparities in pay. Similar inequities exist in relation to annual leave and working hours arrangements. The delegated system is also unnecessarily costly, time-consuming and inefficient as a result of the replication of the same process across every bargaining unit, where one set of negotiations would suffice.
On this issue, again, the Government always change their position. They claim they cannot direct Departments that have delegated authority on pay, yet they persist in centrally mandating things that Departments must do. For example, they instructed all Departments last year to pay £250 to staff earning below £24,000 a year. It is therefore demonstrably the case that the Government are the single source from which all civil service pay arrangements emanate.
Another example is that, under freedom of information, we know the departmental permanent secretaries got together in February 2018 to agree the joint position across all Departments that there would be a pay rise of 1% to 1.5% for public sector workers. I find it extraordinary that there are 200 separate pay negotiations across UK Government Departments but one pay policy.
In recent years PCS has entered a number of pay reform agreements within Departments that have put right some of the structural discrimination and inequities that exist. In the Home Office, the Department for Transport, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Ministry of Justice, agreements have been reached on pay reform that have secured good negotiated outcomes for all concerned. PCS will rightly be continuing to press for an expansion of this approach, and it should be encouraged by the Government.
Last year, alongside its national pay claim to the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, PCS submitted single sectoral pay claims to chief operating officers of parent Departments at delegated level. As a step change towards national bargaining, PCS indicated that it stood ready to engage and to start discussions on how sectoral claims may bring a greater degree of coherence to current pay arrangements.
These proposals sought to reduce the number of bargaining units at sectoral level from 55 to just 13, with scope for further rationalisation over time. Indeed, PCS indicated it was prepared to discuss business cases in respect of workforce reform that may enable funding to be provided to address the structural inequities. Astoundingly, given the Government’s rhetoric on their commitment to efficiency in the public sector, there has been almost no progress on that concrete proposal that would deliver the efficiency they claim to desire.
PCS rightly intends to repeat this approach in 2022, and I seek an assurance that the Government will grasp the opportunity to improve efficiency in pay bargaining across the civil service. Will the Minister confirm that he agrees with the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, now the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, when he told the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs on Thursday 10 December 2020 that
“trying to tackle some of the balkanisation of the process of pay, reward, recruitment and so on—creating what has been called in a vogue phrase “one civil service”—is a very good thing”?
Will the Minister also confirm that he will turn those words into action by engaging in a proper way with the civil service trade unions to achieve greater coherence on pay across the civil service, including a full exploration in all delegated areas of the business case processes for pay reform? In addition, will the Cabinet Office proactively assist delegated areas in developing successful business cases? Will steps be taken to involve the trade unions properly in the task and finish group on pay delegation and related matters, which has been established in Whitehall, but about which the unions have so far neither been informed, nor consulted?
That brings me to the impact of the civil service pay policy. At Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday 17 November, the Prime Minister said:
“I think that actually the Department for Work and Pensions, under the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), has performed outstanding service. It has performed miracles. Among the things that it has achieved is helping to get millions of people effectively back into employment, in spite of all the difficulties that we have faced. We now have unemployment running at virtually record lows, in spite of all the difficulties we have faced in this pandemic and as we come out of furlough. That is largely thanks to the work of the DWP.”—[Official Report, 17 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 579.]
In response to those words of praise, the PCS trade union received more than 50 emails from individual DWP workers about the toll that more than a decade of real-terms pay cuts have taken on them. Some commented that they felt embarrassed to be a government worker, and that they have had to ask friends and family for handouts, and have even turned to food banks. Many are seriously considering leaving the DWP, not because they do not like the job, but because they cannot afford to stay. The following are just some examples of comments received by these government workers for whom the Prime Minister had such high praise. These describe in devastating terms the impact that continued pay restraint is having on civil servants and their families, and what a real pay increase would mean for them.
Jim Shannon
One issue I recognise in my constituency, from my weekly or even daily dealings with some workers, is that workers in the DWP do an extremely stressful job. They are looking after the financial affairs of others, and are trying to guide people through the system and help them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the hard work they do in the DWP must be reflected in the wages they receive?
Chris Stephens
Yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. I am sure he will be fully supportive of, and will recognise, some of the statements from DWP workers who responded to the Prime Minister’s words earlier this month. As one DWP worker put it,
“I have been coming into the office during the whole of the pandemic and I am now totally disheartened and angry that DWP put so little value on the work that the staff do. Now there is a great improvement in the jobs market staff are leaving all over the place... The powers that be have to do the right thing and award us a decent wage rise otherwise there will be very little experienced staff left.
I never thought when I took up this position that I would ever have to send an e-mail like this one letting people know how hard it is to make ends meet in 2021.”
Another said:
“I have worked for DWP for nearly 17 years, those years of which I felt proud to work for my government. Now I feel embarrassed. I work hard, as I always have. I have two children to bring up and can honestly say I’m on the breadline. My family suffer financially, with the rise in cost of fuel bills, food...everything has gone up but our pay....absolutely disgusting. Our government doesn’t look after its own workers but expect us to be loyal and perform an outstanding job...which we always do.”
Another DWP worker, a single parent of two, said:
“My son works as an apprenticeship who receives more wages than me. I have considered using the food bank but not keen in letting them know where I work as ashamed my employers can’t seem to look after their own staff. I have used a food hub before as no details were given. When I receive my wages at the end of the month there is nothing left by the 1st of every month. I am unable to save so no holidays. I am unable to save for Christmas so everything goes on credit card which I ran up nearly £2,000 of debt.
I have worked for your company since 2008 and have never felt the struggle that I do now. Food prices have rocketed and gas and electric have also gone up, how do you expect families working for a government organisation to cope when you don’t give them the wages to reflect the price rises now. I am ashamed to be working for the DWP.”
A DWP worker for almost 20 years said:
“Having a pay freeze has meant that I have to choose between having my heating on or feeding my family. Yes these struggles are real even for the Hard Working Civil Servant!...As a mum I have concerns for my children’s wellbeing when I have to tell them that they cannot go to the after school clubs or go out with their friends because I can’t afford it. They are suffering mentally taking on my worries as well when I tell them that I can’t get them a birthday or Christmas present that they deserve. I have had to take on a 2nd job in the evenings so that I can afford these for my children leaving me less time to be with them. A Civil Servant should not HAVE to work two jobs to pay bills and live…Having a pay rise would alleviate a lot of my worries. It won’t make me rich but my family would be able to live without the worry of deciding to put the heating on, have a substantial healthy meal or afford to put clothes on our backs. We shouldn’t be made to beg for help from various charities.”
A Department for Work and Pensions administrative officer said:
“I’m not quite at the stage of having to choose between heating and eating but I fear that I may be in that position in the near future. Add to that the state of our pensions and I fear that I may never be able to retire. I really don’t know how I am supposed to save towards my retirement on what I am paid…Boris Johnson said a little while ago that employers must pay better wages so when is he going to follow his own advice and pay us a wage that we can actually live on and save for our future?”
Another DWP worker said:
“Personally I am struggling on my pay to make ends meet and really dreading the next Gas/Electric bill. My water rates have also gone up and food prices are just getting ridiculous even though I shop as cheaply as I can using certain low-price supermarkets. I am single and my son lives with me just so I can afford my rent and even that is a struggle…It would be really helpful to receive a decent pay rise given that inflation is certainly rising and before long I will not be able to meet my cost of living. Staff in DWP deserve to be recognised properly for all our hard work during 2020 making sure the people of our nation who urgently needed help with money received it. All staff worked tirelessly to ensure the nation’s needs were met so not are we only helping them back into employment we were there when they weren’t and needed us the most.”
Another administrative officer, who works in the Child Maintenance Service, said:
“I cannot name any colleague who is not feeling that we have been demoralised by the government’s total insensitive behaviour following the Government announcement of a Public Sector pay freeze in November 2020. Did not every DWP employee rise to the challenge during covid ensuring payments for children still were upheld and our colleagues in the benefit office maintaining benefit payments to the people whose lives were thrown into turmoil?...At 61 years of age I am now financially worse off than I have ever been. This morning my gas and electric supplier…sent me a letter stating last year my annual bill for gas and electric was £900.00 and they are increasing my direct debit now because with the rise in energy prices they are estimating it to be £1900.00 this year. Please tell me, ministers who voted for the pay freeze for your loyal civil servant of over 20 years, how am I going to pay this bill?”
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Child Maintenance Service, with which my staff and I have regular contact. One problem that we have when we take child maintenance complaints through the system is changes of staff. Why are there changes of staff? Because the remuneration that the civil servants in that department need is not there. Does the hon. Gentleman feel, like me, that a civil servant wage is necessary for staff in that department we are to retain staff and have continuity of staff in respect of complaints—in other words, if we are to ensure that when people make contact, they can speak to the same person they spoke to the first time?
Chris Stephens
I could not have put that better myself. The hon. Gentleman, representing his constituents in Northern Ireland, will certainly be aware of the importance of Child Maintenance Service payments, and of payments for those who are not in work and who rely on universal credit. He is right that civil servants have performed miracles, given the huge numbers of people who were on universal credit during the pandemic, and I know he agrees that they should be properly remunerated and given a decent wage rise for their wonderful efforts.
A civil servant of 39 years has said:
“I currently work for the DWP. The Prime Minister and other politicians always give us credit for the work that we do and for how we have coped through the pandemic, delivering our services. We have been called miracle workers. It would be great to see that reflected in a decent pay rise. I am lucky if I get an extra £5 a month every year when we get our pay rise. With the costs of electricity, gas, food, and travel all going up, my family are really struggling to make ends meet.”
A civil servant of 42 years told me:
“I have been in the civil service for 42 years and have never found it so difficult to manage financially. I am still working from home and have to sit in a room with thick clothes and one small electric heater as I cannot afford the heating bills. I am disabled and I cannot see the future at all. After giving my whole working life to the service of others, making a difference to our DWP claimants’ lives, I would appreciate a wage that enables me to keep up with rising living costs. My wage has reduced in real terms for decades now, and with rising costs it will reduce again. I’m 62 with many health conditions and cannot consider taking a second job. I feel really abused and forgotten by my employer who I have shown only loyalty and commitment particularly during the pandemic.”
Another DWP worker has said:
“I have always been proud to work for the Department of Work and Pensions and consider it to be a great place to work. Family and friends expect it to be a well-paid job as we are ‘working for the Government’, so I always feel disloyal when asking to borrow money or not being able to afford a day out or having to buy small presents for birthdays and Christmas. I want my children to know that you reap what you sow, and that if you work hard you see the rewards. Sadly, at this time, I do not feel that this is the case for me.”
A DWP worker who was forced back into the workplace has said:
“With increasing fuel and food prices, I am finding it incredibly hard to survive financially. I am widowed, I live alone and am unable to make ends meet. Furthermore, I have to find £200 a month to travel to work, as face-to-face appointments are now being forced and we are no longer allowed to work from home. It would appear I have to resource my own ‘miracles every month’, whilst being in a very demanding role. Moreover, my health and wellbeing are currently suffering. I am by no means alone, and have many colleagues in the same position.”
A full-time work coach, a mother, has said:
“I am relying on my child benefit to cover electricity and gas for my family next week, until I receive my next pay in almost two weeks’ time. This is due to rocketing energy prices, rocketing fuel costs and childcare costs that I need to cover. My wages are simply not enough to cover all of these costs and I am left struggling every month. I have been with the Department since 2006 and have never known it to be this bad.”
Another employee in the Child Maintenance Service has said:
“My wage has dropped to just above the minimum wage and my workload complexity has increased. I’m worried sick about the basics: affording heating; paying travelling-to-work costs; and trying to pay the overdraft. In the meantime, as a frontline worker, I have to stay positive and professional whilst dealing with the emotional and financial issues of the public. I don’t treat the public with platitudes the way that I am by successive Governments.”
As the hon. Member for Strangford made clear, it is an emotional job. These staff have to deal with many of the public’s emotional and financial issues. That, to me, says it all when it comes to the question of why a pay rise is necessary.
An administrative officer in DWP has told me:
“I joined DWP last year during the first wave of the covid-19 pandemic and received a salary of £21,262. My monthly salary is £1,442.65. My monthly expenses including rent and bills is £1,265, leaving me with less than £180 to cover my work travel and food expenses.”
Another child maintenance officer—for over 23 years—said:
“I am stuck on an income that doesn’t even cover my bills which are rising every year. Is anyone going to help the staff who have been loyal to the Child Maintenance Service for years? I actually love my job, but am so disappointed with the pay. We deserve more.”
A civil servant who joined DWP in 2016, who said that they were paid significantly higher in their previous Department, has said:
“I am stuck on an income that doesn’t even cover my bills which are rising every year. Is anyone going to help the staff who have been loyal…for years? I…love my job but am so disappointed with the pay, we deserve more.”
A DWP worker who is nearing retirement age says:
“I am retiring in May 2022 so the pay freeze has seriously affected my pension. I will be on a lower pension for ever and ever and there’s no compensation. I really have lost out as have a lot of my colleagues in the same situation.”
Another DWP worker says:
“I am struggling to keep a roof over my head, feed and clothe my daughter and have not bought clothes/shoes for myself in over a year. Without support of family would honestly be in real state. My 75 year old father supports me from his pension which is not great either.”
A work coach says:
“As a Work Coach we have put ourselves and our loved ones at risk throughout the entire pandemic by interacting with many customers to ensuring they received the upmost support…Myself and my colleagues have helped countless people transition from the national lockdown and from losing their jobs into finding new light in a brand new sector of work. The DWP have worked long hours to ensure our customers are getting the support they need. We ourselves sacrificed time with our loved ones to ensure our Nation got back to its once thriving self and all we have received was a thank you and a pat on the back! Actions speak louder than words and never more so in our current climate…Needless to say the world around us is increasing in price dramatically. A pay rise would reflect the rise in living costs and allow us to keep up with the rapidly increasing inflation.”
Those are just some examples from one Government Department, but civil and public servants are experiencing the same difficulties right across Government services. Employers are experiencing recruitment and retention problems because of this, and staff continue to face very real hardship. There is also a clear economic case to end pay restraints and give a real-terms increase to civil servants. The benefits of a real-terms increase would outweigh the costs. Before the pandemic, about 70p in every £1 of public money ended up in the private sector economy, whether in grants, contracts or, crucially, the wages of public sector workers. The pandemic can only have increased that 70p figure.
In my experience, workers and civil servants do not have Cayman Islands accounts to put their wages in, and neither do they place their wages in a shoe box and hide it under their beds. No, they spend their money in the private sector economy—in the high street and the hospitality sector, buying additional presents for their family or spending more putting their clothes in for dry cleaning. Not only do they keep the economic wheels of the country going in their work; they do so with their hard-earned wages.
The realities of the examples provided by those who work in the civil service, the compelling moral case and the undeniable economic case can only begin to be rectified by funding for real-terms pay increases across the civil service and related areas for this coming year. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this important debate, and welcome the opportunity to respond. I know that, in his role as chair of the PCS parliamentary group—a position that I think he still holds—he shares my interest in matters relating to the civil service.
At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to his grandfather. Although, of course, I did not have the privilege of knowing his grandfather, may I say that I am sure that his grandfather would be proud of him, not only for the speech that he has just given to the House, but for his service to his constituents as a Member of Parliament?
Across the House we all know that civil servants are committed to delivering vital services to the general public. That is what they do; it is the essence of who they are. Ministers are enormously proud—I include myself in this category—of the dedication and professional commitment that civil servants across the board and of all grades demonstrate in delivering public services and the Government’s priorities, particularly during what we know has been a very challenging time. Civil servants of all grades have played a vital role during the pandemic to maintain public services, and will have performed functions that will have saved lives.
Civil service pay is determined by separate processes for delegated grades—typically grade 6 and below—and the senior civil service, which is calculated separately. For delegated grades, the Cabinet Office publishes the pay remit guidance on an annual basis. The pay remit guidance is a cost-control document setting out the parameters of average awards in a pay remit year for Departments. For the senior civil service, it is different. The Senior Salaries Review Body makes independent recommendations to the Government based on evidence provided by the Government, with recognised trade union data and labour market data added into the equation.
In 2011, some 10 years ago now, the Government took a tough but fiscally responsible decision to implement a two-year pay freeze. That was followed by a 1% pay award between 2013 and 2017, applied across all workforces in the public sector, as many of us will recall. There is no doubt that these were difficult decisions but they were fiscally responsible ones that we had to take in response to the then economic position—a position, I need to say, that we had inherited from the previous Labour Government. Those responsible decisions ensured that the Government rewarded hard-working civil servants, which is as it should be, while enabling the UK to tackle the huge deficit that had grown. The sustainable pay structures that we put in place at that time supported many civil servants and prevented us, as a society, from burdening our children and grandchildren with even more debt that accrues. In the years post 2017—from 2018 to 2021—the 1% pay cap was lifted and the civil service received pay rises of up to 2.5%, which was actually higher than inflation at the time.
In the face of huge uncertainty and the unprecedented impact that the covid-19 coronavirus pandemic had on the economy, the Government temporarily paused pay rises for the majority of public sector workers in 2021-22. We ensured that those who most needed it had the protection that they needed, with 2.1 million public sector workers with median earnings at or under £24,000—therefore many of the individuals whose accounts the hon. Gentleman relayed to the House—receiving an increase of at least £250, equivalent to over 1%.
In his most recent spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the end of the temporary pay pause in the public sector, including the civil service, starting from the 2022-23 fiscal year and throughout the duration of the spending review period, right the way through to 2024-25. During this forthcoming period, these increases will retain broad parity with the private sector while continuing to be affordable. It is thanks to the strong recovery in the economy and in the labour market that Her Majesty’s Government have been allowed to return to a normal pay-setting process. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer also announced the increase to the national living wage of 6.6% to £9.50 an hour from April 2022 for those aged 23 and over, which will benefit more than 2 million of the lowest paid workers in the country. That will keep us on track for our target of the national living wage rate being two thirds of median earnings by 2024.
The public sector has on average better remuneration packages when compared with the private sector. That is not a well-known or acknowledged fact, but it is true. In 2019, the Office for National Statistics reported that the public sector benefits from a 7% on total remuneration compared with the private sector. In 2020, the median salary in the public sector was £1,770 higher than the private sector. That gap is most acute at the lower grades, where the public sector average hourly wage is 20% higher than the private sector.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for his personal remarks, which are very much appreciated.
The Minister talks about public sector pay, but does he acknowledge the study from Dr Williams from the University of Surrey, which suggests that civil service pay is lower than the rest of the public sector? Can the Minister tell us what he and his departmental colleagues will do to rectify that situation?
Michael Ellis
I look forward to reading that report, and I will certainly have a look at it, but there is no getting away from the fact that when one looks at the last fiscal year, the public sector was being paid on average £1,770 higher than the private sector. That is particularly noticeable at the lower pay grades, where we find that public sector pay is 20% higher than private sector pay. I am happy to look at the figures he wishes to bring to our attention, and I will do that, but the premium I refer to also reflects the generosity of civil service pensions when compared with the private sector. Most members are in what are called defined-benefit schemes, where employers contribute around 27% of earnings. In contrast, most private sector employees receive defined-contribution pensions, which are dependent on investment performance and where employer contributions are typically around 50% of those in the public sector.
Following the outcome of the spending review, the Cabinet Office—my Department—is assessing what the affordability position will be for Departments to make pay awards going forward. The 2022-23 pay remit guidance is due to be published in spring next year, just a few months from now.
The hon. Gentleman made a powerful speech, with some moving contributions from people who had written to him and to others. I am confident that when we announce the 2022-23 civil service pay remit guidance, we will continue to strike the all-important balance between appropriate reward for hard-working civil servants and the need to live within our means as a nation and recover, as we need to do, from the economic impact of the pandemic.
Chris Stephens
I am grateful again to the Minister, who has been typically generous. When the Cabinet Office looks at the remit guidance, will it consider the nonsensical position of having all these different negotiations—something like 200 of them—taking place across Departments and reduce them while ensuring that pay across the civil service is equitable for the work done?
Michael Ellis
The hon. Gentleman makes an attractive argument for a reduction in the number of discussions. The rationalisation of those issues is always worth looking at, and I will ask my officials to look at that aspect.
I remain confident that when the Government announce the 2022-23 fiscal year civil service pay remit guidance, the focus will be on striking the balance expected of us by the general public between appropriate rewards for those hard-working individuals in the civil service—as one of Her Majesty’s Ministers, I know how hard civil servants work and I recognise the work that they do—and the need for all of us, in a fiscally responsible society, to live within our means. The Government have fiscal responsibility for that. We will strike that balance and together we will recover from the painful economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England) Order 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain distancing as far as possible. That is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in Parliament or at home. Ministers and Members should send their speaking notes by email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Similarly, officials in the Gallery should communicate electronically with Ministers.
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 Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (Amendment to Schedule 3) (England) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. We know the importance of helping businesses to prepare for and efficiently respond to a public health emergency, and the point of the order is to help businesses in that way in the event of a future public health emergency. Key to that will be reducing regulatory burdens imposed on businesses due to regulations introduced to control the public health emergency. The order adds
“Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (c.22), Part 2A as it applies in England”
to schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. It brings part 2A, and regulations made under part 2A as they apply in England, within the scope of the primary authority scheme. As a result, businesses in England that participate in the primary authority scheme will now be able to receive consistent advice on meeting the regulatory requirements imposed by regulations made under part 2A through a single point of contact.
Part 2A provides, among other things, that regulations can be made to prevent, protect against, control or respond to the spread of infection or contamination, including radiation, which presents or could present significant harm to human health, including by conferring functions on local authorities. It provides for a local authority to apply to a justice of the peace for the making of a time-limited order to reduce or remove the risk that a contaminated or infected person, thing or premises who or that poses, or could pose, significant harm to human health infects or contaminates others. It also provides for regulations to be introduced promptly under an emergency procedure.
To be within the scope of the primary authority scheme, legislation has to be in an enactment specified in schedule 3 or be made under an enactment specified in schedule 3, or be made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and related to a particular specified matter. Accordingly, to bring part 2A, and any enactments made under part 2A as they apply in England, within the scope of the scheme, it has to be added to the list of enactments in schedule 3. Under section 4(4) of RESA, that needs to be done by an order of the Secretary of State.
RESA establishes a statutory framework for a business to form a partnership with a local authority—I will call it a primary authority from now on—to receive support and tailored advice from that primary authority in respect of complying with legislation that comes within the scope of the scheme. A business is entitled to rely on primary authority advice received in its dealings with other local authorities, so the business avoids the cost and regulatory burdens associated with the inconsistent interpretation and application of the law by different local authorities. That gives businesses confidence in the regulations being applied consistently, allowing and encouraging them to invest resources in complying with them, such as through staff training and putting policies in place.
Consequently, the public are better protected, as businesses find it easier to comply with regulations. In addition, local authorities can access, through a central primary authority register, primary authority advice that is given to a business in respect of a regulation. That enables the local authorities to avoid duplication of enforcement and to target high-risk areas. Where a local authority proposes to take enforcement action against a business that participates in the scheme, the primary authority will review the proposed enforcement action and consider whether it is consistent with the primary authority advice that it has previously given to the business.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have been here a long time—16 years—and I do not think I have ever seen a regulation that is so impenetrable in its actual actions. I want to give the Minister a bit of time to inject some inspiration. I wonder if he can give an example of how the regulation might work for a real business in a real scenario so that we can get to grips with what is actually being laid out. It feels a bit like something from Sir Humphrey—it is utterly obscure and impenetrable at the moment.
Paul Scully
It is indeed a technical scheme. On primary authorities, instead of having businesses go to the local authority for any area it might operate in, the regulation allows businesses to go to one local authority that has been appointed to tackle such a scheme. It already happens in various areas, such as trading standards. The regulation brings the particular public health order within the scope of the overarching scheme of primary authority. One local authority can effectively take the lead in interpreting and setting out the enforcement approach for public health emergencies. Unfortunately, the complexities of the technicalities that underlie the scheme mean that it gets technical very quickly.
Paul Scully
That is a good question, and I will come back to it in a second. We have worked together to come to this point, and businesses support what we are doing here. The regulation has been a long time in the making. Local authorities face a lot of challenges in interpreting at pace the regulations made under part 2A to reduce the impact of the covid-19 pandemic, as well as the associated burdens experienced by businesses in trying to comply with all of that. Business stakeholders, local authorities and trade associations have offered strong support for bringing part 2A within the scope of the scheme. In November 2020, the British Retail Consortium, which represents more than 170 major retailers, wrote to the then Business Secretary—now the COP26 President —to request that part 2A be brought within scope. The context for that request was that, in 2020, around 46,000 businesses with an existing primary authority partnership received informal advice on coronavirus regulations made under part 2A.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way and for making excellent progress in explaining the legislation. First, can he clarify that the regulation is about businesses that have locations or sites in multiple primary authorities, and would therefore be subject to competing advice? Secondly, does the regulation allow the businesses to choose the primary authority they receive advice from, or is that designation—on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South—made by somebody else?
Paul Scully
It is exactly as the hon. Lady describes: the regulation concerns businesses that operate in different areas. The Secretary of State will designate the primary authority.
I can give one example of where the provisions have previously helped simplify the enforcement and interpretation of regulations, which concerns the primary authority for supermarket health and safety—the covid expert panel—which is made up of several primary authority officers and their business partners. The panel promoted active engagement with local authority enforcement teams and external bodies under health and safety legislation, which is in scope of the primary authority scheme, and remained at the forefront of their commitment to compliance in order to ensure that consistency.
Yes, the Secretary of State will designate the primary authority, but it gives businesses that are operating in multiple areas the confidence to know they will have a single set of rules to follow that are consistent, and enforcement will be consistent as well. That is what I mean about the fact that 46,000 businesses with an existing primary authority partnership are getting informal advice—that is about as consistent as it gets. That is why the British Retail Consortium and other business stakeholders are keen to ensure in any future public health emergency that businesses can get that primary advice, rather than having to rely on different interpretations across the board. We know the current pandemic is unlikely to be the last public health emergency that the country will face. It is therefore important that the order ensures primary authority advice can be given in respect of legislation made under part 2A in the event of future public health emergencies.
In conclusion, as I have said, the order widens the scope of the existing scheme, enabling businesses to receive primary authority advice on meeting regulatory requirements introduced by regulations made under part 2A through a single local authority. It reduces the regulatory burden on businesses in England when complying with regulations brought in to control and contain a public health emergency, with the result that the public are better protected and local authorities can regulate more efficiently and effectively. I urge the Committee to approve the order.
Chi Onwurah
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship on this important piece of legislation, Dame Angela. As the Minister has set out, the legislation is being considered with a future pandemic in mind. It seeks to amend schedule 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, or RESA, to bring part 2A of Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 within the scope of the primary authority scheme. As the Minister set out, the scheme is a framework for a business, particularly one with multiple locations, to form a partnership with a specific local authority, which is therefore the primary authority, to receive support on particular pieces of legislation.
A primary authority can support a business in many ways, such as by issuing primary authority advice that must be followed by other local authorities where the business operates, which are therefore deemed the enforcing authorities; by co-ordinating enforcement action proposed against the business and assessing whether it is consistent with a previous primary authority advice issue to the business; or by developing an inspection plan, which sets out national priorities for routine inspection of a business and provides information about compliance policies that are in place. In other words, it provides a formal way for a business to receive local advice on particular areas.
The legislation extends the advice that can be provided to include health protection regulations of the type brought in during the covid lockdown. In the event of a future pandemic, that would allow businesses to receive consistent and reliable advice on complying with the regulations from their local authorities. The Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act was introduced in 2008 under Labour. It established the primary authority scheme, which allowed local authorities and fire and rescue authorities to become primary authorities.
Through the schemes, businesses could partner with primary authorities and receive advice on meeting environmental, health, trading standards or fire safety regulations through a single point of contact, rather than having to deal with different points of contact in different local authorities and each of the local authorities in which they might operate. The partnerships are available to any type of business, regardless of size or experience. Businesses can join the partnership directly, or they can belong to a trade association and benefit from a co-ordinated partnership. They are also able to engage in multiple partnerships, receiving advice on different regulatory areas.
The 2008 Act allows businesses access to authoritative advice on areas of regulation, while allowing regulators to support local economic growth through stronger business relationships and more effective regulatory compliance. Businesses are only asked to cover the recovery costs of any advice they receive from a primary authority, allowing the Act in normal times to provide a cost-effective way of encouraging regulatory compliance. The amendment to schedule 3 seeks to add part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. Basically, by doing so, it would allow primary authorities to advise businesses on public health measures.
Any measures that we can take to support businesses to keep their employees and customers safe, and to recover and continue through the pandemic, are important measures to take. Labour recognises that we need to do all we can to make life easier, not harder, for businesses, and to make sure that advice can be clear and consistent. Providing clarity and consistency is the job of Government.
Unfortunately, throughout the pandemic we saw businesses struggling with covid measures, particularly given the often confusing and chaotic advice handed to them by the Government. In July, the Government washed their hands of responsibility and passed the responsibility regarding face covering and NHS covid passes to businesses, with no consultation with either businesses or unions.
As I am sure all Members of this House have done, I have met and spoken with businesses and representatives of businesses during the pandemic who felt incredibly let down, as the Government seemed to pass the buck when it came to the responsibility for taking action. Those businesses felt that they were not equipped to make public health decisions. They needed clarity and consistency in order to be able to plan ahead. There were also concerns about the lack of economic support for businesses and about the miscommunication in that regard. However, we cannot expect this piece of delegated legislation to do everything.
Our economic recovery has undoubtedly been weakened by the Government’s mishandling of public health and economic measures, a situation that is compounded now by the lack of any clear long-term growth plan. Such a plan is urgently needed.
We note that the explanatory notes state that
“business stakeholders, local authorities and trade associations in England have requested that this change be made”—
as the Minister has said—
“to enable a more uniform approach to the interpretation and application of regulations made under Part 2A of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.”
Giving businesses the opportunity to receive consistent and straightforward advice on public health issues will not only help to protect the public but will aid businesses in coping with any health-related regulatory changes.
I have just a couple of questions for the Minister. First, in relation to public health advice, is there expected to be any cost recovery from businesses for the cost of any advice they receive from a primary authority, and what discussions has he had with business organisations about this matter? I ask this question because the impact assessment outlines a potential net benefit to businesses of approximately £20 million over the next decade.
Secondly, as we have discussed, the Minister said that the Business Secretary will designate a primary authority. Could he set out that process in a little more detail? Will the Business Secretary designate a primary authority for each business that might benefit from a primary authority? In the past, concerns have been raised that businesses could shop around between local authorities to choose a primary authority whose advice and interpretation they felt they would most benefit from. I assume that that will not be the case, because the primary authority will be designated by the Business Secretary, as the Minister set out.
Finally, we note that the Welsh Government have chosen not to pass consent on this amendment, following a move earlier this year by the Welsh Government whereby they wrote to all local authorities to achieve a similar outcome through voluntary recognition of the primary authority scheme in relation to covid regulations. I am sure that the Government will continue to work alongside the Welsh Government and share experience about what is working well and what should be shared as good practice across our nations, and for consistency in planning where businesses may work across our four nations. Labour recognises the importance of the amendment in the draft regulations, and its potential to offer effective advice to business in any future health crisis. We therefore support this amendment being made to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act.
Paul Scully
Wales has public health delegated to it, and it has decided to go a different way. We will indeed work with the Welsh Senedd in ensuring that, even if we have a slightly different approach, we show a consistent face to business, because it is really important that businesses operating across Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England have as much consistency as possible. As I said, the Secretary of State is indeed responsible for primary authorities, and provides the web-based primary authority register that supports the scheme. A business that receives advice from its primary authority, known as primary authority advice, is able to rely on that advice in its dealings with all local authorities by virtue of the fact that a local authority that proposes enforcement action against the business is required first to notify the primary authority.
That authority is then able to direct the local authority not to take a proposed action if the primary authority decides that it would be inconsistent with the original primary authority advice that it gave. That is what provides the certainty for businesses, but businesses can approach a local authority that has been working with the original primary authority that it may have sought enforcement action from or dealt with at an early stage. Ultimately, it will be the Secretary of State who is the arbiter to ensure that it is not just about shopping around for businesses, and that there is a level of control within this.
In terms of the business impact, over the period 2021-30 the expected one-off set-up costs for additional businesses to join primary authority schemes amounted to approximately £75,000 to £378,000. That is based on the likelihood of a public health emergency of 1% to 5% a year. That is 2,500-odd additional businesses a year that will be encouraged to form partnerships with a primary authority on account of being able to receive primary authority advice in the event of a public health emergency.
In a typical business year, the median annual cost to businesses of receiving primary authority advice is approximately £2,105. That is weighted by the estimated use of primary authority advice on part 2A regulations at 25%, reflecting the fact that 75% of primary authority advice would not involve advising on them. In terms of what the monetary or other benefits to businesses would be, businesses would wish to join the primary authority scheme only if they expected it to deliver a net benefit to them in the first place. No business will be compelled to join any primary authority scheme. That is why, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central said, we expect including part 2A within the primary authority scheme to be a net benefit to business.
I have talked about the fact that the order brings within the scope of the primary authority scheme part 2A as it applies in England, as well as any enactment made under part 2A as it applies in England, which is really important for the reasons that I have outlined. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Airport and Ground Operations Support Scheme
(2 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings and to maintain social distancing as far as possible, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and staff plenty of room when seated and when entering and leaving. Please can Members send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion in the name of Grant Shapps relating to airport and ground operations support scheme winter 2021-22 renewal that this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, sums exceeding £30 million with an estimated total sum of £44 million, to be made available, through the extended airport and ground operations support scheme announced in the Budget, to eligible commercial airports and ground operators to compensate for the continuing damage caused by covid-19 to the aviation sector, on the basis of business rates liabilities or covid-19 losses, whichever is lower, from October 2 March 2022, subject to certain conditions and a cap of £4 million per eligible company.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Nokes. I would like to update Members on the evolving situation regarding the omicron variant. As right hon. and hon. Members will have seen, the Government have taken steps to ensure the safety of the country. As of Sunday morning, 10 countries are on the red list. Scientists at the UK Health Security Agency are monitoring the development of this new variant closely, and laboratory testing is underway to assess its transmissibility, severity and vaccine susceptibility. The results of those investigations will determine any further public health actions, which may be necessary to limit the impact of the new strain.
Travel guidance has been updated, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continues to offer tailored consular assistance to British nationals in-country in need of support overseas. The managed quarantine service is running for new arrivals from countries on the red list. We continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations in order to have a uniform approach, although they are, of course, responsible for administering and implementing their own regulations.
Notwithstanding the emergence of the omicron variant, it is important to note how far we have come since May, when the Committee was last together to consider the matter that concerns us today: seeking Parliament’s consent to use powers in section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. I began my speech in May by remarking that the Committee was considering this matter at what is one of the most challenging—if not the most challenging—periods faced by this industry and our country. We still find ourselves in those difficult, strange and testing times, particularly in the context of the aviation sector, which I have the honour to serve as Minister.
We have seen enormously positive change since we met in May, with restrictions now significantly relaxed and the transatlantic corridor finally reopened after an unprecedented 18-month closure. The industry is emerging from a situation in which it has been heavily impacted. Despite these positive developments, the sector enters a winter season that even in pre-pandemic times would have come with challenges. With consistently lower passenger numbers year-on-year, the winter represents the most challenging period for what is a highly seasonal sector in any event. Airports and ground handlers have long relied on strong summers to offset weaker winters. Due to the pandemic, where airports and ground handlers have largely seen two consecutive loss-making summers, with demand at less than 50% of 2019 levels, there simply has not been that fruitful period to provide liquidity to tired airports and ground handlers through the testing winter months.
As I have mentioned, there is a continued watchful eye on the emergence of new variants and how they will impact the recovery we have seen thus far. In this challenging time, when the financial foundations that underpin the sector and its recovery continue to face challenges, the Government recognise the need for protection—both in the short term, to ensure the continuity of the operation for essential services, passengers and freight; and in the longer term, to ensure the endurance of the sector and the preservation of aviation capacity and connectivity, which is so important to the our shared objectives of building back better and levelling up the country. This is particularly important as we consider the impact of the Union connectivity review, which was recently published by Sir Peter Hendy.
As I have mentioned, it is right that we continue to support the aviation sector at this highly challenging time. It is one of the sectors that have been hardest hit by covid-19. We want to provide a funding and liquidity bridge to take the sector through the winter, and unlock the stability and prosperity that summer 2022 offers. That is the reasoning behind the Chancellor’s announcement of the renewal of the airport and ground operations support scheme in the autumn Budget. The renewed scheme will, subject to the House’s approval, be a continuation of crucial support to the sector. Eligible commercial airports and ground handlers will be able to access a grant up to the equivalent of their business rates liabilities or covid-19 losses—whichever is the lower—from October 2021 to March 2022, up to a per-claimant cap of £4 million, subject to certain conditions.
The extension of the six-month airport and ground handlers support scheme, or AGOSS, which I initially announced a year ago in November 2020, represents a vital tool to support the sector through the challenges of the winter before the summer peak of 2022, which offers the prospect of the sector finally regaining stability and pre-pandemic prosperity.
To continue to provide that fundamental financial relief, the Government intend to use the powers laid out in the motion, under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982. That Act requires Parliament to provide its consent to use those powers where a project will exceed £30 million. We estimate that the total sum of relief provided under the scheme will be around £44 million.
As I have said in my brief remarks, it is clearly crucial that we continue to guarantee the future of our essential aviation infrastructure to support our sector’s recovery. I therefore ask that the Committee supports the motion.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. On behalf of the Labour party, may I commend you on your extraordinary personal bravery recently? It will help women across the nation to come forward in future.
The Minister is right that it has been a bad weekend for the industry, through nobody’s fault. The omicron variant has led to new PCR tests and new uncertainty in the aviation sector, and it will be quite a blow for the industry during the winter, just as we thought we were beginning to make progress. As the hon. Member for Crawley knows, I visited his constituency on Thursday—I am very grateful to him for allowing me to do so—to visit Gatwick airport. Those at Gatwick were hopeful that things were beginning to come back to normal, despite the slots issue that the airport faces. Passenger numbers and the capacity of flights were increasing. The one thing the airport wanted was for there to be no further uncertainty, but unfortunately we now have uncertainty again.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is still in the main Chamber announcing measures on wearing face masks in shops and on public transport. We really should not have taken those measures away. I am sure that we would all agree that the health of the British people should not be a culture war, and that keeping people safe is the first priority of the Government and of Her Majesty’s official Opposition. I say to the Minister that we have not had a credit card’s thickness of difference between us in our public health messages over the last year or so. I hope that we can continue that co-operation.
We all know that the covid-19 crisis has already had a devastating impact on the whole aviation industry, which contributes £22 billion and 267,000 direct jobs, with a further 1.5 million people employed in the supply chain. The UK is home to the largest aviation sector in Europe and the third largest on the planet. My own constituency is home to Manchester airport, a key gateway to the north. The economic benefits and jobs it brings to the north-west of England are vital to the region and to my constituents, and that will be mirrored by every airport across this great nation.
A number of airlines and airport operators announced further plans to make a significant percentage of their workforce redundant, and that situation will not be helped by the sad news this week. The expectation is that, with a second missed summer season and without further Government support, there is potential for a number of major companies in the industry to cease operating.
With the fast-evolving changes in the nature of the coronavirus pandemic, we cannot predict a return to business as usual for the sector. For that reason, I and my colleagues in the Opposition have continually called for a sectoral deal, only for those calls to fall on deaf ears. I know the Minister agrees that aviation must remain a critical part of the UK economy. More than a year ago, the Chancellor promised an aviation sectoral deal. That has still not materialised, and what is laid down in this SI is not it—£4 million will not touch the sides of the help needed for some of our airports and ground handlers in this country.
I have previously stated on the record my belief, akin to a latter-day Richard Cobden MP, that if we restrict somebody’s trade and their way to make a living, we must compensate them meaningfully. I do not want to give a lecture on the corn laws, but that truth is as relevant today as it was 200 years ago. We should not forget that the Government’s stated ambition to level up our regions will be dealt a significant blow if such an important sector is allowed to go without any meaningful support. We can see the problems currently occurring at Cardiff airport for that reason.
When we consistently called for a sectoral deal, it was to support the whole aviation industry. A deal would have secured jobs and protected the supply chain while the industry learned to stand again on its own two feet. We would also have continued to press for higher environmental standards; it is vital that the aviation sector becomes more environmentally sustainable. But to protect against short-term unemployment and stimulate that change, the Government must take action now to ensure that long-term needs are met.
I cannot see how increasing air passenger duty for some passengers and removing it for others will help the charge to decarbonise aviation, but that is one of the crumbs that the industry is supposed to be grateful for. Even as we transition to a green economy, protecting jobs now so that they can be reskilled for the future economy is critical. It is far easier to transition our aviation sector to greener aviation from a position of strength than a position of weakness. Yet again, this—
The Chair
Order. I remind the shadow Minister to stick to the airport and ground operations support scheme, please.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Nokes, and always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. He is always welcome at Gatwick, as long as he does not travel a little further south and knock on doors in Crawley to try to win voters down there.
I rise briefly to warmly welcome this extended support for airports and ground operators. It will be a significant help for airports such as the one I represent, Gatwick, and across the country. At that point, normally, I would have sat down, but my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the omicron variant of covid-19 and its effect on international travel, and I cannot let that pass. I think the Government have reacted swiftly and proportionately to that threat, until we know the full extent of it, but the imposition of PCR tests for those returning to the UK from international destinations, at least for the next three weeks, will be a huge disincentive to travel, with people perhaps reassessing plans for the Christmas holiday period.
I know the Department for Transport and the aviation Minister get that point, and that it is a broader Government issue, but I put in a plea for a cap on the cost of those tests, and hopefully an ability to review in three weeks’ time—
Robert Courts
I very much appreciate the points that the Committee has made today, and I will answer them briefly, if I may. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and I have sparred across the Chamber on many matters over the course of the past year or so. Although we do not always agree on everything, there are some things we really do agree on, and the real importance of the aviation sector to this country is certainly one of them. We also agree, of course, about it becoming a more sustainable industry, and he knows I will point to the Jet Zero Council and the other work we are doing as proof positive that that is taken seriously by the Government as well.
We will continue to consider how the industry may best be supported at what we all accept is a very challenging time. The hon. Gentleman will know that I will refer to the approximately £8 billion of support that the sector has received from the Government and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley says, this is the latest instalment of that—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that this support is significant.
Turning to my hon. Friend’s points, he raised the question of PCR tests. I understand that that is an extra challenge for the sector, but it is simply so that we can have the genomic sequencing we need so that we have the data. In three weeks’ time, that will be reviewed—but, as a responsible Government, we keep all our policy under review at all times.
More broadly, regarding the motion itself, we have a recovery and we have made great steps, as I said at the outset, but we still need to be cautious. That is the reason the Government have taken these steps, but the sector’s recovery remains fragile because of previous restrictions we have had to impose, and there is a challenging winter period coming up. While demand is recovering, it is still suppressed, and that is why we offer this support to secure jobs, maintain cash flow and safeguard vital infrastructure, in order to provide the conditions for the sector to bounce back into the future. I commend the motion to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members that they should wear face coverings except when speaking and unless exempt, and maintain social distancing as far as possible. This is in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give one another and staff space when seated and when leaving the room. Members should have a covid lateral flow test twice a week, either at the testing centre in Portcullis House or at home. If Ministers and Members have speaking notes, it would be greatly appreciated by officials if they could send those notes electronically to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Amendment) Order 2021.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Stringer. The instrument amends the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations Order 2007, which established a certificate trading scheme known as the renewable transport fuel obligation. The RTFO promotes a market for renewable fuels and places obligations on larger suppliers of fossil fuels to ensure the supply of renewable fuels. Since 2018, that main obligation has included a sub-target supporting the uptake of development fuels. Development fuels are made from sustainable wastes or renewable energy. They deliver higher carbon reductions than traditional biofuels, and include fuels of strategic importance such as aviation fuels, drop-in fuels and renewable hydrogen. The amount of renewable fuel, including development fuel, to be supplied under the obligation is calculated as a percentage of the volume of fossil fuels supplied in a calendar year. Those obligations are met by acquiring certificates that are awarded for the supply of sustainable renewable fuels. The trade of those certificates provides a revenue stream for suppliers of renewable fuels.
The draft instrument delivers several commitments made in our transport decarbonisation plan, which was published in July. It increases the main RTFO obligation level from 9.6% to 14.6% by 2032, continuing at that level in subsequent years, and makes a corresponding change to the development fuel sub-target, ensuring that it is not reduced in absolute terms. The instrument further expands RTFO support for suppliers of renewable hydrogen. It does so by extending certificate eligibility to renewable hydrogen used in maritime vessels and in fuel cell-powered rail and non-road vehicles. Importantly, as targets for the supply of renewable fuels increase, this instrument further strengthens the sustainability and greenhouse gas emissions savings criteria that renewable fuels must meet.
The changes made by this instrument will make an important contribution to achieving UK carbon budgets. As we transition to zero-emission vehicles, we cannot ignore carbon emissions from conventional road vehicles, and increasing the supply of renewable fuels is the best abatement option for many such vehicles. Those low-carbon fuels will increasingly be required in the aviation and maritime sectors. The increase in targets for the supply of renewable fuels in this instrument can deliver carbon reductions quickly, and will provide investor certainty. Expanding eligibility for renewable hydrogen used in maritime and fuel-cell vehicles is an important transitional step, which will encourage the innovation needed to increase deployment of low-carbon fuels in transport sectors that are more challenging to decarbonise.
This instrument is a small part of the wider work that we are undertaking to drive down carbon emissions from liquid and gaseous fuels. Work is progressing at pace to consider further RTFO support for hydrogen, building on the summer consultation. That work includes better supporting hydrogen production plants located away from sources of renewable energy. We will respond with further proposals on the treatment of hydrogen under the RTFO early next year. Similarly, it is our intention to make recycled carbon fuels eligible for support under the RTFO scheme, once primary legislation is secured.
Recycled carbon fuels could play an important role in decarbonising aviation, supporting the aim set out in our net zero strategy to become a leader in sustainable aviation fuel. The net zero strategy contained £180 million of new funding to accelerate the commercialisation of UK SAF production and our ambition for 10% SAF to be blended into UK aviation fuel by 2030.
Beyond 2030, we are developing a long-term strategy for low-carbon fuels to meet decarbonisation challenges across transport sectors. The strategy, to be published next year, will set out the likely transition from road to other transport sectors, and examine the size of the opportunity for UK industry and the ways in which Government policies could support these changes.
In the here and now, it is worth noting that the RTFO delivers around a third of the savings required for the UK’s current transport budget. In 2020, the RTFO scheme saved carbon emissions equivalent to taking 2.5 million combustion-engine-powered cars off the road. The changes in this instrument are estimated to deliver carbon reductions equivalent to the removal of an additional 1.5 million cars from the road by 2032.
This instrument builds on the success of the RTFO scheme and is an important part of our future work to decarbonise transport. I commend this statutory instrument to the Committee.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. In 35 years of knowing you, that is the first time I have referred to you as Mr Stringer. I have referred to you as many other things during that 35 years, but they may not be for the public record.
I put on record that the Chairman and I were together on Thursday night to mark the retirement after 25 years of Councillor Sir Richard Leese, the leader of Manchester City Council, but it must be remembered that Manchester’s renaissance, which gained pace under Sir Richard, was started by the Chairman when he was leader of Manchester City Council for 12 years.
Mike Kane
That marks nearly 40 years of continuous leadership by two politicians. I am eternally grateful to the Chairman for taking me under his wing as a very young councillor in the great city of Manchester. Okay, I have embarrassed you enough, Mr Stringer.
The statutory instrument amends the renewable transport fuel obligations order 2007, as the Minister rightly said, and will help further to increase carbon savings by increasing renewable fuel targets and expanding the renewable transport fuel obligations to sectors with limited alternatives to decarbonise, such as maritime.
While we welcome the SI, it does not go far enough. We need to be doing much more radical things if we are to decarbonise the transport sector. The covid-19 pandemic has dominated headlines, but we cannot forget that we are still in a climate emergency and that green, efficient transport is the future. As transport is now the largest contributing sector to UK emissions, it is worth reinforcing the need to reinvest in our communities and offer true levelling up across the regions. We needed a radical plan to decarbonise and get polluting vehicles off our streets, but what did we get in the autumn spending review? A cut to air passenger duty for domestic flights, a devasting announcement on HS2 and the abandonment of most of Northern Powerhouse Rail. That will not take 1.5 million cars off our northern roads any time soon.
The UK hydrogen strategy, which the Minister mentioned, identifies transport as the key early market for hydrogen in the 2020s. While the new policy plans outline long-term frameworks for business models, these will not come into effect until 2024-25. The Government’s offering ranges from absolutely zero to nowhere near enough, and every shade of not much in between. The Government’s unambitious approach to something that we all know and agree is vital to our future should be a major concern for us all.
Internationally, Governments are investing billions in alternative fuel markets. For example, Germany has invested €9 billion in its hydrogen markets and France has invested €7 billion, whereas our Government are under-investing and hoping to stimulate private investment through smaller targeted funds. If the UK were to invest properly in research, technology and infrastructure, we could truly become world-leading in this technology. For instance, Hamburg port alone is investing £100 million in decarbonising itself. The Government here have announced a fund for £20 million for the whole country for a competition. It really is not good enough.
There are a couple of areas where the Government have not gone far enough and are examples of why we are struggling to offer support. The Government have announced that they will ban the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles in 2030—a policy with which we agree, as it was our policy too. However, there is no commitment to phase out the sale of second-hand vehicles. Another example of something for which the Opposition have been calling for some time is the formal inclusion of international aviation and shipping emissions in future carbon budgets; however, we still need to see detailed, specific plans on how those sectors will be decarbonised. As I said, all the efforts are being undermined by plans to cut air passenger duty on domestic flights.
You and I, Mr Stringer, represent a city that started the industrial revolution and saw the beginning of the mass extraction of fossil fuels to fund a new world order. It would be great if we could have a commitment from Government that our regions and great cities in the north will not only decarbonise but grow wealth and jobs in those regions, and lead the world in reversing what we started.
Trudy Harrison
I thank the hon. Member for his interesting comments. The UK’s sixth carbon budget requires a reduction in emissions of 78% by 2035 compared with 1990 levels. That will require rapid action across the economy, supported by technological innovation. The changes in the instrument to expand the support currently provided by the RTFO for renewable hydrogen and to foster that innovation send a clear message for future low-carbon fuel investments. The increase in the RTFO obligation by 5% to 2032 is beyond ambitious. It is also necessary to reduce the environmental impact of conventional vehicles that use petrol and diesel. It is achievable, based on the availability of sustainable feedstocks, and it is widely supported by fuel suppliers, including suppliers of fossil fuels that would be obligated.
With the ongoing support of the RTFO, the UK fuel sector can play its part in helping to drive the UK’s transition to net zero and the green jobs that it will bring. The hon. Member referred to a number of measures that he would like to see. I remind him that, as we set out in our transport decarbonisation plan this July, we have made a commitment to phase out the sale of petrol and diesel cars from 2030, and that all cars and vans will be zero emission at the tailpipe from 2035. We have made a commitment on heavy goods vehicles: 26 tonnes from 2035, and then larger vehicles from 2040. We have set out our commitment for sustainable aviation fuel: 10% by 2030. I think that he, and Members across the Committee, would agree that we are making huge progress in the decarbonisation of transport. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy
Are trade unions involved at any of the Jet Zero Council discussions?
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am grateful to her for it. I have a great deal of sympathy with people who ask for the membership of the Jet Zero Council. We have to have a finite number of people on the council, simply because it is a technical body and has to be able to produce results, but trade unions are involved in the sub-groups, which I will spend a moment talking about, particularly to put right some of the misunderstandings.
[Official Report, 21 September 2021, Vol. 701, c. 84WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts):
Errors have been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
The correct response should have been:
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, and I am grateful to her for it. I have a great deal of sympathy with people who ask for the membership of the Jet Zero Council. We have to have a finite number of people on the main council, simply because it is a technical body and has to be able to produce results. Trade unions are also not currently involved in the sub-groups, which I will spend a moment talking about, particularly to put right some of the misunderstandings.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Access to Salbutamol Inhalers
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with current UK Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the estate, which can be done at the testing centre in Portcullis House or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 578676, relating to access to salbutamol inhalers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I begin by thanking the creator of the petition, Brian McElderry, who took the time to speak with me recently, and Elaine Cunningham, whose daughter Lauren Reid died as a result of suffering an asthma attack while working in a commercial kitchen because she did not have access to her inhaler. I am also grateful to Asthma UK, which supports the petition and provided many of the statistics that I will reference.
More than anything else, Lauren was known for her generosity. On the day she died, she called her gran to say that she was buying lunch for 10 of her co-workers. She was a beloved Rangers fan and she loved music and, of course, cooking. She was devoted to her job and worked so hard that she finished her apprenticeship a year early. She was only 19 years old.
Lauren had suffered from asthma since she was an infant. At 16, she became an apprentice at a restaurant in Glasgow and, three years later, she was a fully qualified chef. Her mum has talked about how Lauren kept her inhaler with her almost everywhere she went; but with severe asthma, one attack can have life-changing consequences.
We do not know why Lauren did not have her inhaler with her, or what triggered the attack, but on this occasion she did not have it when her asthma flared up. The first Elaine knew of the incident was when she received a call from Lauren’s boss to say that Lauren was struggling to breathe and needed her inhaler. The asthma attack led to cardiac arrest and, although her manager gave her CPR, she could not be revived.
Lauren was hospitalised with severe brain damage. Her friends and family stayed by her bedside round the clock but, a few days later, Elaine had to make the heartbreaking decision to turn off her daughter’s life support after doctors said that she would never recover. Since then, Elaine has been campaigning for Lauren’s law, which would legally require salbutamol inhalers to be stored in commercial kitchens.
The UK has one of the highest rates of asthma in Europe, which costs the NHS £3 billion every year. Sadly, we also have one of the highest asthma death rates generally—nearly 50% higher than the European average—and for people aged 10 to 24, it is the highest. Unfortunately, the rates of asthma nationally are going up, not down.
In the UK, 200,000 people suffer from severe asthma. In Scotland, where Lauren lived, one in 14 people receive treatment for asthma and in England, the figure is one in 11. Those statistics demonstrate that asthma is a relatively common condition and, although it is manageable for most people, it remains a serious risk for those who have it. Most people with asthma are acutely aware of that and carry their inhalers with them, but Lauren’s story shows that one attack without an inhaler on hand is enough to cause serious harm or even death. We have all forgotten something in our time.
Working in a commercial kitchen poses more of a risk for people with severe asthma than most other settings, which is why the inhalers would be only for staff, not restaurant customers. Asthma UK considers a high-risk environment to be one where the triggers for an asthma attack on the respiratory system are exponentially greater than in normal environments.
In commercial kitchens, that includes the presence of inhalable materials such as powder, flour, dust and sometimes toxic fumes. Heat and humidity are also known to cause asthma attacks. Compounding those issues is the fact that stress can make a person more likely to react to asthma triggers; I think most people would agree that professional kitchens are not known as a calm environment. One might be tempted to argue that if kitchens are such a dangerous place, perhaps people with asthma should not work in them, but I do not think that is the only or best solution to the problem.
Inhalers are an effective way to treat asthma attacks. They are self-administered and do not require any previous training. Adding one to the first aid kit that professional kitchens already have would be an easy way to make them a safe environment for employees with asthma. At the same time, salbutamol inhalers are a prescription medicine, so keeping an emergency one on hand is not as simple as picking up a spare one from Boots. Keeping asthma inhalers in commercial kitchens would require an exemption from prescription control, which would have to be granted by passing legislation.
The salbutamol inhalers currently in use have been licensed for more than two decades. Their risks are well known. Side effects are typically mild and do not last long. When the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, whose representatives I met last week, looked at the effect of salbutamol inhalers on children, for instance, it found that they would not cause serious harm if accidentally given to a child without asthma or one whose sudden breathing difficulties were not caused by asthma.
Although overuse of salbutamol inhalers can sometimes cause problems, the petition seeks to keep them in kitchens only for emergency use, and their stocks could be easily monitored. We have a precedent for this already. Since 2014, an amendment to the human medicines legislation has allowed schools to store emergency inhalers for asthmatic students.
Asthma is not an uncommon condition, and working in the food industry should not be impossible for people with asthma. Keeping asthma inhalers in commercial kitchens would be a simple, inexpensive way of reducing the chance that anyone else will suffer the same experience as Lauren. I am therefore asking my hon. Friend the Minister whether the Government will commission research on the benefits and risks of requiring salbutamol inhalers to be kept in professional kitchens. That research could then be reviewed by the MHRA, which would make its own recommendation on whether to change the law. I know that that is a long process and today’s debate will not cause any immediate change, but I do hope that it raises awareness and is the first step towards creating Lauren’s law.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie, and to follow the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher)—we keep meeting each other in Westminster Hall.
Today’s debate is of huge importance, and I am grateful to the almost 2,000 of my constituents who took the time to sign e-petition 578676. My constituency had the second highest number of signatories in the UK, clearly showing how strongly the community in and around Glasgow feel about the petition’s aims.
The events that prompted this petition are devastating. We have heard how Lauren Reid, who was just 19 years old, suffered a severe asthma attack at work. Tragically, she did not have her inhaler with her at the time and she passed away later that week in hospital after becoming starved of oxygen during the attack. Nineteen is no age to pass, and I cannot imagine how difficult it has been for Lauren’s family and friends in the time since. It is horrible to think of this as preventable, but I do hope that today’s debate can serve as a step forward to ensuring that these events are not repeated in the future. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has a debate next week on asthma outcomes, which I hope will further contribute to recognition of the seriousness of this illness and what can be done to protect sufferers.
Before moving on to more general points, I would like to commend Lauren’s mum, Elaine, who has pursued Lauren’s law tirelessly throughout what will undoubtedly have been an exceptionally painful and difficult year. Her loss is unimaginable and her commitment is admirable. She has my full support in her campaign for salbutamol inhaler provision in commercial kitchens.
Asthma is a common chronic condition. It is more common in Scotland and the UK than in most other places in the world. More than 8 million people, or 12% of the population, have been diagnosed with asthma. According to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, it accounts for 2% to 3% of all primary care consultations, 60,000 hospital admissions and 200,000 bed days per year. Interestingly, although it is more common in boys in childhood, it is actually most prevalent in adult women, such as Lauren. As we have heard, one in 14 people in Scotland is currently being treated for asthma. It is also estimated that occupational asthma accounts for 9% to 10% of adult onset asthma.
It is widely accepted that commercial kitchens can both aggravate existing asthma and trigger it in people who have previously never had any symptoms. That is because commercial kitchens have a number of irritants. The use of powder substances such as flour, which is in daily use in most kitchens, is one of the biggest triggers. Current advice for people who develop occupational asthma is to consider a change in role or career. That might seem like reasonable advice: why would someone continue to put themselves at risk once they know the triggers? Realistically, however, it is not—not when there are other options that could help people manage the problem and stay in the job they love. When reading about Lauren, her passion for her work shines through. Nobody should have to choose between their passion and their health; the two do not have to be mutually exclusive.
I said earlier that asthma is a common condition, and kitchens are not the only workplaces where occupational asthma is prevalent. It is also triggered by allergens that affect hairdressers, agricultural workers, mechanics and healthcare workers. If something can be done to mitigate the impact of occupational asthma or to ensure better outcomes when someone suffers an attack, it should be. Making sure that salbutamol inhalers are available in high-risk environments is an easy thing to do. We already know that it can be done, because we allow non-prescription inhalers to be kept in schools.
In conclusion, I am sure the Minister and her Government colleagues support these measures but they have to abide by the human medicines regulations. I urge her to commit to a review and ask the relevant bodies to explore whether inhalers can be provided to commercial kitchens.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Hosie, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place, and I am convinced that I will get a decent response from her on the issues I raise. I think we are all convinced of that, and I look forward to her contribution. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for setting the scene so well, as he always does, on a matter that is of some interest to me.
I am the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokes- person at Westminster, so I want to be involved in these issues. I am also the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on respiratory health, so this is a topic in which I have a particular interest. As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said earlier, we will have a debate on asthma next week, and it could well be that the Minister will respond to that debate as well—I suspect that she will.
Why am I interested in this issue? As I said, I am my party’s health spokesperson, but also my second son Ian—he is a young man of 30 now, so this is a long time ago—was born with a combination of asthma and psoriasis. The doctor informed us at an early stage that the psoriasis and skin problems that he had would diminish as the years went by, but that his asthma could increase. In a way, that is probably what has happened. He takes an inhaler with him every day and manages to control his asthma. It is a very personal matter for our family, as it is for many others. When I am in my office, which is very busy—everybody’s office is busy—I get lots of referrals on this issue.
As hon. Members will be aware, I have been intimately involved in the drive to have asthma inhalers available in school so that a qualified person can administer salbutamol and other relief inhalers for a child who has a medically documented need. It is essential that if a child forgets their inhaler, the school nurse or equivalent has the ability to provide an inhaler and supervise its use. I am pleased that this endeavour was successful back home in Northern Ireland.
Prescriptions are prepared for a specific person only. If someone other than the person named on the prescription were to buy or use the drugs, that would be illegal. The provision within schools for emergency inhaler use has various safeguards, and it is important to have them in place. A clinically trained and responsible person—usually the school nurse or someone equivalent—acts as a guarantor of the appropriate use. The inhalers are held for specifically named children, people cannot use someone else’s inhaler and the school nurse is legally permitted to prescribe the inhaler. With covid-19, those safeguards are even more important and the restrictions are more stringent now than perhaps they were a year ago or further back.
Therefore, in theory, I understand and agree with the impetus behind this petition. However, I believe it is right and proper that we highlight the difficulties that there clearly are. Safeguards need to be in place and there needs to be care in the widening of allowing prescription-based relief inhalers to be available to anyone, on any occasion.
With asthma, undoubtedly prevention is better than cure. That is always the case with health issues, alongside early diagnosis. In June 2020, The Pharmaceutical Journal reported a substantial increase of 60% in inhaler prescriptions in 2020 from the year prior to covid. I think we are all convinced that those increases are down to the pandemic, the problems people have had and the dangers that they perceive there to be.
NHS data showed a similar large increase in inhaler prescribing across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In March 2020, 2.77 million prescriptions were made for salbutamol inhalers, a rise of 63% from the previous February. I know that this led to supply issues. Can the Minister reassure us that supply issues for inhalers have been addressed? We all have constituents who use their inhalers monthly, and in Northern Ireland there were some who were worried that they could not get their inhaler. I hate to bring it up, Mr Hosie, but the Northern Ireland protocol is to blame for many things, including access to salbutamol inhalers. Can the Minister give us some indication that that will not be a problem in the future?
People whose asthma had been well controlled for years and who did not use their inhalers were getting one, as they said, “just in case”. We all know that prescriptions are not handed out just in case, but given only when the case is fully justified. I am concerned if prescription medication is to be given out not as needed by a dedicated healthcare professional but at random and different buildings; such an extension, as proposed in this petition, would have to be carefully considered. It is about making it safe, getting it right, and doing it the right way. We want to make sure that that happens.
We would need more information to ensure that there was appropriate regulation, as there is with the current prescription service through which the GP prescribes, and then the pharmacist checks the dosage and informs people about how and when to take the medication. I believe this is imperative for medicinal safety. It is a safeguard for the young children who get the medication, and gives their parents peace of mind.
To conclude, while the drive behind this petition is laudable, there is much work to be done to make it safe. In her response, can the Minister reference the concerns I have raised, as we seek to get the delicate balance of the availability of salbutamol inhalers exactly right? That will save lives in the process and make sure that everyone is safe.
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) for leading this important debate and all those who signed e-petition 578676, including the 981 in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts.
As the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, this is a perfect tragedy that has impacted many people in the wider Glasgow area, including my constituents. In common with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), this subject is close to my heart as I was diagnosed with asthma at a young age. I could not say the whole phrase when I was younger, so I always used to call it “my blue inhaler,” and I have used a blue inhaler since I was a child.
I start by expressing my sadness over the death of Lauren Reid, who tragically died at the age of 19. Lauren was working in a Glasgow city centre bar in February 2020 and although she usually carried her inhaler everywhere with her, on that day she unfortunately did not have access to one. She suffered a devastating cardiac arrest and was rushed to hospital, but the damage inflicted to her brain by the asthma attack was simply too severe. Her mother, Elaine, was left with a decision that no parent should ever have to face—to turn off Lauren’s life support. If Lauren had had access to an inhaler, she might still be with us today.
Lauren worked in an environment that posed a high risk to those suffering from asthma. The fumes and dust in commercial kitchens increase the likelihood of an asthma attack. A recent study estimated that 30% of asthmatic attacks are linked to the work environment, yet for most workplaces an emergency asthma kit is not available. Like others, I welcome the heroic efforts of Lauren’s mum, Elaine Cunningham, whose campaign has attracted widespread public backing, including 1 million views on TikTok. That is important because the campaign is reaching younger people, ensuring that knowledge about the impact of asthma and the use of inhalers is widespread.
The campaign has highlighted the need for a change in the law around access to inhalers. Currently, there are no healthcare provisions that allow commercial kitchens to hold an inhaler. I understand that there are hurdles to placing these types of inhalers in the workplace. The inhalers contain prescription drugs that can pose a serious health risk if they are overused, but we might be able to overcome these hurdles.
Parliament passed the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2014 to allow schools to hold inhalers for emergency use, and the changes in the regulations allowed inhalers to be stored in schools without a prescription. That change has almost certainly saved lives. As has already been stated by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West, asthma is one of the most common allergies across the UK, with millions of people diagnosed —myself included. Every 10 seconds, someone has a potentially life-threatening asthma attack. Sadly, three people die every day. It is estimated that two thirds of those deaths could be prevented by routine care. An estimated four out of five people with suspected severe asthma who should receive specialist care are unable to, meaning that they miss out on life-changing treatment. That has anegative long-term impact on the NHS, with treatment for asthma patients costing the NHS £3 billion a year, making it one of the costliest conditions to treat.
As the hon. Member for Don Valley stated when he introduced the debate, deaths caused by asthma are 50% higher here in the UK compared with the EU. We have the worst death rate in Europe for young people aged 10 to 24 with asthma. We are not doing enough, and we can do more. Improving access to inhalers in commercial kitchens might be just one small step, but it could make a huge difference.
We can do more across the four nations to combat asthma. In Scotland we are taking steps to make the changes. When changes to the regulations occurred in 2014, the Scottish Government consulted Asthma UK and worked alongside it to implement the policy. Guidance was developed in partnership with key stakeholders from NHS Scotland and education authorities to ensure that inhalers were used correctly in schools.
Elaine’s campaign has already received the support of Unichef, the national union that represents kitchen chefs, which shows that there is a level of support in the industry for the proposed changes. I hope that the Government will engage with stakeholders and have the important conversations to make the changes happen, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
More generally, the Scottish Government will continue to do all that they can to combat asthma. Recently, the Scottish Government announced the respiratory care action plan, which sets out a vision for the Scottish NHS and prioritises the need for more preventive measures to combat respiratory conditions, including asthma. The need for action on asthma has increased since the pandemic, with the number of undiagnosed cases increasing since last year. The Scottish Government are committed to ensuring that meaningful data is provided on asthma cases, to help understand where people’s needs are not being met. To deliver the most effective person-centred care, the Scottish Government will continue to work with stakeholders on the implementation of this plan.
The UK Government should follow the lead of the Scottish Government in the provision of free prescriptions. Since 2011, those in Scotland suffering from asthma have had access to free inhalers, meaning that no person is left without an inhaler. A recent survey conducted by Asthma UK found that three quarters of people living with asthma in England struggled to pay for their prescriptions. Individuals have often turned to skipping doses of their inhaler to cut costs, posing a risk to their health. The UK Government should follow the Scottish Government’s lead and provide free prescriptions to those who suffer from asthma.
It has been almost two years since the tragic death of Lauren. What the petition is proposing will save lives. We simply need to do more to ensure that there is more access to inhalers—for Elaine, for Lauren and for all those who, like me, suffer from asthma.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I am grateful for the chance to speak for the Opposition in this important debate.
I start, like others, by paying tribute to the young chef Lauren Reid, whose tragic passing last year has led to this debate. Described by her mum as
“the most amazing, kind, beautiful and caring person”,
may we turn this family’s heartache into action and look at ways we can prevent this from happening again.
I also pay tribute to Lauren’s mum, Elaine, who has been spearheading this campaign, and I send my thoughts and prayers to Lauren’s family and friends. I also send them to her colleagues. Hearing what the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) said about their experience in that moment, and their efforts, I send them my solidarity, too.
Securing a debate through the petition route is a very hard thing to do—100,000 signatures is an awful lot. That speaks to the seriousness of this case, and to how strongly people feel about it. I commend those who promoted it and organised it, and all those who signed it.
The hon. Gentleman had the difficult job of opening this poignant debate, and I thought he did a very good job and made a thoughtful case. I was particularly struck by two things, which I might also speak about. The first was the context of asthma in this country, and the second was the risks in commercial kitchens, which is what, beyond the broader national messages about asthma, makes this individual case very compelling.
There were similarly thoughtful contributions from other colleagues. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) set out just how common asthma is. It behoves us, as a national legislature, to act on behalf of that significant portion of our population. I agree with her comments against the argument that those at risk should change roles—I do not give that view much succour, either. I would not want to give up my dreams for something that a reasonable adjustment could prevent, and I would not want anybody else to do that, either.
We look forward to the upcoming debate on asthma secured by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), where we will be able to continue talking about some of these themes. He made very interesting points about schools, which offer an analogous example—a read-across—showing that what Elaine and her family are asking for is working somewhere else. That is very useful. Moreover, I think we all share the hon. Gentleman’s views on safeguards, because we are conscious of the risk regarding prescription drugs.
At the root of this issue is a simple argument, which is to permit the availability of salbutamol inhalers in commercial kitchens. This campaign is backed by Unichef—the chef’s union—and others, such as GMB, my trade union. They are calling for an exemption to be made, whereby commercial kitchens can be supplied with inhalers and administer them in emergencies. In their response, the Government have said that that is something that the regulator would need to approve, and if it sees a benefit a public consultation will be launched. I hope that the Minister will update us on the progress of her discussions with the licensing authority. Similarly, has she engaged with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society about the production of draft guidance once the licencing authority has finished its consideration? It would be very interesting to know what progress has been made in the period between the Government’s official response to the petition and today.
Turning to asthma more generally, 57% of healthcare professionals have had patients who have had an asthma attack or needed emergency care because, for whatever reason, they did not have their medication with them. Life happens: these are errors that any of us could make, particularly when living busy lives, and as we have heard, this is a big group of people. Some 5.4 million people in the UK are receiving treatment for asthma, leading to 41,000 hospital admissions last year due to asthma-related concerns alone, and 1,300 deaths. That is a really significant issue and it requires significant action in this place. As the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Ms Qaisar) has said, the rate of asthma deaths has increased recently, and we are an outlier relative to our neighbours, with a death rate that is 50% higher than the average in the European Union. Again, we are called upon to understand the challenges in our country and to look at what we might do differently, and this is certainly one of the things we could do differently.
As numerous hon. Members have said, the reason why the distinct setting of a commercial kitchen deserves special consideration is that it is a potentially risky environment, with triggers such as flour, fumes, heat, dust, odours and a lack of decent ventilation. It is perfectly reasonable for us to consider whether we might do better in that setting, because everybody should be safe at work and have safety nets to help them. The example in the case of schools is clear: it has been possible to make an exemption in schedule 17 to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to allow the sale and supply of salbutamol inhalers and EpiPens to schools for use in emergencies, so the petition is not asking for something that cannot be done.
I will make a couple of very brief points about the regulator itself. We in this country are very well served by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, which will be an exceptionally important body for all of us at some point in our lives. Whatever medicine or medical device we may need, the MHRA is the regulator that tells us that it is safe for us to use, so we all rely on it. However, it is also a very busy regulator. The pace of change in that market is significant, both domestically and globally, and recently we in this place have put a significant number of new responsibilities on the MHRA through the Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021, which received Royal Assent earlier this year. That Act was, in part, a response to our exit from the European Union and the change in the regulatory environment that arose from it. The MHRA is on a high wire and it is not overhyping it to say that it has a life-and-death job, but we are going to make a 20% cut to its staff. The MHRA’s income from the European Union has dried up so we are reducing its staff, yet we are asking it to do more, and that cannot be wise. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and assure us that Ministers are actively looking at that decision so as to ensure that that cut does not happen, because it does not support patient safety in this country.
To conclude, it is right that we first listen to the MHRA before we act, but the petition’s proposal is reasonable and, because it has a comparative example, feasible. I hope that the Minister will address my questions and those of colleagues, and give us a sense of the conversations taking place and of the timetable, because people are watching today’s debate. I hope they will feel that we have done this really important issue justice—I think we have—but they will want to know where it goes next, so I hope we will hear that from the Minister.
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I will start by acknowledging the tragic death of Lauren Reid, aged just 19 with so much to live for, having achieved so much already, and to offer my sympathies to her mum Elaine and her family and friends. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and all those who signed this petition for ensuring that this issue has been brought to the attention of the House, and thank all Members who have taken part in today’s debate.
On 25 August the Government responded to the petition, which seeks wider availability of non-prescribed salbutamol inhalers. I will build on that response in my speech. Asthma inhalers are a mainstay treatment for patients with acute asthma. Ready access to prescribed inhaler can save lives in an emergency. The safe sale and supply of prescribed medicines, including inhalers, is carefully and thoroughly regulated in the UK, through the Human Medicines Regulations. Some medicines are classified as prescription only because they could result in harm if used without medical supervision, even if used correctly, or they are frequently used incorrectly and may cause harm as a result. Prescription inhalers are in that category.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, as the licensing authority in the UK, has advised that exemptions can be made in the relevant Human Medicines Regulations, and that any such change would depend on the careful and thorough review of evidence supporting it. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) says, we need to do that very carefully and ensure that safety is at the heart of everything. We would need to ensure that the benefits of such a change would outweigh any risks, and any change would also depend on the advice of our independent expert advisory committee, the Commission on Human Medicines.
I am pleased that the MHRA met my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley on 25 November to provide detailed advice on the type of information needed to support a change. I understand that the discussion focused on the evidence needed to enable a full assessment of benefits and risks by the MHRA and the CHM. I hope my hon. Friend found that helpful.
For the benefit of the House, and for the record, I will give some detail. A full assessment would need evidence clearly showing the intended benefits, including an outline of the magnitude of the issue, such as how many people are affected by serious asthma attacks and the locations where having such medicine available would be of the greatest benefit. The evidence would also need to consider any risks and how they could be managed—for example, that the medicine could be stored, handled, and used safely in an emergency.
Once adequate information is collected, the MHRA seeks independent advice from the CHM. At that stage, it would also consider guidance to stakeholders on the safeguards that would need to be in place. Feedback from a public consultation would be considered before a final decision on implementing any legislative change. The MHRA welcomes any submission of evidence from interested parties and is committed to ensuring that the UK becomes an even greater place to develop, manufacture and supply medical products, and that, most importantly, we have continued access to safe medical products.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, an amendment was made to the Human Medicines Regulations in October 2014 to allow schools to procure and store non-prescribed salbutamol inhalers. At that time, the potential advantages and disadvantages were tested through pilot schemes placing inhalers in some schools and tracking their usage. Information was collected by surveys of patients, teachers and schools, and was analysed by the MHRA and CHM.
The Health and Safety Executive owns guidance on reducing the risk of asthma in the workplace. The Department will be looking further into this matter, along with HSE and MRHA. Once that information-sharing exercise has taken place, the Department will be in a better position to decide whether further action needs to be taken. It will explore commissioning research to examine this issue further.
I have heard the concerns in this House, and indeed among the wider public, about this issue. I thank all those who have taken part in this debate, and mostly the 102,058 people—patients, stakeholders, and families of asthma sufferers—who signed the petition.
I will also update the House on additional public health measures that we have put in place to improve outcomes for people with asthma. The 2019 NHS long-term plan sets out commitments and objectives for the NHS for the next 10 years. It includes respiratory disease as a national clinical priority and aims to improve outcomes for patients, including those with asthma. The respiratory interventions proposed in the NHS long-term plan include early and accurate diagnosis of respiratory conditions, because the earlier diagnosis of conditions may prevent avoidable emergency admissions for asthma. Pharmacists in primary care networks will undertake a range of medicine reviews, including educating patients on the correct use of inhalers.
Since 2019, several initiatives and publications have been announced in support of the long-term plan. NHS England and Improvement’s national patient safety team has prioritised work on asthma as part of the adoption and spread safety improvement programme. That will support an increase in the number of patients in acute hospitals receiving every element of the asthma discharge care bundle from 38% to 80% by March 2023.
Since April, the academic health science networks in England, in partnership with the patient safety collaboratives, have been working with provider organisations to improve the uptake of all elements of the asthma care bundle for patients admitted to hospitals in England. Compliance with the elements of good care, as described in the bundle, is measured as part of the national asthma audit. The care bundle includes actions that should help to reduce the number of patients who are readmitted following discharge and ensure that all aspects of the patient’s asthma care are considered. The bundle assesses inhaler technique and includes care follow-ups. Those interventions should prove more beneficial than relying on emergency use inhalers to provide temporary relief.
To the question asked by the hon. Member for Strangford, the Department works closely with the MHRA, the pharmaceutical industry, NHS England and Improvement and others operating in the supply chain to help to prevent shortages. The team has advised that there are currently no shortages in the supply chain.
I would like to take a moment to remember Lauren and to send our sympathies to her family and friends. I thank all those involved in bringing forward this important debate. I hope that what I have set out demonstrates our commitment to the issue. We want to facilitate changes that will protect public health, so we will look into it with the relevant bodies. We are working hard to ensure that asthma care improves for all, as outlined in the NHS long-term plan, and that asthma sufferers have access to the best care available.
Nick Fletcher
I thank all Members for contributing, and the Minister and you, Mr Hosie. I thank the petitioners and the MHRA for meeting me. Most of all, however, I thank Elaine, Lauren’s mum. As I said when I met her, I cannot promise that Lauren’s law will become legislation, but we have a wonderful Minister who has given a wonderful speech and an awful lot of work is going on to look after people with asthma.
I am sure that if Elaine continues to campaign, with the support of many Members, including me, Lauren’s law will be passed. The loss of a daughter is something that no one should go through, but by raising the issue I hope that Lauren’s memory will be a lasting one that gives many people the opportunity to work safely in commercial kitchens doing what she loved so much.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 578676, relating to access to salbutamol inhalers.
Written Statements
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Horizon Europe
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (George Freeman)
The Government are announcing today a guarantee to provide a financial safety net for successful UK applicants to Horizon Europe, while we push to formalise our association as soon as possible.
We agreed terms for association under the EU-UK Trade and Co-operation Agreement. When the TCA was agreed in December 2020, the UK and EU signed a joint declaration on participation in union programmes and access to programme services. This sets out the parties’ shared commitment for the UK to associate to Horizon Europe alongside Euratom R&T, Fusion for Energy and Copernicus at the earliest opportunity. The Government remain committed to securing this outcome so that research collaboration can continue, and we stand ready to formalise our association, but disappointingly there have been persistent delays from the EU, which has led to uncertainty for the UK sector and their European partners.
UK and EU researchers and businesses have a long history of successful collaboration. As Europe’s leading R&D and science centre with world-class universities, scientists and innovators, the UK will bring a significant amount to the programme. Further delays will benefit neither the EU nor the UK.
The Government’s priority remains association to Horizon Europe. UK researchers, businesses and innovators have been able to apply to calls as “Associated Candidates” since early 2021. So to provide reassurance to UK-based applicants, the Government have decided to guarantee funding for the first wave of eligible, successful applicants to Horizon Europe who have been unable to sign grant agreements with the EU.
The guarantee is a short-term measure intended to address the continued delays from the EU to formalise the UK’s association to Horizon Europe. The funding will be delivered through UK Research and Innovation, which will publish details on how the guarantee will work including eligibility, scope and how to apply in the coming weeks.
The Government have always been clear that our priority is to support the UK’s research and development sector and we will continue to do this in all future scenarios. As announced in the 2021 spending review, in the event that the UK is unable to associate to Horizon Europe, the funding allocated to Horizon association will go to UK Government R&D programmes, including those to support international partnerships.
The Government looked at the practicalities of handling such a situation in 2020 and developed a detailed set of alternatives plans, which included continued support for international research, innovation collaboration and domestic research support. This work is being refreshed and we remain ready to implement these plans should they become necessary. I have written an open letter to the sector to set out my early thinking on the policy priorities should we be unable to associate, and will be inviting their views over the coming weeks.
[HCWS431]
Standard for Algorithmic Transparency
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
My noble Friend the Minister for Efficiency and Transformation (Lord Agnew Kt) has today made the following written statement:
The Cabinet Office’s Central Digital and Data Office (CDDO) has today published a cross-Government standard for algorithmic transparency. This move makes the UK one of the first countries in the world to make progress on developing a national algorithmic transparency standard. The CDDO was established in January 2021 as the new strategic centre for digital, data and technology for the Government.
Several leading organisations in the field, such as the Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (CDEI), Ada Lovelace Institute and Alan Turing Institute, as well as renowned academic and international institutions, including the Oxford Internet Institute, AI Now Institute and OECD, have called for greater transparency to help manage the risks associated with algorithmic decision making, bring scrutiny to the role of algorithms in decision-making processes and help build public trust.
In the National Data Strategy, the Government committed to working with leading organisations in the field to explore what an effective mechanism to deliver greater algorithmic transparency would look like. It reiterated this commitment in the response to the National Data Strategy consultation, and announced that it was developing a public sector algorithmic transparency standard in the National AI Strategy.
While designing the first version of the standard, CDDO has worked closely with the CDEI. It has convened stakeholders from across Government, civil society and academia, and conducted a deliberative public engagement exercise with the CDEI and BritainThinks, to ensure that a diverse range of views have been taken into account.
Proactive transparency in this field is a natural extension of the UK’s long-standing leadership in data ethics and open data. Several public sector organisations will trial the standard in the coming months, and provide user feedback to CDDO. CDDO is also seeking further feedback from stakeholders outside of Government. Following the pilot, CDDO will iterate the standard based on feedback gathered and seek formal approval from the Data Standards Authority in 2022.
This development comes after the Government have consulted on a proposal to introduce transparency reporting on the use of algorithms in decision making for public authorities, Government Departments and Government contractors, as part of the wide-ranging consultation on the future of the UK’s data protection regime. It sought views on the role that such reporting would play in building public trust, as well as what the key contents of mandatory transparency reporting should be and whether any exemptions should apply.
I have deposited a copy of the standard and accompanying guidance in the Libraries of both Houses, and published both on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS428]
Financial Conduct Authority Mortgage Review
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The issue of mortgage prisoners is one of my key priorities. I recognise the difficult position these borrowers are in and understand the stress that many experience as a result. I remain committed to examining what further can be done to assist borrowers and this is why I asked the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to conduct a review on mortgage prisoners to provide the further detail necessary to continue this important work. The Mortgage Prisoners Review [CP 576] has today been laid in Parliament.
The review identifies that there are now around 47,000 mortgage prisoners—these are borrowers who are up to date with payments, who are unable to switch, and who could potentially benefit from switching if they were eligible for a new deal. Most mortgage prisoner loans originate from prior to the financial crisis, when lending standards were looser, and this means that many affected borrowers struggle to switch as a result of not meeting post-financial crisis risk appetite.
The report is clear that the underlying reasons mortgage prisoners are unable to switch are complex, and it is therefore crucial to understand the facts and data around this issue in order to consider our approach. The FCA’s review provides important insight into the mortgage prisoner population which the Treasury will now examine to determine if any further practical and proportionate solutions can be found for affected borrowers who struggle to obtain a new mortgage deal.
More widely the review shows that the number of borrowers with inactive firms has materially decreased since the FCA last collected data in this area in 2019. This partly reflects the ability of many borrowers in closed books to switch to an active lender if they so choose. I would encourage all mortgage borrowers to examine their switching options to ensure they are on as competitive a rate as possible for their circumstances.
I am also encouraged to see that the interest rates paid by almost all borrowers in closed books are less than the rates they signed up to when they took out their mortgage, with a third paying at least 3.5 percentage points less.
However, it is clear that challenges remain in addressing this issue. While there is evidence that some mortgage prisoners have switched as a result of significant regulatory interventions made to date, it is also clear that the number of borrowers who have benefited is small. This new report also makes clear that the reasons borrowers struggle to switch are complex and varied, and that there are no simple solutions to increase the number of borrowers who are able to switch to better rates with active lenders.
Nevertheless, I remain committed to this issue, and am grateful for the work undertaken by the FCA on this review which provides the crucial insight necessary to consider any further action. I am also grateful to the industry partners who have committed to continue to work together on this issue and look forward to further engagement with them.
With the data from this review, the Treasury will now target our work to determine if there are any further practical and proportionate solutions for affected borrowers, including consideration of means through which we can help borrowers better position themselves to meet lender risk appetite. While I am approaching this further piece of work with appropriate ambition and optimism, I am also keen to manage borrower expectations by emphasising that any solutions tabled must avoid the potential for significant risk of moral hazard to consumers in the wider mortgage market or those who aspire to obtain a mortgage and must be value for money for the taxpayer. Any announcements on this will be made when the Treasury has had sufficient time to examine the review’s findings and consider any options available to address this complex issue.
Copies are available in the Vote Office and at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mortgage-prisoner-review.
Biometrics Commissioner: Annual Report
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
My noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Department (Baroness Williams of Trafford) has today made the following written ministerial statement:
I am pleased to announce that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary (Priti Patel) is today publishing the annual report of the Biometrics Commissioner, together with the Government’s response.
The Biometrics Commissioner is an independent office holder, who is appointed by the Home Secretary under section 21 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. This is the first report submitted by the Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, who was appointed earlier this year.
The report covers the exercise of the Biometrics Commissioner’s statutory functions over the reporting year, a large proportion of which fell to his predecessor.
I am grateful to Professor Sampson for this report, which we have published in full.
Copies of the report will be available from the Vote Office. The Government’s response will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS429]
House of Lords
Covid-19: Vaccine Donations
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to donate COVID-19 vaccines to other countries bilaterally.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as deputy colonel commandant of the Brigade of Gurkhas.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the UK will continue to donate Covid-19 vaccines to bilateral partners in line with the Prime Minister’s commitment at the G7 summit in June 2021. The primary objective is to promote the economic development and welfare of recipient countries, although we will also seek to strengthen key relationships in line with the integrated review as a secondary benefit. Decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis when vaccines are available to be donated.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
May I seek my noble friend’s reassurance on two points: first, that we will donate, not destroy, surplus vaccines; secondly, that he will look again at the request from the Government of Nepal for a bilateral donation, not least so that we can fulfil our commitment and our duty of care to vaccinate some 30,000 British Army Gurkha veterans who live there?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK donated 130,000 Covid vaccines to Nepal in August, recognising the historic link between our two countries. Since the beginning of the pandemic, our embassy in Kathmandu has reprioritised more than £40 million of development aid to help address the medical and socioeconomic consequences of the pandemic. In response to Nepal’s second wave of infections, the UK has delivered an additional package of support, including donating 260 ventilator machines, thousands of pieces of personal protective equipment and constructing an oxygen plant in Kathmandu.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
In the light of the new omicron variant that has dominated the news over the weekend, my colleague Archbishop Thabo Makgoba of Cape Town urged those of us in rich countries to do better at narrowing inequality of vaccination rates, which are 7% in Africa and 70% in Europe. We must acknowledge that this virus knows no national boundaries and will spread, mutate and return to us in the way that we are seeing, so we need a global approach, not simply a bilateral approach. Will Her Majesty’s Government’s commit to redoubling efforts to seek a truly global approach to vaccine donation to ensure that people in all nations are safer?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Government strongly agree and we are committed to supporting rapid, equitable access to safe and effective vaccines through multilateral co-operation to end the acute phase of this pandemic. That is why the UK supports the COVAX facility and was one of the first countries to do so. It is, as the right reverend Prelate knows, a multilateral mechanism that supports access by pooling resources to accelerate the development, manufacture and delivery of vaccines. More than 537 million vaccines have so far been delivered globally through that scheme.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the Minister setting out what the UK has done, but when we look at vaccination rates in low-income countries, it is clear that the UK and, indeed, all high-income countries have just not done enough. Can the Minister say how many vaccines the UK has drawn down from the COVAX facility and how many vaccines have been destroyed as close to or past their use-by date?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As my noble friend will know, COVAX is designed to work for both high and middle-income countries; this allows for the pooling of investments behind early vaccine candidates. The UK has procured 539,370 doses of the Pfizer vaccine through COVAX; those were delivered early this year. These doses help the NHS to deliver our vaccination programme as quickly as possible. No further doses have been received by the UK from COVAX. I am afraid I cannot answer my noble friend’s question on the waste of unused vaccines, but clearly, it is in all our interests and a key priority that we minimise any potential waste.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, in May this year, as president of the CBI, I chaired the B7. Dr Gita Gopinath, chief economist of the IMF, spoke at it and in May sent me a report called A Proposal to End the COVID-19 Pandemic. It would cost $50 billion to vaccinate the whole world by the first half of 2022. If one company, Serum Institute of India, can produce 1 billion vaccines, surely the Minister and the Government agree that we should follow the recommendations of this report, pull together and end this pandemic. Until we are all safe, no one is safe.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that until we are all safe, no one is safe. That is why the UK has been if not the biggest contributor then certainly one of the biggest contributors to the COVAX scheme. As the noble Lord says, making vaccines available globally not only helps to end the pandemic in developing countries but reduces the threat posed by vaccine-resistant variants emerging in areas with large-scale outbreaks, which of course threatens the UK. It is in all our interests that we do so.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is a bitter irony indeed that tomorrow’s ministerial meeting of the WTO has had to be cancelled indefinitely because of a variant that could have been prevented had we all collaborated sooner on, for example, the TRIPS waiver. Given that the overwhelming majority of the R&D money spent on vaccines came from public and philanthropic funds, is it not time that the European Union stopped blocking the TRIPS waiver and that Her Majesty’s Government sided with the United States, India, South Africa and much of the global south, so that we do not just donate but collaborate over patents and know-how?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK is engaging intensively and constructively in the TRIPS waiver debate. We continue to be open to all ideas that have a positive impact on vaccine production and distribution. A balanced and effective intellectual property regime has proved invaluable in this crisis, as in others, in supporting innovation and collaboration. In the meantime, we know we need to continue to push ahead with pragmatic action now, including voluntary licensing and technology transfer agreements.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, did the Minister have a chance to listen to last night’s broadcast by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa? He said that
“the Omicron variant should be a wake-up call to the world that vaccine inequality cannot be allowed to continue … Until everyone is vaccinated, we should expect … more variants … Instead of prohibiting travel, the rich countries … need to support the efforts of developing economies to access and to manufacture enough … doses for their people”.
In light of those comments, will the Government convene an urgent meeting of the G7 to tackle the issue of the TRIPS waiver—we do not have time to wait—but also to agree an economic support package for southern African economies, which will be devastated by this travel ban?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I did not hear the broadcast, but I heard the summary of the message. I do not think anyone pretends it is an either/or decision: either blocking flights temporarily into this country or enabling the widespread vaccination of vulnerable populations. Our view is that both are necessary as immediate-term steps. The G7 has been dominated by discussions around this issue, and no doubt that will continue.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. He is not here. I call the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, too many of the vaccines gifted to the poorest countries are within 12 weeks of their use-by dates. These short lead times between donation and expiry show why a strengthened G20 and a month-to-month delivery timetable are now urgent. Will the Government follow the Swiss example of expeditious transferring of delivery dates with their recent transfer to COVAX? We can act now and have an effect now.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the UK does not hold a stockpile of Covid vaccines; we manage the supply chain carefully. However, for all bilateral donations we sought assurances that recipients have the capacity to roll out the quantity of doses in line with the national vaccination programmes and ahead of their expiry dates. For donations through COVAX, the UK is working closely with both COVAX and its partners—such as UNICEF—to allocate vaccines according to need, facilitate the rapid delivery of doses and maximise the shelf-life available to recipients.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I return to the issue posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. The WTO’s waiver—the TRIPS waiver—was activated for antiretroviral drugs at the height of the HIV/AIDS crisis. Can the Minister say exactly what the blockages are at the moment? This would be one good way of getting Covid vaccines much more rapidly produced and distributed in the countries that need them most.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Baroness is right and that is why the UK is engaging actively in this debate. I will ask my colleagues across government in whose department this sits to provide an update, which I will share with the noble Baroness.
Baroness Fall (Con)
My Lords, only 2% of people in low-income countries have received vaccines—woefully short of what is needed if we are to put this behind us. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oates: we are still president of the G7 and we should use that power to convene another meeting, a global summit on vaccines. I ask the Minister to put this to the Government.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I am very happy to make that commitment—I will put this to colleagues across government.
Rivers and Coastal Waters: Sewage
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with water companies about the discharge of sewage into rivers and coastal waters.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have repeatedly made it clear to water companies that the current number of sewage discharges is totally unacceptable. My counterpart in the other House has made this very clear directly to the CEOs of the water companies. Government and regulators are working with the industry as part of the Storm Overflows Taskforce, and the Environment Agency and Ofwat have launched a major investigation into sewage discharges from sewage treatment works.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, this past week has seen the publication of a report by Surfers Against Sewage. It detailed an increase in sewage discharges as a result of which, one in every six days in the swimming season was declared “unswimmable”. There are also reports, just referred to by the Minister, of new investigations of widespread, unpermitted releases of sewage by water companies, which they are now admitting to. Given the urgency of the situation, has the Minister—beyond his concluding remarks on the Environment Bill—any updates on the timescale for progressively reducing sewage discharges, on bringing forward the Government’s own plan currently scheduled for next September, or on any other plans for new measures?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I very much agree with the comments of the noble Baroness and strongly welcome the work of Surfers Against Sewage, which has worked wonders in putting this issue at the top of the political agenda, where it belongs. On the back of that pressure, this House mobilised in a very effective way and that strengthened the hands of those in government who are keen to push the issue further. On timescale, the Government can use our direction-making powers in the drainage and sewage management plans to direct companies to take more action if needed. We will provide a further definition of what that means, and the ambition that we are working to, in early 2022—a few months’ time.
Baroness Browning (Con)
What has my noble friend’s department done on the need to improve infrastructure—for example, separating out foul water from surface water so that the amount of foul water that needs to be discharged is reduced? Does his department have a plan, has it been costed and is there a timetable?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, one of the things that the Government committed to during the passage of the then Environment Bill, now Act, was to conduct an assessment of what it would cost to eliminate storm overflows and—separately, because it is a different question—to eliminate the harm from storm overflows. We do not know yet what the cost of the former would be; estimates vary wildly from £150 million to £600 million. So we do not know what the cost will be or even where the opportunities are, but that is the purpose of the study that is being conducted and we will act on its results as a matter of urgency.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have a very simple question. I cannot understand how the Government can trumpet the privatisation of water as a success when companies such as United Utilities not only unsettle whole populations by failing to control their assets and stop flooding in Lake District towns such as Keswick, but also, following flooding, seem blind when their sewage plants overflow, fail and then pollute lakes such as Lake Bassenthwaite, destroying local wildlife. For how long do we have to tolerate these excesses and failures?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the private model, supported by strong independent economic regulation—that bit is the key. We have no plans to bring water into public ownership but, equally, holding a near-monopoly licence to provide these services is clearly a privilege and the Government and regulators have high expectations of the behaviour of owners and investors. That is now reflected in the toughest laws that this country has ever had in relation to our water quality.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, Southern Water is named as by far the largest culprit among the water companies in the report after the company issued 1,949 sewage discharge notifications, from a total of 5,517 around Britain. This accounted for 35% of all incidents from nine water companies. The company has already been fined but appears unrepentant. How are the Government going to bring Southern Water into line, given that fines do not appear to be a deterrent?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, we have made it clear to the water industry, including Southern Water, that it needs to reduce the adverse impacts of all sewage discharge discharges, whether treated or untreated, as a matter of urgency. In addition, the sector will need to demonstrate year-on-year progress in meeting those targets. Where the targets are not met, the Government will have no hesitation whatever in stepping in and using all the tools at our disposal.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, his department and his officials for all the support that they have given on this issue during the passage of the then Environment Bill and the amendment from the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that was finally accepted. I welcome the investigation into the sewage discharges. Does my noble friend agree that a ban on wet wipes would significantly improve the ability of water companies to manage sewage treatment more effectively and, if he does, when any such measures could be anticipated?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a really important point. There is no doubt that wet wipes can be a serious contributing factor to overflows at treatment works. Defra has already announced a call for evidence, which will explore among other things a possible ban on single-use wet wipes—or at least those that contain plastics. I assure the noble Baroness that, whatever the outcomes of that call for evidence, we are absolutely determined and willing to do whatever is necessary.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the chair of the Environment Agency, Emma Howard Boyd, said recently that the directors of water companies that are guilty of repeated deliberate or reckless breaches of environmental law should be struck off and, potentially, given custodial sentences. Does the Minister agree with her? If so, what are the Government doing to ensure that the individual directors responsible for these environmental crimes pay the right penalty for those actions?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I was not aware of her suggestion, but it sounds like a very good idea and I will convey it back to my colleagues at the department. The cumulative effect of the Environment Act and the direction provided to Ofwat just a few months ago means that we have more tools to deal with these issues than we have ever had in the past. The Government have been clear, publicly but also directly with the water companies, that we are absolutely willing to—and, where necessary, will—use the tools at our disposal.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our forebears who built our sewerage system sought to work with nature so as to reduce tremendously the amount of sewage discharge into natural watercourses but not to eliminate it; that the cost of going for total elimination at this stage would be enormous; and that it is important to consult the consumer before any dramatic pledges are made to see where he and she would like to put this in their scheme of priorities?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Lord makes a really important point, and that is why we, and many campaigners, talk not about eliminating overflows but about eliminating the harm from overflows. That would then allow us to make more use of the kinds of natural systems that he mentioned—reed-bed systems, for example, which purify the water as it re-enters circulation. That would not be possible were we to eliminate overflows—but the key is eliminating harm and that is what we are focusing on.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that unauthorised discharges of untreated sewage will continue unless the regulators of this industry significantly up their game? I declare a past interest as a board member of both agencies in the past, when I think we did it rather better. Ofwat needs to assign part of the capital allowance to sewage treatment and the Environment Agency, in particular, needs to monitor and enforce the rules that, as the Minister says, are now there—but it needs staff to enforce them. When will the decline in the number of field staff at the Environment Agency be reversed?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, like all public bodies, the Environment Agency had to make difficult spending decisions in 2015. However, since 2015 the agency has brought nearly 50 prosecutions against water companies and secured fines of over £136 million, including a £90 million fine for Southern Water. Defra and its agencies also received a £1 billion increase in overall funding at the spending review and, given that this is a government priority, much of that resource will be spent tackling this issue.
Lord Oates (LD)
Can the Minister tell the House what calculation the Government have made of the economic and ecological cost caused by the continued discharge of untreated sewage into coastal waters and inland waterways? Does he recognise that, if the Victorians had taken the approach of the Government, and apparently of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, they would have determined that laying the original sewage network was prohibitively expensive, and we would still be throwing our waste into the street?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I think the noble Lord is wrong about that. I am sure he would be the first to applaud the use of nature-based solutions in treating sewage run-off around the country. I think my noble friend Lord Moylan was advocating a continuation of that approach, because it is much cheaper and has all kinds of benefits that go beyond simply purifying the water. That is preferable to spending potentially unprecedented sums of money in other ways.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Football Clubs: Ownership Test
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to legislate to strengthen the “fit and proper person” test for the ownership of football clubs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have published the final report setting out the independent fan-led review of football governance’s recommendations for the reform of English football. These include proposals for a new and more robust test for owners and directors, resulting in a unified system which would be created and overseen by a new independent regulator for English football. The Government welcome the work of the review and will consider its detailed recommendations ahead of providing a full government response in the new year.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer, but the recent takeover of Newcastle has raised many questions about the suitability of the fit and proper persons test. To be honest, concerns have been around for years but neither the footballing authorities nor the Government have come up with satisfactory answers. Last week, the Premier League’s chief executive said that, while there were concerns about the relationship between Newcastle’s owners and the Saudi state, he
“can’t choose who is chairing a football club”
because:
“The owners test doesn’t let us take a view”.
Does the Minister believe that that is right, and can he tell us when, or if, the Government will legislate on the test?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the takeover of Newcastle United by PCP Capital Partners has always been a matter for the club and the Premier League, which undertook its own due diligence as part of the owners and directors test. My honourable friend Tracey Crouch looked into that with the fan-led review and, as I said, we welcome the report of that review and are looking at all its recommendations, including on the owners and directors test. We will come back with our response to those in full.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the Newcastle situation is rather different from others because part of a British city’s identity is effectively being taken over by a foreign power with a questionable reputation for human rights abuses. Are we going to take in special regulation that means that we actually look at that when we are considering football ownership—because we have such a profitable Premiership?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, a lot of Newcastle United fans would take exception with the way that the noble Lord characterises that. They certainly welcome the investment in the club and the opportunity for dialogue, which is such an important part of sporting endeavour.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare a slightly ancient interest: I was a vice-chair of the Football Task Force, whose report in 1999 was the last serious attempt to, in the words of the Independent, “deliver a fair deal” for fans. Our proposal for independent regulation was blocked by the Premier League, the Football League and the FA. Can the Minister assure me that Tracey Crouch’s excellent report will not go the same way as the Football Task Force’s final report? Has he seen these words in her fan-led review:
“The fit and proper persons test has failed to stop many owners who are not ‘fit and proper’. It’s a disaster of a system.”
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I know that the noble Lord is a committed fan and campaigner. My honourable friend Tracey Crouch will certainly not let the matter rest. She has led a very good review. She was in another place when it was debated last week, and I know that she will not let up on this important issue. It is also thanks to the contributions of many thousands of football fans, which have informed the review very well.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the work that we did at UK Sport on good governance as part of the Mission 2012 and Road to Rio programmes, delivering benefits not just in the boardrooms of sport but in the pool, on the pitch and across the park? Would he agree that good governance is not a “nice to have” or a matter of compliance; it is essential for ethical and safe support and absolutely essential for sustainable and successful sport?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I agree with my noble friend: Mission 2012 helped to identify athlete performance issues and challenges, enabling them to be dealt with quickly and efficiently in the run-up to the London Games in 2012. I am pleased to say that the process has been used in subsequent Olympic and Paralympic cycles. Since 2017, the Code for Sports Governance has set out the standards that all sporting organisations must meet in return for public funding, either from UK Sport or Sport England.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I should perhaps declare an interest as a supporter of West Ham United, which looks set to be owned by Czech billionaire Daniel Křetínský. But does the Minister agree that foreign ownership is not the core issue here—rather, it is the need for clearly defined integrity tests for all football club owners, whether British or foreign? Does he also agree that the fit and proper person test should include human rights, mindful of so-called “sportswashing”? On that basis, a club like Newcastle might not now be 80% owned by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Tracey Crouch, in the fan-led review, makes the point about an integrity test. As I said, we welcome the report—we will look at all the recommendations and come forward with our response to them in due course.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I declare my interest as recorded in the register. Would the Minister agree that transparency is an important part of the fit and proper person test? Has the Premier League given an answer to the following question to its football clubs, the Government or the media: what are the governance differences from the previous position, which ruled out the Newcastle United purchase, to the position agreed by the Premier League on 7 October that the takeover is now acceptable, such that the assurances of no interference from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia can be relied upon? Can the answer be given to assure all football fans concerned about the propriety of the game?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I do not know if the Premier League has answered that, but I will certainly take the point away and ask on behalf of the noble Lord. But, as I say, the takeover of Newcastle United has been a matter for it and the Premier League, which undertook its own due diligence as part of the owners and directors test.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I do not think anybody doubts Tracey Crouch’s commitment to reform, but as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, reminded us, the Mellor-Faulkner report 20 years ago was equally determined to clean up football and was defeated by vested interests within the game. Can the Minister assure us that there will be backbone in No.10 as well as with Tracey Crouch in seeing these reforms through?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, and I would point to the Government’s manifesto, which committed to this fan-led review. Football is nothing without its fans. That is why we have taken action at every step to support them, both through the manifesto commitment but also during the pandemic by getting football back on television and using the events research programme to get fans back safely into stadia.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
I declare my interest as the fan-elected chair of the oldest fan group in world football, at Leeds United. Does the Minister agree that the Premier League is the biggest single success that this country has in terms of reputation across the world and is loved by people wanting to watch it well beyond this country? Does he further agree that there is a fundamental difference between the Premier League and those who have owned clubs such as Bury, Darlington and Chester who have managed to wreck and ruin them?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The noble Lord is right about the great pride that fans across the country place in the national sport and its huge impact not just in this country but worldwide. That is why we welcome the fan-led review and committed to it in our manifesto. It is also why we will study it carefully and come back with our response.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord McNally reminded us of the fate of the report by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, two decades ago, and Tracey Crouch’s report must see the light of day. However, I ask again, as others have: what does “in due course” mean and what will happen to any other proposed changes of ownership between now and any future legislation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Tracey Crouch’s report saw the light of day on Thursday. It was published; it is 160 pages long. She makes 47 detailed recommendations. The Government are studying all those. We will do her and the 20,000 fans who took part in the review the respect of looking at it and will come forward with our response.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
I add my congratulations to those offered to Tracey Crouch and the team for producing the report with its 47 recommendations. It has the potential to become truly transformational, if and when it is implemented in full. But can I clarify one point? As a Newcastle United fan, under some pressure, I ask the Minister what the Government believe is meant by the term “good character” on page 69 of the report, and does he believe that the new owners of Newcastle United would pass that specific test?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, what Tracey Crouch meant in her report is a question for her, but, as I have said, we are studying the report and its recommendations and will take them forward. The takeover of Newcastle United has always been a matter for it and the Premier League. Without knowing the specifics, it is hard for me to say what impact such a recommendation would have. As the noble Lord will know as well as I do, Newcastle United fans have welcomed the new investment in the club, but have done so with open eyes and while engaging in the dialogue that is an important part of sport.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Ukraine: Military Equipment
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to sell missiles to the government of Ukraine; what discussions they had with the governments of (1) Germany, (2) France, and (3) the United States of America, prior to opening negotiations on the supply of military equipment to Ukraine; and what assessment they have made of the impact of any such sales on peace in the region.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, we have signed a number of agreements with the Government of Ukraine to work together and with industry to boost Ukraine’s defence capabilities. This is part of the UK’s ongoing commitment to the Ukrainian defence capabilities and the support announced during President Zelensky’s visit to the UK in October. The UK maintains close dialogue with key allies, including Germany, France and the US, regarding Ukrainian military development. These agreements reflect and underline the UK’s commitment to Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, in eastern Europe, we seem to be drifting towards a war that we will inevitably lose, since we are outnumbered by about four to one. Would the Minister like to take back to the department the need for a comprehensive conference to deal with the frozen conflicts of eastern Europe, most of which date back 20 years? We need to review the Minsk II agreement and possibly look at an Austrian state treaty solution to the problems of Ukraine. Can we have a new initiative please, and not just a drift to war?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend for the question, but I do not share his analysis. No one is disputing that there is a serious situation within Ukraine and on the Crimea peninsula. That is precisely why, over the last 20 years, and particularly in the past six years, the UK, along with allies and partners, has been supporting Ukraine with training, in capacity-building missions and maritime and other training initiatives. That is what the recent agreement was predicated on when we signed the treaty with Ukraine on official credit support for UK Export Finance. It is all about supporting that country and helping it to build its military capabilities.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
To build on what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has just said, it was General Sir Nick Carter, the Chief of the Defence Staff, who only recently spoke of a drift towards an accidental war with Russia. Can the Minister explain to us how, in our desire rightly to stand by our ally in Ukraine and our other allies, we are going to stop that drift to any sort of accidental incident or war with Russia?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The accidental occurrence to which the noble Lord refers would obviously be very negative and unwelcome, and what all powers, particularly the UK and NATO allies, are anxious to avoid. The noble Lord will be aware that, within NATO, we are focused on dialogue and discussion and on doing what we can to provide support to Ukraine, not in some provocative sense but, simply, in a sensible and supportive manner, helping it to build a capability. A lot of very good work has gone on in that respect, not just from the UK but from our other allies and partners.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, Operation Orbital is the long-standing military training package that we have offered to Ukraine for some years. Historically, it has only ever delivered defensive training. Now that we are looking at delivering military hardware to Ukraine, has the time came also to offer lethal training?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend is quite right in that Operation Orbital was conceived and has been delivered as a training mission, again with the objective of building Ukraine’s military capacity. As I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, this is part of a chain of events—and this is why we are moving on to assist Ukraine with acquiring other support for its military and naval capability. We wish to support an ally and a friend and partner, and make sure that we can use our expertise and skill to enable it to be stronger—that is what this composite package of measures is about.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, capacity building is obviously important, but last week the Daily Telegraph reported the defence intelligence chief of Ukraine as saying that there were 92,000 soldiers massing towards Ukraine’s borders. Can the UK Government really help capacity building to the extent that that can be offset? If not, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said, can some other action not be taken so we can begin to look at diplomacy rather than military capacity building?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Operation Orbital, the training arm of what the UK has been doing with Ukraine since 2015, has actually trained around 22,000 Ukrainian troops to date. Operation Orbital delivers tactically focused training to the Armed Forces, such as medical logistics, counter-improvised explosive device training and maritime and air domain training. We have other training initiatives as well. In addition, we support Ukraine in the defence reform space, and we do that with our allies, so a great deal of support is being given to Ukraine. We regret the attitude and posture adopted by Russia and urge it to de-escalate pressure and help to stabilise the region.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the Question refers to “peace in the region” but, unless I have got it wrong, it is Russia that has invaded South Ossetia, annexed Crimea, Moldova and now Donbass. Surely nobody can doubt the malign intent, and determination for aggrandisement of Putin’s regime. Does my noble friend agree that to take a disinterested or neutral stance on the conflicts in Ukraine would be to the detriment of world peace?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend is correct in his analysis that the perpetrators of the pressure are indeed the Russian Government. We have significant concerns about their aggressive pattern of military build-ups on Ukraine’s border, certainly in the illegally annexed Crimea. That behaviour is unacceptable. We and our allies are monitoring the situation and continually call on Russia to adhere to its international obligations and commitments.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, anyone who has studied Russia knows that if the Ukrainians try to retake the Russian-populated areas of Donbass and Crimea by force, Russia will go to war. Meanwhile, as the Minister said, we are providing lethal weapons to Ukraine, training its military and providing loans so that it can buy military equipment. May I press the Minister to say what effort Her Majesty’s Government are making to seek a peaceful solution to this conflict?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Lord will be aware that we engage in discussions with and make representations to Russia. Indeed, the Prime Minister spoke to President Putin on 25 October and was very clear about the views that we hold. We understand and sympathise with Ukraine, which obviously feels vulnerable, and it is our duty along with our allies and partners, particularly in NATO, to provide support and reassurance. That is what we are endeavouring to do.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the greatest risk to the survival of mankind is not global warming, it is an accidental thermonuclear war. One has only to look at the dreadful behaviour of Putin, not just around Ukraine but in a number of other ways, and his very loose talk about his de-escalatory policy of using a nuclear weapon should he be losing a conventional war, to see what the real risks are. I believe it is very important that we get the people who were around the table in Minsk when we made the Ukrainians get rid of their nuclear weapons who have failed since that time in terms of their handling of Russia. Does the Minister agree? We dealt with Crimea badly; everything that has happened with Ukraine has been dealt with badly. We need urgently to get back round the table or there will be a mistake—and, goodness me, that will be it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
That would be a very alarming prognosis and a very unwelcome outcome, which I obviously hope can be avoided. The noble Lord is aware of the programme of engagement that has continued over a number of years with Ukraine. It is not just on the part of the UK, it is with our other allies, not least, as I said, within NATO. Ukraine enjoys a strong bilateral relationship with the United Kingdom; it is a relationship that we value and nurture and, as recent events have indicated, is it one that we support by deeds in addition to words.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, asks about the impact of arms sales on peace in eastern Europe. In the light of the US and allied withdrawal from Afghanistan, the broader pursuit of “America first” policies from Washington, and the fact that the UK is the world’s second-largest arms exporter, with the majority going to the Middle East, are the Government reviewing all arms sales and indeed the place of the UK arms industry? Are they truly counting the cost on UK and global security of our arms industry?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The UK Government take very seriously our responsibility for the security of this country and our support for our global allies. That is why we have a strong defence capability. The noble Baroness will be aware that exports of arms and weapons are monitored extremely closely under a very robust regime.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, that concludes Oral Questions for today.
Independent Fan-led Review of Football Governance
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, we strongly welcome the independent Crouch review, whose recommendations, I have to say, look suspiciously like the sports section of the Labour Party manifesto, going back several general elections. We have long called for fans to be placed at the centre of the game that they do so much to sustain and for stronger protections when they are mistreated or their beloved clubs mismanaged. The Government say they will respond to the review in spring 2022 but, let us be clear, there is much that can be done in the interim. Will they, for example, establish a shadow regulator ahead of the 2022-23 season? Can the Minister confirm that any enabling legislation for Tracey Crouch’s reform package will not only feature in the next Queen’s Speech but be made a genuine political priority?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, this is a matter that transcends party politics. Football clubs are at the heart of our communities and fans are at the heart of those clubs, and everybody with an interest wants to make sure that they are. I am very proud that our manifesto commitment to set up this review has led to it in swift time; Tracey Crouch has done very thorough work at good speed. We will give her report and the views of all the fans who contributed to it the respect that they deserve; the report deserves a substantive response from the Government and it will get one. But the noble Lord is right that there are things that can be done now, not least by football clubs themselves, with regard to heritage, financial flows and governance. They need not wait for us to go through the report and come forward with our response to start taking the action that people want to see.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I declare an interest as one of 8,800 owners of Heart of Midlothian Football Club, the largest fan-owned club in the whole of the United Kingdom. I also have the privilege of having prepared a report on football governance for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which will be considered at a committee on Thursday and then at the plenary session in January. That report endorses what Tracey Crouch has said but goes even further. Can I have the Minister’s assurance that, when the Committee of Ministers approves my report, as I expect it will, it will then be considered in detail by Her Majesty’s Government?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, I am sure my honourable friend the Sports Minister will be delighted to receive a copy of the report when it is published and will of course look at it with the attention and respect it deserves.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend, in asking for better commitment towards fans, also recognise that, if fans were much more involved in the management of their clubs, we might be able to reduce the scale of racism that has come into football?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. Fans have been aghast at some of the appalling things that we have seen in recent years directed at football players at every level. That is why we want to ensure that true fans of football have their voices heard at every level, not least in calling out the abhorrent racism that we sometimes see.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that, if we follow the lines of the report, the Government will take seriously the fact that the Premier League has got to pump more money into the lower professional leagues to keep them viable? Without this, we will see more and more of the fiascos that have happened with smaller football clubs such as Northampton, where something that is part of that town’s heritage is taken away, or threatened to be taken away, from it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, yes, the Government were very clear that cash should flow through the football pyramid more fairly and called on clubs to do that during the pandemic. I am very glad to say that, in many cases, it was so, but that is one of the recommendations followed up by Tracey Crouch and her review and one that we will look at carefully.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, as a member of the north-east fanatical football supporters’ league—but not a Newcastle United fan—I was disappointed when the Minister said earlier on that, essentially, the way the Premier League assesses “fit and proper person” is none of the Government’s business. It should be. Some of us have been saying for 20 years—for a lot longer than that, actually—that too much of our football governance is not fit for purpose and that the drive of the Premier League for more and more money has undermined much of what football is meant to be about. It is tragic that we do not have more fans properly engaged in governance in this country. The Premier League—I challenge it on this—does not want that because it believes that it will put off money and monied people coming into the Premier League. Therefore, will the Government, in their review of the Tracey Crouch report and their thoughts about future governance, really think about the model that is spread throughout the UK that would involve fans much more centrally in direct governance of football?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as I say, while we are considering the review’s recommendations, it is clear from Tracey Crouch’s report that there is a significant opportunity to tighten up and strengthen the current owners’ and directors’ test. We will look at that very seriously and come forward with our response to the report in due course.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend commend the report by our honourable friend Tracey Crouch for being so bold? I support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington; 62 insolvencies of lower-league clubs have occurred. Will my noble friend’s department use every good office to ensure that—while not harming the Premier League in the long term—more money will filter down to the lower levels?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend in reiterating my thanks to our honourable friend Tracey Crouch for the work that she has done. Football has had many opportunities to get its house in order but has not taken them, and that is why this report is such an important and timely one. In the past, football’s failure to reform itself has had an injurious impact on many clubs, as we saw with the proposals to set up the closed shop of a European super league. That is why we have taken the action of commissioning this fan-led review and why we will respond to it thoroughly.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there are not many things that England leads the world at, but the Premier League is one of them. One of the reasons for that is because it has attracted investment from right around the world. While I am no fan of the Saudi Arabian takeover of Newcastle, I think we have to be really cautious about anything which might undermine the Premier League’s success in future.
I want to ask the Minister a couple of specific questions. Can he explain how he thinks an independent regulator would, for example, have prevented the collapse of Bury? What happened there was that a guy came in, bought the club and eventually did not have the funds to sustain it, and the club went bust. Would an independent regulator have blocked his purchase of Bury? If it had done so, the club would have gone bust sooner and the independent regulator—and by extension the Government—would have got the blame. I think there is no possibility that an independent regulator would have done that. People talk about more money cascading down the pyramid. Is the Minister not aware that the Premier League gave £250 million to the Championship and millions more to the leagues below that? One of the reasons it was able to do that is because the league has been so successful, so let us be cautious about undermining that.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, Tracey Crouch’s review demonstrates that there are fundamental issues with our national sport and that there is a case for significant reform. We do not want to see any more of our historic clubs vanishing from the football leagues and football not doing enough to help itself. The scenarios the noble Lord outlines are the ones we will have in mind as we look at the recommendations she made and as we formulate our responses to them.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, though football is the national game, it cannot in any sense be separate from the national culture and values? To this end, it has a way to go to be truly inclusive for all. Would he agree that the Crouch review makes many excellent recommendations to this effect and is well worth the Government considering extremely seriously?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we are indeed considering it very seriously. My noble friend is right that the pride we invest in our national sport and demonstrate when it is watched and enjoyed by people all over the world is a demonstration of our values as a nation. That is why the international reach of football and the great interest it attracts—whether that is from fans or investors overseas—should be a source of pride as well, and our response to the fan-led review will aim to strengthen all of that.
Public Authority Algorithm Bill [HL]
Monday 29th November 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Authority Algorithm Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Public Authority Algorithm Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL]
Monday 29th November 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Armed Forces Bill
Monday 29th November 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 62-I Marshalled list for Report - (19 Nov 2021)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, it has been a great pleasure to lead the Bill through this House. It delivers on the manifesto commitment to strengthen the legislation of the Armed Forces covenant that will deliver for the Armed Forces community across the United Kingdom. It further strengthens the service justice system for our Armed Forces, wherever they serve. Most importantly, without this Bill, the Armed Forces Act 2006—the legislation that maintains the Armed Forces as a disciplined body—could not continue in force beyond the end of this year.
I therefore convey my deep gratitude to all noble Lords for supporting the Bill and for their invaluable contributions to our extremely incisive and well-informed debates. Undoubtedly, this is a marked tribute to your Lordships’ shrewdness, the depth and breadth of knowledge and the passion that has persistently shone through when debating issues affecting our Armed Forces. I particularly express my appreciation for the constructive engagement made possible by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Dannatt, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce, Lord Craig of Radley and Lord Houghton of Richmond.
It is an incontestable fact that all within this House have bought into the spirit of what this Bill seeks to achieve. We all want to do the very best for our Armed Forces community, from the sailors, soldiers and aircrew at the forefront of operations around the world, to the veterans whose days of active service have long since passed, and to the families who unstintingly provide support and are the bedrock to their success. I thank your Lordships for their continuing interest in the Armed Forces.
It would be unacceptably remiss were I not to acknowledge and thank the Bill team under the formidable leadership of Jayne Scheier, supported by her able and committed colleagues. There is a lot of technical detail in the Bill, with complex legal consequences, and the team’s guidance and expertise has been exemplary—as has their patience in supporting a Minister who I am sure must have been very irksome at times.
Before I finish, I remind the House again of the undertakings I made both in Grand Committee and on Report that I will keep the House informed of progress on the recommendations of Sir Richard Henriques’s review. We expect to submit very shortly our response to the House of Commons Defence Committee’s report on women in the Armed Forces; that response is detailed and substantial. This Bill now passes from my stewardship to my colleagues in the other place—so, over to them.
Finally, I pay tribute to the courageous, professional and dedicated men and women in our Armed Forces. We are proud to have the best Armed Forces in the world and, ultimately, this Bill is for them. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a real pleasure for me to see my first Bill through your Lordships’ House on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition, with my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, who I thank for his support. It has been helped enormously by the generosity of spirit and co-operative attitude of the Minister. I sincerely thank her and her officials for the briefings and advice that we have received throughout the Bill’s passage. I also thank her sincerely for the way in which she has responded to our questions and amendments, and her commitment to reflect on the various points as policies are taken forward by the Ministry of Defence.
In that regard, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and her colleagues, notably the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for their collegiate approach, which has helped us all scrutinise the Bill more effectively. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. Thanks to him, I now understand terms such as “concurrent jurisdiction”. Throughout the Bill, advice from my noble friends Lord West and Lord Reid was gratefully received, as was the tireless and impressive work of Dan Harris, our adviser. It was also a privilege to have my noble and learned friend Lord Morris and my noble friends Lord Browne and Lord Robertson alongside me. Their expertise and experience is a huge asset to our country, as is the active involvement of many noble and gallant Lords, some present here this afternoon. We hope that the Government will further consider the amendments that we have passed back to the other place, which are intended not to undermine the Bill but merely to improve it, and that they will reflect and think again.
We are all united by admiration for our Armed Forces and the service they give to our country. We know that we depend on them to defend our democracy and values at home and across the world, with our allies. We know that those values are likely to be tested again and again over the coming years and decades. The Bill, soon to be an Act, is part of the contract we make as our duty of care for them and their families, and we as Her Majesty’s Official Opposition have been proud to support it.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in thanking the Minister, and join her in thanking her officials for the time they have been willing to take to brief the opposition spokespeople here in the Lords, and to answer questions in private, in Grand Committee and in the Chamber. It has been an important process and helpful to have had detailed responses, particularly on some of the legislative aspects, where my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford is expert and I am not. It has been very useful to have the legal input, and I am grateful for that.
Like the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I pay tribute to the Armed Forces. The Bill is important, and it is particularly important at this time to be putting the Armed Forces covenant on a statutory footing. We have now left Afghanistan—Op Pitting has just taken place—and, for many of our service personnel and veterans, there will be questions about the end of Op Herrick and what we have managed to achieve. For some, there may be consequences with which, I hope, the Armed Forces covenant will help them deal.
I very much hope that the two amendments passed in your Lordships’ House will go through the other place without needing to come back for ping-pong. I suspect that may not happen but, pending that, I thank the Minister again and hope that the Bill is passed as quickly as possible, because we clearly need it on the statute book by the end of the year.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, as one of the sponsors of a number of amendments, I have added to the work of the Minister and her Bill team. I add my thanks to her for the way she has dealt with them. The Bill team, having been faced with a very large number of late government amendments, have done a magnificent job; Jayne Scheier and all of them ought to be thanked very much for that effort. I hope that the Minister will not forget that I mentioned the Hong Kong veterans and have yet to have a decent reply about that. The issue has been outstanding for 35 years, so it is about time it was dealt with.
I hope, too, that the amendments we have sent back to the other place will be accepted. Time is short, Covid threatens and it would be sensible if the Government avoided ping-ponging it in this direction again. I thank the Minister very much for all that she has done on this Bill.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and noble Lords across the Chamber for their contributions. They reflect what I said in my remarks: we are all united in our admiration for, and desire to support, our Armed Forces. I thank noble Lords for these helpful and constructive comments.
Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [HL]
Monday 29th November 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 View all Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 44-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (25 Nov 2021)
18:23 - Division on Amendment 126 - Ayes: 147 / Noes: 211 - Amendment 126 disagreed.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the definition of “remediable service” applies separately in relation to service of a person that takes place at different times (so that a person may have some service that is “remediable service” and some that is not, and may have more than one period of remediable service).
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the amendments in this group, I will begin by briefly reminding the House of the driving force behind this Bill and why it is so important that we get it right.
In the light of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, the Government have taken steps to provide an effective remedy to the discrimination that arose in public service pension schemes. The Government have sought to approach this matter responsibly from the outset, and this Bill is key in ensuring an effective remedy for the 3.4 million people who are affected. At the heart of the Bill is fairness and equal treatment for the public servants on whom we all rely. To ensure that we achieve this objective, the Bill is underpinned by the core principles of greater fairness between lower and higher earners, fairness for the taxpayer, future sustainability and affordability of public service pensions.
I recognise that tabling a large volume of amendments is highly unusual at this stage of a Bill’s passage. I want to take a moment to explain why this approach has proved necessary—indeed, crucial—to ensuring a robust and effective remedy. As we have all acknowledged, this is a complex and technical matter. The Bill covers more than 40 schemes which each individually have their own layers of detail and complexity. We are dealing with a somewhat unprecedented issue, and retrospective changes on this scale have not previously been required for occupational pension schemes. However, it is undoubtedly vital that, despite the complexity, we get this right.
Since the Bill was introduced, the Government have continued to work with the schemes, stakeholders and departments to check and re-check it to ensure that it will deliver our commitments to remove the discrimination and offer a complete and effective remedy. The amendments I have tabled today reflect that work and clarify, correct or adjust the Bill to ensure that it works correctly for each of the schemes.
The first group is large and consists of technical amendments. The House will hopefully be pleased to hear that I will not seek to set out the detail of each and every amendment, but I hope your Lordships will find it helpful if I explain the themes that they address. I will of course be happy to turn to specific amendments if your Lordships have any questions.
A large number of the amendments in this group deal with a single theme. In reviewing the Bill, we recognised that a gap exists in how some of the processes operate for members who die before they are able to make a deferred choice. So, 44 amendments are needed to correct the position and ensure that the Bill provides an effective remedy for instances in which a member sadly dies before they reach their retirement. The reason why so many amendments are needed to achieve this outcome is that it must be applied across all the key areas of the remedy so that, for example, any correction of pension benefits or member contributions in relation to a deceased member can be addressed with the member’s personal representatives. The changes must also be made across the provisions for the main schemes and those for the judiciary.
The next theme is amendments which have arisen from work that we have undertaken with each of the public service pension schemes. There are a number of differences between the schemes within the scope of the Bill—for example, to reflect the different needs of the workforces. We have identified some scheme-specific issues that must be reflected in the Bill to ensure that the remedy operates correctly for their members.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have a current interest to declare, but it would be appropriate to mention that, until the end of August when I gave up the work, I was the paid adviser to a number of trade unions, advising them on this specific issue. It appears in the register of interests for another year, but I no longer have any direct interest.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, he foreshadowed at Second Reading that a raft of amendments was coming. I think it has been suggested that there will be further amendments; clearly not in this House, but there will be a further batch when the Bill is considered in the Commons, which will come back to us. Is this still the case?
Secondly, and more specifically, the Government have made proposals for changes to the cost control mechanism, for which primary legislation will be required. Is it envisaged that they will be made to this Bill or will a separate Bill come forward at a later stage? Before I make my third point, I first thank the Minister very much; he has been extremely open and informative. He has gone out of his way to make sure that we understand what these amendments are for, and I welcome that.
One of the amendments picks up a point I made in my Amendment 6 in Committee relating to the potential payment of remedial AVCs—a wonderful concept. My amendment was obviously very simple, and we now have a much more extensive and substantial change. It will be a complex issue and I recognise that it will be complex to administer. One of the problems we have is that there is a demand, but we have no way of telling how big it will be. The respective scheme advisory boards will have to look at and decide what proportionate and appropriate steps they need to take. I hope the Minister will indicate that they are prepared to facilitate that.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I too thank the Minister for his time and for the engagement he has provided throughout the Bill, particularly regarding these amendments. Considering the scale, complexity and magnitude of the Bill, together with the millions who will be affected by it, I understand that these amendments try to cover a variety of contexts and circumstances to provide a comprehensive remedy to the previous discrimination. I recognise that the whole range of contexts and circumstances means that many will require fine detail. I hope these will, in many ways, support the millions of public sector workers who have suffered discrimination as a result of earlier circumstances.
We will see later some of the specific issues we raised in Committee. I hope the Minister can assure us that these amendments have taken account of those. We will explore that later.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of this extensive group of amendments. I too thank him and his Bill team for engaging with me and my noble friend Lord Davies leading up to Report and for the explanation of the late additions to the Bill. The Minister recognised that it is unusual to bring forward such a large number of amendments at such a late stage. However—and this is unusual on our part—we are content that he has done so. As my noble friend said, we understand that there may be further amendments when the Bill goes to the other place.
We have no objection to the amendments. They are largely technical and clarifying in nature. For example, they would ensure that the Bill operates as intended when a member of one of the affected pension schemes dies. I also accept that adding these amendments now will ensure that the Bill will start its scrutiny in the House of Commons with these points clarified, which we welcome. For these reasons, we are content with this group.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will make a few very short closing remarks. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for their brief remarks. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his supportive remarks and his understanding—there is probably a better word to use—of what we needed to do for this group of amendments and the next one. I appreciate it.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill deals with a complex and unprecedented issue. These amendments reflect the several months of continued work with the schemes, stakeholders and departments to check and recheck the Bill to ensure that it will offer a complete and effective remedy for members affected by the discrimination identified by the Court of Appeal.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised a good point about what might happen next with potential amendments in the Commons, but I reassure him that, as I outlined, this is a highly complex area and the Government are committed to ensuring that members in all relevant schemes receive an effective remedy. We will continue to work closely with stakeholders, including the pension schemes in scope, to consider whether any areas of the Bill require further clarification to ensure legal operability.
I also took note of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, concerning additional voluntary contributions and the cost control mechanism. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, alluded to the fact that we will be addressing them in subsequent groups. I think it probably makes sense to do that, but I have taken note of the noble Lord’s questions, and I am sure he will raise these matters as the afternoon goes on.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the second condition (which is concerned with whether service is pensionable) must be met in relation to all of the service in question.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment recognises that some legacy schemes offered transitional protection to people who met conditions relating to a lower age than normal pension age.
“(5) The third condition is that the person—(a) was, on 31 March 2012 or any earlier day, in service in any employment or office that is pensionable service under—(i) a Chapter 1 legacy scheme,(ii) a judicial legacy scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 2), or(iii) a local government legacy scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 3), or(b) is not within paragraph (a) and was, on 31 March 2012, in service as a firefighter which entitled the person to be an active member of a relevant firefighters’ legacy scheme.(6) The fourth condition is that there is no disqualifying gap in service falling within the period—(a) beginning with— (i) in a case in which the third condition is met by virtue of subsection (5)(a), the day after the most recent day in relation to which that condition is met;(ii) in a case in which the third condition is met by virtue of subsection (5)(b), 1 April 2012, and(b) ending with the day before the first day of the service in question.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the third condition in this clause to cater for the fact that certain schemes for firefighters gave transitional protection to those who on 31 March 2012 were in active service but were not active members of the scheme. The fourth condition is amended consequentially.
“(a) is pensionable service under—(i) a Chapter 1 scheme,(ii) a judicial scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 2), or(iii) a local government scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 3), or(b) is, as a result of a Fair Deal transfer, pensionable service under a Fair Deal scheme.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that service in a private sector scheme under Fair Deal arrangements (which, before 2013, governed the pension arrangements that had to be offered to those in public service who were compulsorily transferred to the private sector) does not count as part of a “disqualifying gap in service” for the purposes of the fourth condition.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment simplifies the condition in subsection (2)(b).
“(a) at any time after the closing date, the person—(i) opted that their service in the employment or office in question should no longer be pensionable service under a Chapter 1 scheme, or(ii) ceased to be in service in the employment or office in question,(b) at any later time before 1 April 2022, the person—(i) opted that their service in the employment or office in question should again be pensionable service under a Chapter 1 scheme, or(ii) resumed service in the employment or office in question,(c) at that time, the rules of the Chapter 1 legacy scheme mentioned in subsection (1) prohibited a person from becoming an active member of the scheme, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the special case dealt with in subsection (3) in two ways. First, so that it covers those who remained in legacy schemes after the closing date, subsequently opted out, and then decided to opt back in to a Chapter 1 scheme; and second so that it covers those who left service in the employment or office in question after the closing date and subsequently resumed service.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the definition is apt for a case in which the member to whom a remediable service statement relates has died.
“(c) in cases in which any assets and liabilities that are referable to pension contributions made by or on behalf of the person have been transferred out of a partnership pension account, a condition requiring the payment to the scheme of an amount in respect of the transfer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that scheme regulations may require that, in a case in which an amount has in the past been transferred out of a partnership pension account, an election under this clause can be made only if a payment in respect of the transfer is made to the Chapter 1 legacy scheme.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the reference in subsection (7) of this Clause to the definition of “the relevant Chapter 1 legacy scheme” in Clause 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the reference in subsection (7) of this Clause to the definition of “the relevant Chapter 1 legacy scheme” in Clause 4.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the definition is apt for a case in which the member to whom a remediable service statement relates has died.
“Persons with remediable service in more than one Chapter 1 legacy scheme
(1) This section applies where—(a) an election is made by virtue of section 6 (immediate choice to receive new scheme benefits) in relation to the remediable service in an employment or office of a member (“M”) of a Chapter 1 legacy scheme that is pensionable service under the scheme, and(b) M has any remediable service in that employment or office that is pensionable service under another Chapter 1 legacy scheme.(2) If M is a relevant member within the meaning of section 6 in relation to the scheme mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the election has effect as an election by virtue of section 6 in relation to M’s remediable service that is pensionable service under that scheme (as well as having effect as such an election in relation to M’s remediable service that is pensionable service under the scheme mentioned in subsection (1)(a)).(3) If M is a relevant member within the meaning of section 9 (deferred choice to receive new scheme benefits) in relation to the scheme mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the election has effect as an election by virtue of section 9 in relation to M’s remediable service that is pensionable service under that scheme (as well as having effect as an election by virtue of section 6 in relation to M’s remediable service that is pensionable service under the scheme mentioned in subsection (1)(a)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that where a person has remediable service in an employment or office that is pensionable under more than one legacy scheme, the person can opt for new scheme benefits in respect of service in that employment or office in all of those schemes, but cannot opt for new scheme benefits in only some of those schemes.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the rule in subsection (2) so that it operates by reference to the time that benefits would become payable in accordance with an election (which may be a different time to the time at which benefits would become payable if no election were made).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a redundant word from subsection (6).
“Persons with remediable service in more than one Chapter 1 legacy scheme
(1) This section applies where—(a) an election is made by virtue of section 9 (deferred choice to receive new scheme benefits) in relation to the remediable service in an employment or office of a member (“M”) of a Chapter 1 legacy scheme that is pensionable service under the scheme, and(b) M has any remediable service in that employment or office that is pensionable service under another Chapter 1 legacy scheme. (2) If M is a relevant member within the meaning of section 9 in relation to the scheme mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the election has effect as an election by virtue of section 9 in relation to M’s remediable service that is pensionable service under that scheme (as well as having effect as such an election in relation to M’s remediable service that is pensionable service under the scheme mentioned in subsection (1)(a)).(3) If M is a relevant member within the meaning of section 6 (immediate choice to receive new scheme benefits) in relation to the scheme mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the election has effect as an election by virtue of section 6 in relation to M’s remediable service that is pensionable service under that scheme (as well as having effect as an election by virtue of section 9 in relation to M’s remediable service that is pensionable service under the scheme mentioned in subsection (1)(a)).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that where a person has remediable service in an employment or office that is pensionable under more than one legacy scheme, the person can opt for new scheme benefits in respect of service in that employment or office in all of those schemes, but cannot opt for new scheme benefits in only some of those schemes.
“(6A) A reference in subsection (6) to pension contributions paid by M includes, in relation to any pension contributions paid under a partnership pension account, such sums as are deducted by M under section 192 of FA 2004 (relief at source).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that “the paid contributions amount” defined in subsection (6) includes tax relief deducted at source.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“(5A) A reference in subsection (5) to pension contributions paid by M includes, in relation to any pension contributions paid under a partnership pension account, such sums as are deducted by M under section 192 of FA 2004 (relief at source).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that “the paid contributions amount” defined in subsection (5) includes tax relief deducted at source.
“(6A) In this section “the appropriate person” means—(a) M, or(b) if M is deceased, M’s personal representatives.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“(5A) A reference in subsection (5) to pension contributions paid by M includes, in relation to any pension contributions paid under a partnership pension account, such sums as are deducted by M under section 192 of FA 2004 (relief at source).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that “the paid contributions amount” defined in subsection (5) includes tax relief deducted at source.
“(7A) In this section “the appropriate person” means—(a) M, or(b) if M is deceased, M’s personal representatives.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is in consequence of the government amendment of clause 92 which applies the definition of “voluntary contributions” to the whole of Part 1.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, this second group consists of three technical areas of amendments. I reassure the House that my remarks will be somewhat shorter than on the previous group. As before, I will set out the key themes in each area, rather than talking through the detail of each amendment. The three key themes these amendments relate to are: first, matters concerning voluntary contributions; secondly, flexibility in delivering the remedy in respect of judicial scheme members; and, thirdly, the closure of old schemes. Once again, I will be happy to turn to specific amendments if your Lordships have any questions they would like to raise.
Before I turn to the first area of amendments, which relate to member voluntary contributions, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, to whom I am most grateful for raising this matter in Grand Committee, which has assisted the Government in developing these new amendments. I gave the noble Lord assurances in Grand Committee that the Government would consider how the Bill should provide for members who were prevented from making voluntary contributions to the legacy schemes as a result of the discrimination that arose, and I am pleased to be able to bring forward amendments to that effect now.
First, these amendments insert new clauses so that scheme regulations may allow members to enter into remedial voluntary contributions arrangements where they would have done so had the discrimination not arisen. Additionally, the amendments ensure that information that must be provided to members includes information about remedial voluntary contribution arrangements as well as details of the eligibility criteria and the process for entering into those arrangements.
Secondly, these amendments will amend Clause 18 to ensure that the provisions work correctly in relation to persons other than a member who may obtain rights in relation to a member’s voluntary contributions.
Thirdly, the amendments clarify that, where compensation is paid to members of the judiciary representing an amount that was paid as voluntary contributions less the tax relief they received at the time, any rights that were associated with those contributions are extinguished. The amendments also clarify that, where the member is deceased, the compensation should be made to the member’s personal representatives.
Finally, the amendments add a new clause to provide that no new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions may be entered into after 31 March 2022 in a legacy scheme. This reflects the fact that the legacy schemes will close on that date. However, any existing voluntary contributions arrangements that members may have entered prior to 1 April 2022 may continue. Additionally, this prohibition does not apply to the new clauses which permit members to enter into remedial voluntary contributions arrangements in the specific circumstances I have set out.
Let me now turn to the second area of amendments in this group. These are technical amendments required to ensure the remedy can be applied most effectively in respect of judicial scheme members. Clause 65 defines the election period as a three-month period beginning with such date as is specified by the relevant authority and that the relevant authority may extend the election period in relation to a particular person, if they consider it just and equitable to do so.
It is important that judges in scope of the remedy have enough time to make an informed decision regarding their scheme membership for the remedy period. Therefore, amendments are made to Clauses 65 and 60 to provide for further flexibility to respond to judges’ individual circumstances by allowing for there to be more than one election period, and for an information statement to be sent to each member before the start of their respective election period.
Finally, I come to the third and final area in this group. This last area amends the valuations and governance framework for public service pension schemes to ensure that it operates correctly when old schemes established under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, or its Northern Ireland equivalent, are closed and new schemes are established. In the present context, these amendments are most relevant to the reformed judicial pension scheme that is set to replace the 2015 scheme. However, the same issues will arise if, in future, other schemes are closed and new ones created.
Schemes that are closed to future accrual do not require future stand-alone valuations. A new clause will ensure that these are no longer required and that an employer cost cap need not be set for the purpose of measuring changes in the costs of those schemes under the cost control mechanism.
The new clause will also allow existing governance frameworks to be carried over from old schemes to new schemes. Additionally, an amendment to Clause 80 will ensure that the cost control mechanism can operate correctly by ensuring that the employer cost cap of a new scheme can be set after the regulations have been created.
I hope the House will agree that, important though they are, all three sets of amendments I have outlined in this group make necessary technical changes to the existing legislation so as to ensure that the remedy can operate as intended. With that, I beg to move.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to many of the issues that arose in Committee and welcome the additional flexibility with regard to the voluntary contributions and the period when remedial contributions can be made.
I would like to question the eligibility for voluntary contributions. One of the areas we discussed was about people—for example, with caring responsibilities—who would wish to make up their pension and in their legacy scheme would have been able to do that. Examples include women who have taken time out to look after children or people with caring responsibilities who have done the same. Will these members have the chance to make these remedial contributions to augment their pensions, as they would have been able to within the legacy scheme? Perhaps the Minister could clear that up for me.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for his explanation of this group. We are content for these changes to be made to the Bill. I particularly welcome the provisions on voluntary contributions, which will now allow for a member to make voluntary contributions where they would have done, but did not due to the pension changes that led to the arising discrimination. This responds to a concern raised by pension schemes and by my noble friend Lord Davies in Committee, which was recognised by the Minister. I wonder whether the Minister can give us an assurance that more information will be forthcoming, over the Bill’s passage through the Commons, on how this will be provided for in practice.
I also welcome the provision providing flexibility for judges over their election period and that every member must be provided with an information statement by the scheme before their election period starts. At later stages this afternoon we will come back to this question of how information and guidance are provided to members and how they will access support. That is in an amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. I am glad to see that this has been recognised, at least to some extent, in this group. We are happy to support these amendments.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, once again, my closing remarks will be relatively brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for their broad support for these amendments. As one or two questions were raised, I will give some more information on additional voluntary contributions, which may be helpful, particularly with regard to the question on eligibility raised by the noble Baroness.
The proposed new clauses provide that scheme regulations may not permit a member to enter into such arrangements after one year from the day on which the member is provided with their remediable service statement, or their information statement in the case of the judiciary, or such later time as the scheme manager considers reasonable. The proposed new clauses will be subject to Treasury directions, which I understand we will be speaking about in a later group—under Clause 24 for Chapter 1 schemes and under Clause 58 for judicial schemes. This is set out in Amendments 45 and 90, and is consistent with the similar powers in Part 1 of the Bill. These directions will help to ensure that scheme regulations take a consistent approach, which is very important in providing members with remedial voluntary contribution arrangements.
I hope that this offers some explanation but, again, bearing in mind the technical nature of the noble Baroness’s question, I will be keen to read Hansard and will write if further information is required.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment recognises that persons other than the member who pays voluntary contributions (for example their spouse) may obtain rights in consequence of the contributions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment recognises that persons other than the member who pays voluntary contributions (for example their spouse) may obtain rights in consequence of the contributions.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to clarify that a payment of compensation under regulations under subsection (6)(c) of this Clause would, like other payments of compensation by virtue of Part 1 (such as those under Clause 21), be paid by the relevant scheme manager.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“(aa) provision about the benefits payable to or in respect of a member who has remediable service in an employment or office where—(i) there is another Chapter 1 scheme that provides benefits for persons in that employment or office, and(ii) the two schemes provide (or in any circumstances might provide) benefits to or in respect of a person in relation to the same period of service;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to enable provision to be made where service may entitle a person to benefits under more than one scheme (for example, some service in the armed forces entitles a person both to early departure payments under one scheme and (when they are older) to pension payments under another scheme).
“(d) provision about cases in which the scheme administrator of a Chapter 1 scheme pays a liability under section 217 or 237B of FA 2004 (joint liability of scheme administrator to lifetime allowance charge or annual allowance charge);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment generalises the power in subsection (2)(d) of this Clause so that it confers power to make provision about any case in which a member’s liability to a lifetime allowance charge, or an annual allowance charge, is paid under the “scheme pays” facility (under which the liability is paid by the scheme administrator and the member’s benefits are reduced in consequence).
“(e) provision about cases in which remuneration is or was payable to a person on the satisfaction of a condition relating to whether any remediable service of the person is or was, or is or was eligible to be, pensionable service under a particular Chapter 1 scheme (including provision requiring any such remuneration that has been paid to be repaid).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to enable provision to be made under this Clause about employments etc (such as the armed forces) in which a person’s pay may be determined by reference to whether their service is (or is eligible to be) pensionable service under a particular scheme.
“(f) provision about cases in which a former member of the armed forces—(i) is, disregarding section 2 (1), entitled under regulation 19 of AFEDP 2014 (lump sum awards: incapacity for armed forces service) to a payment determined (to any extent) by reference to the person’s remediable service in an employment or office, or(ii) would be entitled under that regulation to such a payment if the benefits payable to the person, so far as determined by reference the person’s remediable service in the employment or office, were new scheme benefits.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to enable provision to be made under this clause to ensure that the Chapter works fairly for members of the armed forces who would be entitled to an incapacity lump sum under the new armed forces scheme, even if they would not have been entitled to such a payment under the rules of the legacy scheme.
“(2A) Scheme regulations for a Chapter 1 new scheme may make provision about injury and compensation benefits payable under a relevant injury and compensation scheme to or in respect of a member who has remediable service in an employment or office.(2B) Provision made under subsection (2A) may in particular be made by amending the relevant injury and compensation scheme.(2C) In subsections (2A) and (2B) and this subsection—(a) “injury and compensation scheme” means a pension scheme that is listed in Schedule 6 to PSPA 2013 or Schedule 6 to PSPA(NI) 2014 (existing injury and compensation schemes);(b) an injury and compensation scheme is “relevant”, in relation to a Chapter 1 new scheme, if it is connected with the Chapter 1 new scheme;(c) a reference to “injury and compensation benefits” payable under an injury and compensation scheme is a reference to—(i) in the case of an injury and compensation scheme in relation to which Schedule 6 to PSPA 2013 or Schedule 6 to PSPA(NI) 2014 specifies particular benefits, those benefits;(ii) in the case of any other injury and compensation scheme, any benefits payable under the scheme.”Member’s explanatory statement
Where Chapter 1 of Part 1 retrospectively alters pension benefits payable to or in respect of a person, this may require retrospective changes also to be made to injury and compensation benefits to which the person is entitled (for example where their amount is calculated in a way that takes account of the amount of pension benefits payable). This amendment provides a power to ensure that appropriate provision can be made in such cases.
“(a) provision modifying any provision of this Chapter in its application to persons of a description specified in the regulations;(b) provision corresponding to, or applying, any provision of this Chapter, with or without modifications.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the way in which special cases may be dealt with in regulations.
“(4) In this section— “AFEDP 2014” means the Armed Forces Early Departure Payments Scheme Regulations 2014 (S.I. 2014/2328);“modifying” includes disapplying or supplementing (and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly);“scheme administrator” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of FA 2004 (see section 270 of that Act);“the armed forces” has the same meaning as in PSPA 2013 (see paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 to that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts definitions required for other government amendments of this Clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where a member has died, compensation can be paid to the member’s personal representatives if they incur a compensatable loss.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where a member has died, compensation can be paid to the member’s personal representatives if they incur a compensatable loss.
Lord Davies of Brixton
“(6A) In subsection (5), a loss “attributable to the application of any provision of, or made under, this Chapter” includes a loss incurred by a member with remediable service who—(a) is transferred to the new scheme and reaches the required number of years of pensionable service to retire with full benefits under the legacy scheme, but(b) is unable to access the full value of those benefits because they must continue to work to retire with full benefits under the new scheme.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that certain losses arising from the interaction of the rules of the new and legacy schemes respectively will be compensated.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is about what has been termed “the pension trap”. Much concern has been expressed about this phenomenon by different groups and members of different schemes, not least the Police Superintendents’ Association and the Fire Brigades Union. It is important to be clear that this issue affects all the major public service schemes. It is more salient in the uniformed service schemes as they previously had a much lower pension age, so the impact of the pension trap is more significant, but it runs through all the schemes. When you put two schemes together that work on significantly different bases, problems can arise that perhaps we should have spotted at an earlier stage of the discussions on the scheme.
The key issue concerns where you combine schemes with different normal retirement ages in the legacy and new schemes respectively, and the impact of extending working lives in that situation. Extending working lives has been a theme of the reform of public service pensions, so we should perhaps have thought through this a little more clearly. I may have been a little to blame myself in my previous life. When the issue was first raised I was somewhat doubtful but, the more I have looked at it, the more I have come to appreciate that it is a real problem.
The underlying problem is where the combined benefits, old and new, do not reflect the benefits that the members lose by having a later retirement age. They suffer a net loss. With most private sector schemes and the new state or public service schemes, if you defer your retirement, you get some credit: you lose a year’s worth of pension because you have decided to retire a year later, but the money that you have surrendered by doing so is used to increase the subsequent pension. Whether you take the pension at 65, 60 or 67, overall, the broad value of your benefits remains the same. This contrasts with the situation in most, if not all, of the significant public service schemes, where, if you defer your retirement, you simply lose that year’s benefit and receive no credit for it. The reason for this difference between public and private schemes is lost in the mists of time.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his explanation of the amendment. I know we had quite a lot of discussion about this in Committee. My understanding of it in this specific case is how it affects members of the Police Superintendents’ Association. Previously, a number of years’ service entitled them to their pensions whereas the new scheme is age-related. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, that prevents them being able either to retire early and still have their pension, as was guaranteed, or work later to augment their pension.
This is an important issue, particularly in terms of public services such as the police, where undertakings were given and promises made. These were parts of agreements about pay levels and general conditions of service. So I believe the Government have some obligations here, and I very much hope that this can be looked at further as the scheme progresses and that it can be evaluated and solutions found. I hope the Minister can give us some clarification on that. I certainly support the spirit of the amendment and hope that we can resolve this in future.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Davies has given a thorough explanation of this issue, which will impact members of certain public service pension schemes. I simply echo the hope that the Government will look carefully at this issue before the Bill goes into its Commons stages.
To reinforce the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, the Police Superintendents’ Association has reported that this issue is one of the most-raised questions in sessions that it is holding with its members, and it is trying to talk through the possible remedies and related pension issues as they affect police superintendents. This is an unintended consequence that has arisen due to the current complexities, rather than an intentional outcome of what the Government are seeking to do.
With that in mind, could the Minister inform us, first, whether the Government have considered ways to remedy this issue, in which certain members will be caught, and, secondly, what ongoing consultation and engagement are the Government undertaking with those who are affected? I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for raising this issue again today, and I thank other noble Lords for their comments.
Clause 21 provides the power for scheme managers to pay compensation for certain losses incurred by members. Compensation can be paid for losses that satisfy any of the three conditions set out in subsections (4) to (6) and are of a description specified in Treasury directions.
It might be helpful for the House if I set out the background and purpose of the clause. I hope I can provide the clarifications that have been asked for by the noble Baroness and both noble Lords. The purpose of the clause is to confer power on scheme managers to make payments in relation to compensatable losses. This is an important element of the remedy provided by the Bill. The Government have set out to Parliament, in public announcements and to the courts that we will take steps to remedy the discrimination that occurred when transitional protection was provided to some members when the public pension schemes were reformed in 2015. That means taking steps to place members as far as possible back into the position where they would have been had the discrimination not occurred.
Clause 21 provides for compensation in relation to losses incurred as a result of the discrimination or the retrospective remedy provided by the Bill, or in respect of certain tax losses. The clause allows for matters that are not directly remedied by other provisions of the Bill or by the intended scheme regulations to be put right. As I understand it, having listened carefully to the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the intended effect of his amendment is to compensate members who reach the required length of service to retire with full benefits in their legacy scheme before they reach the necessary age to retire with full benefits in their reformed scheme. The amendment appears to relate closely to representations made by police staff associations, which a number of speakers mentioned, regarding members of the 1987 and 2015 police pension schemes who reach 30 years of service in the legacy pension scheme before reaching minimum pension age in the reformed scheme.
However, by referring to “full benefits” in the reformed pension scheme, the noble Lord’s amendment appears to go considerably beyond these representations and proposals, effectively requiring compensation for those below normal pension age, not minimum pension age, in the reformed scheme. I know that he raised the question of whether this applies to all public servants. Perhaps I may just gently put him right—I defer to his greater knowledge but I will put him right on this—that it does not.
As implied by the reference to the required number of years in the amendment text, this issue arises for members of schemes where retirement on full benefits is based on length of service rather than age. The 1987 police pension scheme falls into that. Members of other public service pension schemes will often move from a scheme where the normal pension age is 60 to a scheme where the NPA is equal to state pension age. However, it is not quite the same issue as the normal pension age and a legacy scheme, for these members will be higher than the minimum pension age in their reformed scheme. I hope that offers a reasoned explanation.
Turning to the police pension scheme, under the Bill all members in active service on 31 March 2022 will be moved into the reformed 2015 police pension scheme in respect of service from 1 April 2022 onwards. That is what is known as a “prospective remedy” to ensure that all active members are treated equally from that date onwards. I am grateful for the hard work and extraordinary dedication shown by police officers. The Government support the police and the important work that they do to protect the public, and recognise that they face changing demands from crime.
The reformed police pension scheme is, rightly, one of the most generous pension schemes in the United Kingdom. Moreover, members with service under the 1987 police pension scheme are already afforded significant protections in the Bill, including by maintaining the final salary link of the 1987 scheme and the protection of weighted accrual. This means that accruals in the 1987 scheme will be calculated in relation to a member’s final salary when they retire or otherwise leave the police pension scheme of 2015 in the future, not their salary at the point when they leave the police pension scheme of 1987 on 31 March 2022. The improved accrual rate linked to length of service in the older scheme is also protected and will remain the same in relation to service in those legacy schemes.
The Government have been considering the issues raised by the police representatives and this amendment carefully, including the question of whether there are viable policy mitigations. I want to answer the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on engagement. The Home Office is also currently consulting on detailed regulations to implement the prospective McCloud remedy for the police pension scheme; I hope that provides some reassurance that this is an important matter. That includes communication as well. However, the Government must not take action that would be contrary to the Bill’s intention to remove the discrimination identified by the courts and to ensure that all members are treated equally from 1 April 2022 by accruing service in the reformed schemes, regardless of their age.
It is important to stress that the Court of Appeal found in the McCloud and Sargeant cases in 2018 that the transitional protections offered under the PSPA 2013 amounted to unlawful discrimination against younger members, because they allowed older members to accrue service in the legacy schemes for longer because of their age. Accordingly, offering compensation to members depending on their age and resulting position relative to service length and normal pension age would risk perpetuating such unlawful discrimination through different means. This is an important point of clarification for the noble Lord, Lord Davies.
I thank the noble Lord for bringing attention to this issue and reassure him that the Government have been considering the position of these members, including the viability of policy solutions such as the proposal submitted by police staff associations. However, careful consideration must be given to the need to avoid introducing new discrimination against other pension scheme members—I made this point earlier—and a broadly drafted amendment to the Bill risks doing just that. I therefore ask, with that rather full explanation, the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his detailed reply. At the appropriate time, I will indicate my intention to withdraw the amendment.
First, I want to say that the purpose and intention of the amendment—I never believed that it was complete in itself—was to prod the Government into taking the issue seriously. The problem arises in any scheme where, if you do not take your pension at the scheme pension age, you do not get any credit for giving up the pension that you lose by deferring your retirement. That is the underlying problem, and it occurs across the public sector. It is currently far more acute, as we have been told in detail by the Fire Brigades Union and the Police Superintendents’ Association.
I have no doubt that the real solution to this issue lies in scheme-level discussions, but such discussions will take place only if the Government give an indication that they take this issue seriously and want the respective scheme advisory boards to discuss and address the issue and seek out practical solutions. Whether they can be funded, and the extent to which any solution would fall within the cost cap and so not incur substantial additional cost, would have to be addressed as part of those discussions. That is all I am asking for.
I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to raise this issue. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“Remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to legacy schemes
(1) Scheme regulations for a Chapter 1 legacy scheme may make provision so as to secure that a relevant member may enter into remedial voluntary contributions arrangements.(2) In subsection (1)—“relevant member”, in relation to a Chapter 1 legacy scheme, means a member (other than a deceased member) who has remediable service in an employment or office which, after the coming into force of section 2 (1) in relation to the scheme, is pensionable service under the scheme (whether or not by virtue of that provision);“remedial voluntary contributions arrangements” means arrangements—(a) which are entered into by a member after the coming into force of section 2 (1) in relation to the scheme, and(b) under which the member pays voluntary contributions to the scheme.(3) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may permit a member (“M”) to enter into arrangements only if the scheme manager is satisfied that it is more likely than not that, but for a relevant breach of a non-discrimination rule, M would, during the period of M’s remediable service in the employment or office, have entered into the same or similar arrangements.(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes, in particular, provision under which liabilities to pay voluntary contributions that would otherwise arise under the arrangements are reduced by tax relief amounts.(5) In subsection (4) “tax relief amounts” means amounts determined by reference to the tax relief under section 188 of FA 2004 (relief for members’ contributions) that would have been available in respect of the amounts owed if they were paid in a different tax year.(6) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may not permit a member (“M”) to enter into arrangements after—(a) the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which a remediable service statement is first provided in respect of M, or(b) such later time as the scheme manager considers reasonable in all the circumstances.(7) Subsection (6) does not affect the continued operation after the time mentioned in that subsection of any remedial arrangements entered into before that time.(8) In this section “non-discrimination rule” means a rule that is, or at any time was, included in a Chapter 1 scheme by virtue of—(a) section 61 of EA 2010, or(b) paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to EEAR(NI) 2006.(9) For the purposes of this section a breach of a non-discrimination rule is “relevant” if it arises from the application of—(a) an exception to section 18(1) of PSPA 2013 made under section 18(5) to (7) of that Act, or(b) an exception to section 18(1) of PSPA(NI) 2014 made under section 18(5) to (8) of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause makes it possible for a Chapter 1 legacy scheme to make provision giving members with remediable service the facility to enter into new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions. The facility may only be made available to members who show that they would have entered into similar arrangements but for unlawful discrimination, and may be made available only for a limited period.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“(ha) the power to make scheme regulations by virtue of section (Remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to legacy schemes) (remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to legacy schemes) and any powers exercisable by virtue of such regulations;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Treasury directions can be used in relation to remedial voluntary contributions arrangements.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures subsection (3) of this Clause operates as intended in a case in which an amount is payable to or by a person who is not the member who has remediable service (for example a surviving adult or personal representatives).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures subsection (3) of this Clause operates as intended in a case in which an amount is payable to or by a person who is not the member who has remediable service (for example a surviving adult or personal representatives).
(d) a description of—(i) the arrangements (if any) that, by virtue of section (Remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to legacy schemes) (remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to legacy schemes), may be entered into under the scheme, and (ii) the circumstances in which, and the process by which, such arrangements may be entered into.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that a statement under this clause includes information to enable the recipient to decide whether they are entitled to enter into new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions, and if so how to go about doing it.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the definition in this Clause catches all cases in which a scheme makes arrangements outside the mechanism of the Chapter to give a person a remedy for discrimination of the kind the Chapter deals with, including in particular a case in which the discrimination occurred under a different scheme.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the definition of “opted-out service” applies separately in relation to service that takes place at different times (so that some service may be “opted- out service” and some may not and a person may have more than one period of opted-out service).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is in consequence of the government amendment of Clause 29(1).
““Fair Deal scheme” means—(a) a pension scheme that, in accordance with the Fair Deal Statement of Practice, has been certified by the Government Actuary’s Department as offering, to persons who have been subject to a Fair Deal transfer, pension arrangements that are broadly comparable with those offered to them before the transfer, or(b) a pension scheme in relation to which the obligation to give such a certificate has been waived in accordance with that statement of practice;“Fair Deal Statement of Practice” means the statement of practice entitled “Staff Transfers in the Public Sector” issued by the Cabinet Office in January 2000, as supplemented and modified from time to time;“Fair Deal transfer” means a transfer of a person’s employment from a public sector employer to a private sector employer in accordance with the Fair Deal Statement of Practice;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds definitions that are required for one of the government amendments of clause 1.
““a relevant firefighters’ legacy scheme” means—(a) Schedule 1 to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (England) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/3432) (new firefighters’ scheme),(b) Schedule 1 to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (Wales) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/1072) (new firefighters’ scheme),(c) Schedule 1 to the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme (Scotland) Order 2007 (S.S.I. 2007/199) (new firefighters’ scheme), or(d) the Annex to the New Firefighters’ Pension Scheme Order (Northern Ireland) 2007 (S.R.(N.I.) 2007 No. 215) (new firefighters’ scheme);” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adds a definition that is required for one of the government amendments of Clause 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the definition of “remediable service” applies separately in relation to service of a person that takes place at different times (so that a person may have some service that is “remediable service” and some that is not, and may have more than one period of remediable service).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the second condition (which is concerned with whether service is pensionable) must be met in relation to all of the service in question.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that 31 March 2012 (or, where the person left pensionable service before then, the final day of pensionable service) is not counted towards a disqualifying gap in service.
“Partnership pension account: requirement to transfer and surrender rights
(1) Subsection (2) applies where—(a) a person (“P”) has remediable service in a salaried judicial office, and(b) any of the remediable service is PPA opted-out service.(2) A legacy scheme election in respect of P may not be made unless—(a) the relevant authority is satisfied that the steps mentioned in subsection (3) have been taken, or(b) the appropriate person has notified the relevant authority that they intend to instigate and facilitate the taking of those steps.(3) The steps are—(a) the transfer of any relevant assets and liabilities to the relevant judicial legacy salaried scheme,(b) the surrender of any entitlement to a pension under the relevant judicial legacy salaried scheme, and any right to a future pension under that scheme, that would otherwise arise under the rules of the scheme in respect of the value of the assets and liabilities transferred, and(c) if at any time any relevant assets and liabilities were transferred out of the partnership pension account (otherwise than in the course of a transfer to the relevant judicial legacy salaried scheme), the payment by the appropriate person to the relevant judicial legacy salaried scheme of an amount, determined by the relevant authority after consulting the Government Actuary, in respect of the value of the relevant assets transferred.(4) Subsection (5) applies where—(a) a person (“P”) has remediable service in a fee-paid judicial office, and(b) any of the remediable service is PPA opted-out service.(5) A legacy scheme election in respect of P may not be made unless—(a) the relevant authority is satisfied that the steps mentioned in subsection (6) have been taken, or(b) the appropriate person has notified the relevant authority that they intend to instigate and facilitate the taking of those steps.(6) The steps are—(a) the transfer of any relevant assets and liabilities to the judicial legacy fee-paid scheme,(b) the surrender of any entitlement to a pension under the judicial legacy fee-paid scheme, and any right to a future pension under that scheme, that would otherwise arise under the rules of the scheme in respect of the value of the assets and liabilities transferred, and(c) if at any time any relevant assets and liabilities were transferred out of the partnership pension account (otherwise than in the course of a transfer to the judicial legacy fee-paid scheme), the payment by the appropriate person to the judicial legacy fee-paid scheme of an amount, determined by the relevant authority after consulting the Government Actuary, in respect of the value of the relevant assets transferred.(7) In this section “the appropriate person”, in relation to a person (“P”) who has PPA opted-out service, means the person by whom a legacy scheme election in respect of P may be made (see section 43).(8) For the purposes of this section assets and liabilities are “relevant” in relation to any PPA opted-out service of a person (“P”) if—(a) they are referable to pension contributions or voluntary contributions that were made by or on behalf of P in respect of the service, and(b) they are held for the purposes of a partnership pension account.This is subject to subsection (9).(9) Where—(a) the total of the pension contributions, together with any voluntary contributions, that were paid by P in respect of the PPA opted-out service, exceeds(b) the total of the pension contributions that would have been payable by P in respect of that service if the service had been pensionable service under the judicial legacy scheme to which the relevant assets and liabilities are to be transferred,the assets and liabilities that the relevant authority, after consulting the Government Actuary, determines are referable to the excess are not “relevant” in relation to the PPA opted-out service.(10) A reference in subsection (9) to pension contributions or voluntary contributions paid by P in respect of PPA opted-out service is a reference to the amount of the contributions paid, net of any tax relief under section 188 of FA 2004 (relief for contributions) to which P was entitled in respect of them.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment substitutes Clause 38. The replacement Clause is updated in a number of respects, and now caters in particular for cases in which the member has died, and cases in which transfers have been made from the partnership pension account.
Member’s explanatory statement
In the judicial legacy schemes, the only adult who may be entitled to benefits on a member’s death is a surviving spouse or civil partner. This amendment therefore removes the redundant reference to other adults.
“(5A) If—(a) M is deceased,(b) a PPA lump sum death benefit has been paid on the death of M, and(c) a legacy scheme election has been made in respect of M,the PPA lump sum death benefit is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (4)(a) as a lump sum benefit paid under the scheme in respect of M’s remediable service in the judicial office.”Member’s explanatory statement
Where a person has opted out of the public service pension scheme available to them and instead has a partnership pension account, and the person dies, a lump sum may be paid by the department to the person’s nominated beneficiary (or, in the absence of a nomination, to the person’s personal representatives). Where a legacy scheme election is made in respect of the person, the arrangements for lump sum death benefits under the legacy scheme will apply. This amendment ensures that a correction is made for the lump sum already paid.
““PPA lump sum death benefit” means an amount paid by the relevant authority, on the death of a person who has a partnership pension account, to a person nominated by the deceased or to the person’s personal representatives.”Member’s explanatory statement
Where a person has opted out of the public service pension scheme available to them and instead has a partnership pension account, and the person dies, a lump sum may be paid by the department to the person’s nominated beneficiary (or, in the absence of a nomination, to the person’s personal representatives). Where a legacy scheme election is made in respect of the person, the arrangements for lump sum death benefits under the legacy scheme will apply. This amendment ensures that a correction is made for the lump sum already paid.
“(2) Where—(a) the paid contributions amount for an in-scope tax year in respect of M’s remediable service in the judicial office, exceeds(b) the payable contributions amount for that tax year in respect of that service,the scheme manager must (directly or indirectly) pay an amount in respect of the difference to the appropriate person.(3) Where—(a) the paid contributions amount for an out-of-scope tax year in respect of M’s remediable service in the judicial office, exceeds(b) the payable contributions amount for that tax year in respect of that service,no amount is to be paid by the scheme manager in respect of the difference to the appropriate person.(4) Where—(a) the paid contributions amount for an in-scope or out-of-scope tax year in respect of M’s remediable service in the judicial office, is less than(b) the payable contributions amount for that tax year in respect of that service,the appropriate person must pay pension contributions in respect of the difference to the scheme.(4A) A reference in this section to “the paid contributions amount” for a tax year in respect of M’s remediable service in a judicial office is a reference to the sum of—(a) the aggregate of the pension contributions that (after taking into account the effect, if any, of section 47(2), (4) and (6)) have been paid under the scheme by M in the tax year in respect of so much of the service as was not PPA opted-out service, and(b) where any of the remediable service was PPA opted-out service—(i) the aggregate of the pension contributions and any voluntary contributions that have been paid by M under the partnership pension account in the tax year in respect of the PPA opted-out service, or(ii) if lower, the aggregate of the pension contributions that (after taking into account the effect, if any, of section 39(2) to (5) or 42 (2)) were payable under the scheme by M for that tax year in respect of the PPA opted-out service.(4B) A reference in this section to “the payable contributions amount” for a tax year in respect of M’s remediable service in a judicial office means the aggregate of the pension contributions that (after taking into account the effect, if any, of section 39(2) to (5) or 42 (2)) were payable under the scheme by M for that tax year in respect of the service.(4C) In this section “the appropriate person” means—(a) M, or(b) if M is deceased, M’s personal representatives.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the treatment of contributions paid to a partnership pension account is properly accounted for; it is also one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that voluntary contributions paid to a partnership pension account are accounted for net of tax relief.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the treatment of effective pension age payments under this clause.
“(1A) The rights that would otherwise have been secured by the effective pension age payments are extinguished.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the treatment of effective pension age payments under this Clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the treatment of effective pension age payments under this clause, and is also one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“(2A) In subsection (2) “the appropriate person” means—(a) P, or(b) if P is deceased, P’s personal representatives.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“(2A) In subsection (2) “the appropriate person” means—(a) P, or(b) if P is deceased, P’s personal representatives.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“(1A) Scheme regulations for a judicial scheme may make provision under which, in a case in which a person is (by virtue of provision made under subsection (1)) not required to pay an amount to the person’s employer, the scheme manager is required to reimburse the employer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where a person has an obligation to pay an amount to the person’s employer as a result of this Chapter (for example a requirement to repay transitional protection allowance under clause 51) and regulations under subsection (1) of this clause mean that, instead of paying the full amount immediately, the person receives reduced benefits from the scheme in retirement, the scheme is require to reimburse the employer for the amount owed.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the power under Clause 54 is available in relation to the benefits payable to or in respect of any person who has a pension credit or debit under a scheme, whether or not they are regarded as a member of the scheme under its rules.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the power under clause 54 is available in relation to the benefits payable to or in respect of any person who has a pension credit or debit under a scheme, whether or not they are regarded as a member of the scheme under its rules.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that the power under Clause 54 is available in relation to the benefits payable to or in respect of any person who has a pension credit or debit under a scheme, whether or not they are regarded as a member of the scheme under its rules.
“(g) provision about cases in which the scheme administrator of a judicial scheme pays a liability under section 217 or 237B of FA 2004 (joint liability of scheme administrator to lifetime allowance charge or annual allowance charge);” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment generalises the power in subsection (2)(g) of this clause so that it confers power to make provision about any case in which a member’s liability to a lifetime allowance charge, or an annual allowance charge, is paid under the “scheme pays” facility (under which the liability is paid by the scheme administrator and the member’s benefits from the scheme are reduced in consequence).
“(2A) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (2)(a) includes, in particular, provision under which—(a) the rights that would otherwise have been secured by the payment of any voluntary contributions are extinguished, and(b) the scheme manager is required to pay the member or, if the member is deceased, the member’s personal representatives an amount by way of compensation equal to—(i) the aggregate of the voluntary contributions paid, less(ii) an amount in respect of the tax relief under section 188 of FA 2004 (member contributions) to which the member was entitled in respect of those payments.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the nature of the provision that it is envisaged will be made under subsection (2)(a) for the refund of voluntary contributions.
“(a) provision modifying any provision of this Chapter in its application to persons of a description specified in the regulations;(b) provision corresponding to, or applying, any provision of this Chapter, with or without modifications.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the way in which special cases may be dealt with in regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is in consequence of the government amendment of Clause 92 which applies the definition of “voluntary contributions” to the whole of Part 1.
“(6) In this section—“modifying” includes disapplying or supplementing (and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly);“scheme administrator” has the same meaning as in Part 4 of FA 2004 (see section 270 of that Act).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts definitions required for other government amendments of this Clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where a member has died, compensation can be paid to the member’s personal representatives if they incur a compensatable loss.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, where a member has died, compensation can be paid to the member’s personal representatives if they incur a compensatable loss.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“Remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to judicial schemes
(1) Scheme regulations for a judicial scheme may make provision so as to secure that a relevant member may enter into remedial voluntary contributions arrangements.(2) In subsection (1)—“relevant member”, in relation to a judicial scheme, means a member (other than a deceased member) who has remediable service in a judicial office which, after the end of the election period, is pensionable service under the scheme;“remedial voluntary contributions arrangements” means arrangements—(a) which are entered into by a member after the end of the election period, and(b) under which the member pays voluntary contributions to the scheme.(3) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may permit a member (“M”) to enter into arrangements only if the scheme manager is satisfied that it is more likely than not that, but for a relevant breach of a non-discrimination rule, M would, during the period of M’s remediable service in the judicial office, have entered into the same or similar arrangements.(4) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (1) includes, in particular, provision under which liabilities to pay voluntary contributions that would otherwise arise under the arrangements are reduced by tax relief amounts.(5) In subsection (4) “tax relief amounts” means amounts determined by reference to the tax relief under section 188 of FA 2004 (relief for members’ contributions) that would have been available in respect of the amounts owed if they were paid in a different tax year.(6) Provision by virtue of subsection (1) may not permit a member (“M”) to enter into arrangements after—(a) the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which a statement under section 60 (information statements) is sent in respect of M, or(b) such later time as the scheme manager considers reasonable in all the circumstances.(7) Subsection (6) does not affect the continued operation after the time mentioned in that subsection of any arrangements entered into before that time. (8) In this section “non-discrimination rule” means a rule that is, or at any time was, included in a judicial scheme by virtue of—(a) section 61 of EA 2010, or(b) paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to EEAR(NI) 2006.(9) For the purposes of this section a breach of a non-discrimination rule is “relevant” if it arises from the application of—(a) an exception to section 18(1) of PSPA 2013 made under section 18(5) to (7) of that Act, or(b) an exception to section 18(1) of PSPA(NI) 2014 made under section 18(5) to (8) of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause makes it possible for a judicial scheme to make provision giving members with remediable service the facility to enter into new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions. The facility may only be made available for members who would have entered into similar arrangements but for unlawful discrimination, and may be made available only for a limited period.
“(3) In this section “relevant amounts” mean any amounts that are payable under or by virtue of this Chapter—(a) by a person to the scheme or to an employer in relation to the scheme, or(b) by the scheme to a person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment broadens the definition of “relevant amounts” so that it covers payments to a member’s employer. It is also one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
“(fa) the power to make scheme regulations by virtue of section (Remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to judicial schemes) (remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to judicial schemes) and any powers exercisable by virtue of such regulations;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Treasury directions can be used in relation to remedial voluntary contributions arrangements.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures subsection (3) of this clause operates as intended in a case in which an amount is payable to or by a person who is not the member who has remediable service (for example a surviving adult or personal representatives).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures subsection (3) of this Clause operates as intended in a case in which an amount is payable to or by a person who is not the member who has remediable service (for example a surviving adult or personal representatives).
“(1) The relevant authority must—(a) prepare a statement in relation to any person (“P”) in respect of whom a legacy scheme election or a 2015 election may be made, and(b) send it to the person who may make the election (see section 43).(1A) Subsection (1) must be complied with before the beginning of the election period in relation to P.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendments of Clause 65.
“(ca) a description of—(i) the arrangements (if any) that, by virtue of section (Remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to judicial schemes) (remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to judicial schemes), may be entered into under judicial schemes, and(ii) the circumstances in which, and the process by which, such arrangements may be entered into,”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment ensures that a statement under this clause includes information to enable the recipient to decide whether they are entitled to enter into new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions, and if so how to go about doing it.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendments of Clause 65.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the government amendments of Clause 65.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is one of a number of amendments clarifying or adjusting the processes and powers under Part 1 of the Bill so that they operate as intended in cases in which a member dies.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the other government amendment of this Clause) makes the definition of “the election period” more flexible by enabling different periods to be specified for different descriptions of judge.
“(1A) Different dates may be specified in relation to different descriptions of person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (together with the other government amendment of this clause) makes the definition of “the election period” more flexible by enabling different periods to be specified for different descriptions of judge.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the reference to pension contributions in subsection (2) of this Clause.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is in consequence of the government amendment of Clause 64(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is in consequence of the government amendment of Clause 92 which applies the definition of “voluntary contributions” to the whole of Part 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the definition of “remediable service” applies separately in relation to service of a person that takes place at different times (so that a person may have some service that is “remediable service” and some that is not, and may have more than one period of remediable service).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the second condition (which is concerned with whether service is pensionable) must be met in relation to all of the service in question.
“Prohibition of new arrangements to pay voluntary contributions
(1) No arrangements are to be entered into after 31 March 2022 under which voluntary contributions are payable by a member of a relevant scheme to the scheme.(2) In subsection (1) “relevant scheme” means—(a) a Chapter 1 legacy scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 1),(b) a judicial legacy salaried scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 2),(c) a local government legacy scheme (within the meaning of Chapter 3),(d) the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 (S.I. 2015/182),(e) the Judicial Pensions Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R.(N.I.) 2015 No. 76), or(f) the pension scheme established for certain employees of the Secret Intelligence Service which came into operation on 1 January 1946 and was amended on 1 September 1957 and 1 July 1964.(3) Subsection (1)—(a) does not affect the continued operation after 31 March 2022 of any arrangements entered into on or before that date; (b) does not apply to arrangements entered into by virtue of section (Remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to legacy schemes) or (Remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to judicial schemes) (remedial arrangements to pay voluntary contributions).”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause sets out the general rule that no arrangements to pay voluntary contributions to legacy schemes may be entered into after 31 March 2022.
“Amendments relating to the establishment or restriction of schemes
(1) PSPA 2013 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (7).(2) In section 4 (scheme manager)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a scheme under section 1 if—(a) the scheme is connected with another scheme under section 1, and(b) a scheme manager is provided for under subsection (1) in scheme regulations for that other scheme.”;(b) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) The reference in subsection (6) to a statutory pension scheme includes a statutory pension scheme established (under section 1 or otherwise) after the establishment of the scheme under section 1 mentioned in that subsection.”(3) In section 5 (pension board), after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a scheme under section 1 if—(a) the scheme is connected with another scheme under section 1, and(b) a pension board is provided for under subsection (1) in scheme regulations for that other scheme.”(4) In section 7 (scheme advisory board)—(a) in subsection (1), for “on the desirability of changes to the scheme” substitute “on—(a) the desirability of changes to the scheme, or(b) the desirability of changes to any other scheme under section 1 which—(i) is connected with it, and(ii) is not an injury or compensation scheme.”;(b) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a scheme under section 1 if—(a) the scheme is connected with another scheme under section 1 which is not an injury or compensation scheme, and(b) a scheme advisory board is provided for under subsection (1) in scheme regulations for that other scheme.”(5) In section 11 (valuations), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a scheme under section 1 if— (a) the scheme is connected with another scheme under section 1, and(b) actuarial valuations are provided for under subsection (1) in scheme regulations for that other scheme.”(6) After section 12 insert—“12A Sections 11 and 12: restricted schemes(1) Section 11(1) (valuations) does not require scheme regulations to provide for actuarial valuations to be made of a scheme to which this section applies.(2) Section 12(1) (employer cost cap) does not apply to a scheme to which this section applies.(3) This section applies to a scheme under section 1 which—(a) is a restricted scheme, and(b) is specified for the purposes of this section in Treasury regulations.(4) For the purposes of this section a scheme under section 1 is a “restricted scheme” at any time if any enactment restricts the provision of benefits under the scheme to or in respect of a person in relation to the person’s service after that time.(5) Treasury regulations under this section may include consequential or supplementary provision.(6) Treasury regulations under this section are subject to the negative Commons procedure.”(7) In section 30 (new public body pension schemes), in subsection (1)(e), for “and 12” substitute “to 12A”.(8) PSPA(NI) 2014 is amended in accordance with subsections (9) to (15).(9) In section 4 (scheme manager)—(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a scheme under section 1 if—(a) the scheme is connected with another scheme under section 1, and(b) a scheme manager is provided for under subsection (1) in scheme regulations for that other scheme.”;(b) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) The reference in subsection (6) to a statutory pension scheme includes a statutory pension scheme established (under section 1 or otherwise) after the establishment of the scheme under section 1 mentioned in that subsection.”(10) In section 5 (pension board)—(a) in subsection (1), for “subsection (2)” substitute “subsections (2) and (2A)”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a scheme under section 1 if—(a) the scheme is connected with another scheme under section 1, and(b) a pension board is provided for under subsection (1) in scheme regulations for that other scheme.”(11) In section 7 (scheme advisory board)—(a) in subsection (1), for “on the desirability of changes to the scheme” substitute “on—(a) the desirability of changes to the scheme, or(b) the desirability of changes to any other scheme under section 1 which—(i) is connected with it, and(ii) is not an injury or compensation scheme.”;(b) after subsection (1) insert— “(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a scheme under section 1 if—(a) the scheme is connected with another scheme under section 1 which is not an injury or compensation scheme, and(b) a scheme advisory board is provided for under subsection (1) in scheme regulations for that other scheme.”(12) In section 11 (valuations), after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a scheme under section 1 if—(a) the scheme is connected with another scheme under section 1, and(b) actuarial valuations are provided for under subsection (1) in scheme regulations for that other scheme.”(13) After section 12 insert—“12A Sections 11 and 12: restricted schemes(1) Section 11(1) (valuations) does not require scheme regulations to provide for actuarial valuations to be made of a scheme to which this section applies.(2) Section 12(1) (employer cost cap) does not apply to a scheme to which this section applies.(3) This section applies to a scheme under section 1 which—(a) is a restricted scheme, and(b) is specified for the purposes of this section in regulations made by the Department of Finance.(4) For the purposes of this section a scheme under section 1 is a “restricted scheme” at any time if any statutory provision restricts the provision of benefits under the scheme to or in respect of a person in relation to the person’s service after that time.(5) Regulations made by the Department of Finance under this section may include consequential or supplementary provision.(6) Regulations made by the Department of Finance under this section are subject to negative resolution.”(14) In section 31 (new public body pension schemes), in subsection (1)(e), for “and 12” substitute “to 12A”.(15) In section 34 (general interpretation), at the appropriate place insert—““statutory provision” has the meaning given in section 1(f) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954;”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause amends the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (and its Northern Ireland equivalent) so as to clarify and adjust the way the governance of schemes, and the valuation process, work where a scheme established under the Act for a description of persons is closed, and a new scheme under the Act is established for the same description of persons.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new subsection inserted into this Clause after subsection (1).
Lord Davies of Brixton
(1A) In subsection (4) omit paragraph (c).”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment removes from the calculation of the employer cost cap the effect of changes in the cost of connected schemes, including the cost of rectifying the unlawful discrimination.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I raised this issue at Second Reading in the context of questioning the use of directions. I believe that there is a general issue here about the respective weight given to primary legislation, regulations subject to approval by one or both Houses, and directions, which are the decision of the Treasury. Clearly, there is a balance to be drawn here on the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny; it is a debate that we should have, but it is not one I propose to pursue any more in the context of this Bill.
However, some concerns remain about issues that are being dealt with through directions which, I believe, should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. In the context of this Bill, there are two issues of concern. The first is the decision that the cost of the remedy—that is, the remedy required to address the issue of age discrimination—should be counted as a member cost in the cost-control mechanism. The second issue is that, in that calculation, the costs of the remedy should be spread over a period of four years.
This is beginning to verge on technical issues but, at heart, these are policy decisions, and ones that should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. They go far beyond what have been described. This legislation amends the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, and there was a report on that legislation, looking at the directions, which said that the directions did not need parliamentary scrutiny because they were simply technical matters of actuarial practice. My argument today, on those two issues—and I am going to focus only on the issue of whether this is a “member cost”—is around whether this is a technical matter of actuarial practice or whether it is a policy decision that should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
There is no doubt that the decision to make this a member cost will mean that members end up paying more money or receiving lower benefits. It will directly affect the benefits that they receive. The issue was raised in Committee, and the Minister at that stage maintained the position that
“Treasury directions … exercise a particular power, rather than creating a new power”.—[Official Report, 11/10/2021; col. GC 353.]
I would argue that the decision to make this a member cost as part of the cost-control mechanism goes beyond the exercise of a particular power and creates a new power, and hence it should be considered as regulations.
This is a complicated issue, and, to understand it, you need to have a clear understanding of the purpose of the cost-control mechanism. It is not, as the Government have suggested, a mechanism for assessing the value of pensions; this is not something that directly affects the calculation of the contribution rate being paid for the scheme. It simply affects the cost-control mechanism, which is the trigger for deciding whether changes should be made to the scheme. The costs of the scheme are the costs of the scheme; whatever the benefits are, they are the costs of the scheme. This is a mechanism for deciding whether those benefits should be changed or, alternatively, whether contributions should be changed.
It has always been accepted that there are certain elements in the calculation involved in the cost-control mechanism that are regarded as member costs that will impact on the cost-control mechanism—but there are also these other elements in the calculation that are employer costs, which do not impact on the cost-control mechanism. The issue has been discussed, and there have been government reports on what counts as a member cost or an employer cost, but they have never considered the issue of the cost of a remedy incurred by the Government’s own error. It was the Government’s mistake to have age discrimination in this scheme and, to address the Government’s mistake, there has to be a remedy. That remedy is the subject of this Bill. Should the cost of that remedy be a cost for the Government, who created the problem in the first place, or a member cost? The Government argue that members are receiving additional benefits and so it is clearly a member cost.
This is an important issue and what I am arguing about now is not an ultimate answer—I have made my position clear; I think it should be an employer cost—but it is not an issue that should be addressed through directions; it should come before Parliament through regulations. Because of the nature of the regulations, they would probably be financial regulations and considered only by the House of Commons. That is effectively what I am arguing, and I have put down my amendment in order to raise this issue. To a certain extent, our deliberations here are not final, because this is the subject of extensive legal action. However, that is nothing to do with the argument today. The argument is technical; it is on the relatively narrow point of whether the cost of the remedy falls to be treated as an employer cost or as a member cost.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not participated on this Bill before; indeed, I just want to pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the way that more and more government actions are taken by subordinate legislation. I chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and we produced a report last week entitled Government by Diktat. My noble friend Lord Blencathra, who chairs the parallel committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, produced another report called Democracy Denied?
We all know that secondary legislation it is not well scrutinised. It cannot be amended, and this House and indeed the other place are therefore reluctant to undertake what I call the nuclear option—we cannot amend a bit of it, so we have to reject the whole lot. The last time that happened there was a huge constitutional crisis, to which my noble friend Lord Strathclyde had to set up a committee to answer.
However, we have moved from that unsatisfactory position to one where we now have guidance. Guidance may or may not form part of the regulations; sometimes it says that the guidance “must have regard to” the regulations. What does that mean? Does it mean “I thought about it and I did not want to follow it”, or does it mean “The court will decide, and you had better have a jolly good reason for not complying with it”.
The point from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, takes it further away from the control of this House. We have what is now tertiary legislation: directions and decisions made by bodies that are not answerable to Parliament but whose decisions and regulations are enforced and required to be obeyed by every single member of the population of this country. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the point from the noble Lord, Lord Davies—I am not in a position to judge—he raises a very important matter for the House, which needs to be debated and discussed. As we move to new ways of regulating and legislating, because our society is moving on faster than the rather stately pace of primary legislation, we need to find new and better ways of making sure that Parliament, as the legislature, is not subject to the creeping, increasing control of the Executive—the Government.
My committee and my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s committee are pretty convinced that the situation needs seriously addressing here—and of course in the other place, which must lead the way on this—if we are to make sure that the balance, which has shifted, is put back in the right place and in the right form. The speech by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, underlines some of the dangers that we are facing by direction, which is not good enough because it does not come before your Lordships’ House or indeed the other place but will nevertheless have a very significant impact for our fellow citizens.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his explanation and for raising these issues, as he did in Committee. I listened again with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, as he has intervened in two Bills on the issue of secondary legislation. I am sure that many Members of this House would support his view that there is inadequate scrutiny of secondary legislation and that the House’s powers are so severely curtailed that it requires us to ask whether we adequately exercise our scrutiny of subsequent legislation as we do with primary legislation.
As for the cost cap mechanism, I know that there was great criticism, both from the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, about the costs of the remedy and how they would be paid for by the members, whereas it was an error by government and it was certainly felt, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, that it should be faced by government. However, the Government have certainly produced a more satisfactory cost cap mechanism, with a number of concessions relating to the future costs of the pensions. We welcome the new arrangements for payments for any breach of the cost cap or floor, which were to be paid for by the members of the new scheme, as we do the widening of the margin for material breach of the ceiling or floor. We also appreciated the new application of the economic test should the cost floor be breached. We feel that the Government have made some attempt to address criticisms of the cost cap mechanism and will follow with interest how that operates in future.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I again pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Davies for his contribution and for setting out the range of concerns surrounding the cost-control mechanism and the inclusion of the remedy as a member cost. I recognise that this question is subject to ongoing legal action and once again put on record that we welcome the provisions in Clause 80, although, as the Minister is only too aware, it does not deal with the wider question of plans for the cost-control mechanism.
Members of the House are not the first to raise questions over the Government’s plans. The cross-party Public Accounts Committee said:
“HM Treasury should have foreseen the age discrimination issue that gave rise to the 2018 McCloud judgment, and putting things right will take many decades to resolve. HM Treasury wants members to pay to put this right—at an estimated cost of £17 billion—despite this being its own mistake.”
That point was repeated by my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke.
I look forward to the Minister’s response on this issue but, before I finish, I want to echo one specific question. Am I right that there will be a number of members who will not benefit from the remedy but will be impacted by it if it is included as a member cost?
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, on Parliament being subject to the creeping control of the Executive—I think that is the way he put it. He talked about examples of secondary legislation and indeed gave this as an example of tertiary legislation. I think a lot of us will have sympathy with what he said.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, an amendment has been put forward to Clause 80 by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, which concerns the employer cost cap. The noble Lord seeks to amend this clause to prevent the increase in value of schemes associated with the McCloud remedy being accounted for in the cost-control element of the 2016 valuations. I thank the noble Lord for bringing this to the attention of the House and am grateful to him for his prior engagement on the policy.
I can confirm that the Government have received pre-action protocol letters on behalf of some trade unions which have indicated that they may issue judicial review proceedings to challenge the Government’s decision to include the costs of remedy in the cost-control mechanism at the 2016 valuations. As the House will expect, and as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, acknowledged, I cannot comment on the specifics of live or threatened litigation.
I acknowledge and appreciate the support the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, has given in general to the changes we have made to the cost-control mechanism—but there is more I want to say. I will talk through the general background, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of the reasons for the Government’s decision. I will start by commenting on the policy rationale, starting with amending directions.
In Grand Committee, I brought to your Lordships’ attention that the Treasury had published amending directions on 7 October 2021 that will allow schemes to complete the cost-control element of the 2016 valuation process. These amending directions confirm that the increase in value of schemes associated with the McCloud remedy will be taken into account in the completion of the cost-control element of the 2016 valuations. The Government believe this is right, given that addressing the discrimination identified in the Court of Appeal’s judgment by giving members a choice of scheme benefits for the remedy period involves increasing the value of members’ pensions.
The cost-control mechanism was designed to assess costs arising from a change in value of schemes to members. Failure to capture the value of the remedy could have meant that members’ benefits may have changed going forwards, based on an incomplete and inaccurate assessment of the value of these pension schemes. This would represent an unacceptable risk to taxpayers, contrary to the objectives of the mechanism.
Turning to some specific detail on ceiling breaches, the Government have previously announced their intention to waive any ceiling breaches that arise from the 2016 valuations, and this is implemented by the current version of Clause 80. However, any floor breaches that occur will be honoured. This means that no member will see a reduction to their benefits as a result of the 2016 valuations. This decision, and the completion of the 2016 valuations, should provide certainty to scheme members over their benefits.
I will attempt at this stage to answer the point raised by my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the use of directions. The Government acknowledge the key interest of the House in the scrutiny of secondary and tertiary legislation. The DPRRC considered this Bill and chose not to bring forward any comments for the attention of the House. The Government have powers under Section 12 of the PSPA 2013 to set out in Her Majesty’s Treasury’s directions what costs must be taken into account as part of the cost-control valuations. More broadly, I acknowledge the points my noble friend made; I have no doubt that Hansard will be read and I will say simply that his points are noted.
I will now say a few words about the amendment itself. The amendment seeks to amend the Treasury’s powers, set out in Section 12 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, to make directions which set the employer cost cap. Section 12 grants the Treasury a wide power to specify in directions which costs should be taken into account as part of the cost-control mechanism.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lord seeks to amend subsection (4) by omitting paragraph (c). I understand that the noble Lord’s intention is to remove the Treasury’s power to specify that the costs of remedy, or any other costs associated with the legacy schemes, should be accounted for in the mechanism.
This amendment may not have what I understand to be the noble Lord’s intended effect of preventing the increased value associated with the McCloud remedy from being included in the mechanism at the 2016 valuations. Subsection (4) sets out the type of costs that Treasury directions may specify for inclusion in the cost-control mechanism, but it is not intended to be an exhaustive list; rather, it provides some illustrative examples of how the wide power in subsection (3) may be exercised. I also note that the 2021 amending directions came into effect on 8 October 2021, as I mentioned earlier, under the existing powers. The noble Lord’s amendment as drafted would have no effect on the 2021 amending directions.
I want to attempt to answer some questions that were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, supported, I think, by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. There was some debate about why members are being made to pay for, as they put it, mistakes made by the Government. When the cost-control mechanism was established, it was agreed that it would consider only costs that affect the value of a scheme to members. Addressing the discrimination identified in the McCloud and Sargeant judgments by giving members a choice of scheme benefits for the remedy period involves increasing the value of schemes to members. The costs associated with this should therefore be taken into account as part of the cost-control element of the 2016 valuations process. However, any ceiling breaches that occur will be waived, no member will see a reduction in benefits as a result of the 2016 valuations, and any floor breaches that occur will be honoured.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked when we will introduce amendments to reform the cost-control mechanism. I hope I can provide some reassurance by saying that the Government published our response to the consultation on the CCM on 4 October, we are currently working through our options and we will legislate for changes to the mechanism when parliamentary time allows. While a precise date has not been set—I am sorry I cannot give that date—the aim is to implement any changes in time for the 2020 valuations. As should now be clear, the Government have no intention of tabling an amendment in the House of Lords to implement these reforms. Instead, the package of amendments being introduced in this House are technical amendments that ensure the consistent application and legal operability of measures in the Bill.
I hope that, with these explanations, I have provided the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in particular, with some helpful reassurances on the policy rationale and the powers used, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, at the appropriate time I will indicate that I will withdraw the amendment. I am prepared to accept the advice that it does not actually achieve what I would like to achieve, and that the retrospective factor needs to be taken into account. But I would just like to highlight an issue mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby.
What the decision to make this a member cost means is that it will impact on those members who gain no benefit from the remedy. The remedy is not arbitrary, but there are broad patterns in who benefits from the remedy, and large numbers of members do not benefit from the remedy but will be affected by the inclusion of this as a member cost in the cost-control mechanism. The Government have suggested that they chose the four-year period within the cost-control mechanism for undertaking the calculation because they did not want to impact on future members of the scheme who gain no benefit from the remedy, but exactly the same problem applies to many current members of the scheme who will be active members during the relevant four-year period. To me, that sounds like an argument that the remedy should not be treated as a member cost, because of its inequitable impact.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for his remarks. This is an issue that I have perhaps said more about than I originally intended, but I very much hope it will be taken seriously. What comes to me from it is that it is not easy to say what is or is not suitable to be dealt with through particular types of legislation. The issue is the impact it has, not its precise formulation—and making it a member cost has a substantial impact and so should get the appropriate level of consideration.
I note what the Minister said about the amendments to the cost-control mechanism and that he did not rule out the possibility that it would be added to this Bill during its Commons stages. I am a bit concerned about the idea of debating such significant changes in the context of the ping-pong process, so maybe he could give some sort of reassurance on that. But subject to those points, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(1A) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) must be complied with before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the scheme’s first valuation under section 11 is completed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes a time limit for scheme regulations to comply with section 12(1) of the Public Service Pension Schemes Act 2013 (which requires scheme regulations to set the employer cost cap for the scheme).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the new subsection inserted into this Clause after subsection (5).
“(4A) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) Subsection (1) must be complied with before the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which the scheme’s first valuation under section 11 is completed.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes a time limit for scheme regulations to comply with section 12(1) of the Public Service Pension Schemes Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (which requires scheme regulations to set the employer cost cap for the scheme).
“(vi) section 57 (interest and process).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that regulations under Clause 86 are capable of including provision about interest.
“(3) Subsection (4) applies in relation to any reference in section 356 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (avoidance of assignment of, or charge on, pay and pensions etc) to an assignment (or, in Scotland, assignation) of, or an agreement to assign, any relevant pay or pension (within the meaning of that section).(4) The reference does not include anything done under or by virtue of this Part of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the restrictions in section 356 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 do not apply to the operation of Part 1 of the Bill.
“(1A) Regulations under this section may make retrospective provision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the power to make consequential provision in this clause can be used to make provision that operates in relation to times before it is made.
Baroness Janke
“Guidance
(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed the Government must lay before Parliament a copy of draft guidance to members of pension schemes affected by this Part.(2) The purpose of the guidance under subsection (1) is to ensure members are able to make informed choices about their pensions.(3) The guidance may also outline plans by the Government to— (a) notify members if they are entitled to apply for compensation under the provisions of this Part, and provide them with the information necessary to do so, and(b) provide a free helpline or online service which members can use to receive further guidance about their pension.(4) Within six months of the day on which the guidance is published the Government must lay before Parliament a report on its effectiveness in achieving the purpose in subsection (2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to publish guidance to members of pension schemes affected by this Part and allows for provision of a helpline or online service to offer further assistance. The amendment also ensures that the Government informs individuals if they are due compensation.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard today and previously, the implementation of this Bill is likely to be extremely challenging, including, I would say, for scheme members. Millions of public sector workers will be affected by this scheme, and the process will involve unpicking, administering and communicating with members. I believe that members will need a lot of help to understand what is happening and to make good decisions. It seems to me essential that we should include a requirement on the Government to plan and resource support systems to enable members to make the best choices, and to provide the same to trustees and pension schemes.
Time is short, so I will not go into great detail, but I would like to hear how the Government plan to support and advise the millions of scheme members who will be faced with life-changing choices as a result of the changes that have come forward through this Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I raised the issue in my speech at Second Reading because I look back with gratitude to the guidance I received shortly before I retired as to the choices I had to make under the judicial pension schemes. I think my position was relatively simple compared with the position we have now, because there were two clearly expressed schemes, the guidance I was given was intelligible and I was happy to follow it. Of course, I was aware—as I am sure everybody would be under this new arrangement—that the choice I made was going to be irrevocable, and I had to be very careful to make the correct choice.
I cannot claim to have studied the impact of this Bill—and, indeed, all the amendments that have just come to the House today—but my impression is that the situation is a good deal more complicated than the one I had to deal with when I was on the point of retirement. There is a great deal of force in this amendment, and I am delighted that it has been brought back on Report so that we can have a full response from the Minister.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for tabling and introducing this amendment, to which I have added my name. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for giving it his support.
This is the issue which I think is really at the centre of deliberations on this Bill and planning for the introduction of the remedy: how information and advice are going to be provided to members. In Committee, the Minister agreed with the importance of this issue. He said:
“The Government recognise the importance of providing members with clear, accessible and accurate information.”—[Official Report, 11/10/21; col. 357GC.]
The Bill provides for remedial statements to be provided to all members, which in itself is welcome. Before the Bill reaches the House of Commons, I ask the Minister to consider carefully what practical, accessible and time-sensitive help there will be for a member who is struggling to understand the statement and the complex background which precedes it. As I asked in Committee, if a person has no idea what their statement means, how their pension has been affected and when they are likely to be required to make a decision, who do they call? Where do they go for practical advice?
The amendment also raises the question of compensation. The Bill provides for applications to be made for compensation, but what information will be circulated to ensure that impacted members are aware that they are eligible to apply?
These are the questions we have to get right to ensure that members can confidently navigate the remedy, which, not to remind the Minister of this too often, was due to a government error. I hope that the Minister can give a commitment to take this away and to look at what more could be done in the Bill to ensure that members are given first-class accessible support in navigating this complex issue.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to debate this important matter. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, these matters must be covered and the Government must be sure that enough information is given to pensioners to make the necessary decisions. I hope my remarks will give the reassurances on this.
As I set out in Grand Committee, providing sufficient guidance for members to make informed decisions regarding their pensions is, of course, of utmost importance. Indeed, this Bill implements a deferred choice for members so that they know what their pension options are at the time they make their decision. I acknowledge the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, made about the complexity of this. I hope he will agree that we have taken this into account.
There are a number of problems with the approach proposed in the amendment, which would require the Government to publish guidance within six months of the Bill being passed. There are a significant number of schemes within the Bill’s scope, and scheme regulations will need to be developed, consulted on and implemented in each scheme. The Bill provides that the remedy must be implemented by October 2023, but that is just the beginning of the process. Decisions will be taken in relation to pensioner and deceased members from that time, but active and deferred members will be making their deferred choice over many years into the future. It would not be possible to produce guidance within six months in relation to regulations that may not have been made, nor useful to report on the effectiveness of such guidance before the remedy is implemented. Leaving aside the detail of the amendment, allow me to explain why the Government do not consider the amendment necessary.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on the support that will be given to members, I assure him that members will be provided with information about their choice and will be able to understand the options available to them. In most cases it will be straightforward for a member to determine which benefits they wish to receive, but I also reassure noble Lords that schemes are developing tools to support members in planning for their retirement. Members will have access to up-to-date information about their benefits and be able to understand what each option will be worth at their planned retirement age.
Turning to the detail, as I set out in Grand Committee, the Bill already provides that scheme regulations must provide for each member to be provided with remediable service statements containing personalised information about the benefits available to them. That information will include details of the benefits currently available to them under the legacy scheme, and the benefits available to them if they elect to receive new scheme benefits or to opt for a period of opted-out service to be reinstated.
For active members, statements will be provided on an annual basis, enabling members to see how the two sets of benefits compare throughout their career. For deferred members, a one-off statement will be provided initially, with up to one further statement per year on request. For pensioner members, and in respect of deceased members, a one-off statement will be provided for such members or their relations to make an immediate choice.
However, remediable service statements are only part of the information and support that the schemes provide to members. The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 will continue to require schemes to provide members with information about their pension benefits, not just those relating to remediable service. In due course, members will also see information about their pensions through the pensions dashboard, which the House will be familiar with. Schemes already provide members with a wealth of guidance, support and information, and existing legislation already requires them to inform members about changes to pension schemes.
The noble Baroness makes an important point about members planning for retirement, and legacy and reformed schemes often have different retirement ages attached to them. The schemes have implemented significant changes before and are experience and adept at providing their members with support and guidance. The fact is that, across their careers, members will often have a range of different pension entitlements, with different rules and benefits payable at different ages. Therefore, these complexities are not unique to the remedy under the Bill, and the schemes already provide members with tools and support to help them to understand their options and plan for their retirement.
The Government Actuary’s Department is developing tools that will allow members to see exactly how their entitlements change, depending on when they access their benefits. Again, this is not specific to the remedy, but such tools will help members to understand how decisions about when to retire interact with their scheme benefits.
The amendment introduced would also require members to be notified if they are entitled to compensation, but it is already the Government’s intention that, in most cases, compensation will be automatic—for example, in relation to overpaid tax. In all cases, schemes will set out the process for claiming compensation in scheme regulations and inform members of this.
On tax guidance, schemes are already required to provide members, where appropriate, with the relevant information to complete their tax return, and this information will be updated and provided to the member, where their tax position changes. However, where there is an interaction with the tax system, the Government recognise that there will need to be further guidance to complement existing HMRC guidance and scheme processes that already provide the required information to complete a self-assessment return.
That was a rather long-winded response, but I hope that I have reassured the House once again that the Bill, existing legislation, the schemes’ existing processes and the Government’s intentions for implementing the remedy already combine to provide for all the information required for members to make the necessary informed decisions. With that, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the discussion on this amendment, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. I also thank the Minister for his clarification of the situation, as defined in the Bill.
Of course the remediable service statements will help, but the changes are taking place over such a short time and are on such a scale that it seems to me that there needs to be some form of helpline. I do not know whether the pensions dashboard could accommodate one; this might be something that the Government could look into. I ask that the implementation of these measures be closely monitored and that, should the workload and the volume of change give members a challenge in the choices that they have to make, support may perhaps be provided at a later stage. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
““continuous period of service”, in relation to an employment or office, means a period of service in that employment or office that does not include a gap in service;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that “continuous period of service”, which is an expression which, elsewhere in pensions legislation, is defined to include non-continuous periods, is not interpreted in such a way in Part 1 of the Bill.
(b) amounts that a person is required under or by virtue of this Part to pay to the scheme by way of pension contributions;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the definition of pension contributions is wide enough to cover contributions that are required to be paid under or by virtue of Part 1.
““voluntary contributions” means amounts that are paid to a pension scheme by a member of the scheme on a voluntary basis, in accordance with the scheme, for the purpose of securing additional benefits, or securing the earlier payment of benefits, under the scheme;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment generalises the definition of “voluntary contributions” previously contained in clauses 18 and 55 so that it applies throughout Part 1.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would set the judicial retirement age to 72, rather than 75 as currently provided in this bill.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak on the group of amendments consequential on Amendment 126. We have been talking about complex matters to do with public sector pensions, but this is a simple amendment that I will seek to explain to the House. I open by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, for supporting this amendment. I look forward to the contribution later from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I have joined in this amendment and I support it and the other amendments in the group, as I have previously with similar amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, because of the potentially severe adverse impact on diversity in our most senior courts, especially the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
While all judges are critical to the administration of justice, the most senior courts are the courts that send the clearest message to our own nation and to other countries about whether we value diversity in those who administer the law. One must remember that the members of the most senior courts also provide the role models that are so important in encouraging and inspiring others. We do not have a diverse senior judiciary. Although some progress has been made, particularly in the last 10 years, with the recruitment of women, there is an unacceptable and embarrassing lack of people of colour who are senior judges.
There are no black and minority ethnic justices in the Supreme Court, and never have been. Just two of the 12 Supreme Court justices are women, one of whom is about to retire. Out of a maximum of 39 judges of the Court of Appeal, there is one judge from a minority ethnic background and only 10 women. Out of a maximum of 108 judges of the High Court, only five are from a minority ethnic background.
There can be no doubt that an increase in the age of retirement from 70 to 75 in one go will have a severely adverse effect on inclusion and diversity in our most senior courts. It will diminish, almost to a vanishing point, opportunities for appointment and advancement for a number of years. That is why, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has pointed out, all the most senior judges were in favour of an increase in the judicial MRA to 72 rather than 75.
My noble and learned friend Lady Hallett, who spoke in Committee but is unable to be here today, has added her name to the amendment. She chaired the diversity committee of the Judges’ Council until 2019 and was a member of the judicial diversity forum. She said:
“It is impossible to improve the diversity of the Bench significantly … unless there is a constant flow of new recruits”.—[Official Report, 11/10/21; col. GC 374.]
That is equally true of advancement within the higher courts, from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court. As she said, raising the MRA of the judges is bound to restrict the number of vacant posts. The point, one would have thought, is self-evident, and it is borne out by the facts.
As I have said, one of the two women justices of the Supreme Court will shortly retire. If the Bill is enacted with an MRA of 75, it will be a number of years before any further vacancy will arise. There is no evidence of a pattern of early retirement of justices of the Supreme Court. Of the nine justices who have retired in the last five years, eight continued until the MRA. As I have said before during the passage of the Bill, so far as concerns the Court of Appeal, the average age of judges is just under 64. This means that, potentially, if the MRA is raised to 75, there will be very few vacancies for a further 11 years. Of the 13 judges who retired from the Court of Appeal in the past two years or so, over 70% stayed until the current MRA of 70. The best evidence that I have been able to obtain is that 90% of those due to retire in the next three years will go beyond 70 if permitted.
How, then, will it be possible for those minority ethnic judges in the High Court to progress to the Court of Appeal, let alone to the Supreme Court? The short answer is that it will be highly unlikely. The Government have said that raising the MRA to 75 will increase diversity and the attractiveness generally of applying for judicial office, because it will enable potential applicants to work for longer before seeking judicial appointment. In Committee, my noble and learned friend Lady Hallett said that she had spoken to literally hundreds of potential applicants, including women and BAME lawyers, over the years, and had never once heard an argument that the MRA of 70 was a factor in not applying for the Bench. The Government also say that, in their pre-legislative consultation, a majority of women and BAME groups opted for 75. I do not accept for one moment that, if such groups had been aware of the potentially adverse impact of the MRA on their appointment to the higher courts and on promotion within those courts, they would have endorsed 75.
It has been said by one noble Lord who supports the proposed rise in the MRA to 75 that this is a once in a generation opportunity. Again, I do not accept for a moment that, if and when an increase above 72 is thought desirable, the Government would not readily find a suitable legislative vehicle. In choosing to prolong to 75 the judicial careers of those currently in office, to the disadvantage of underrepresented groups, especially those who are black and from ethnic minorities, the Government have preferred exclusivity to inclusivity. This is out of touch with social attitudes within our wider society, and indeed those of other European countries and the United States. The judiciary is not excused from the call of so many for greater fairness, equality of opportunity and advancement for people of colour and other underrepresented groups within our society. The statutory public sector equality duty, which had its origins in legislation that followed the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, is now to be found in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Subject to certain exceptions, it requires public authorities, in the exercise of their functions, to have due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic—which includes race and sex—and persons who do not share it. The Act states that a person who is not a public authority as defined in the Act, but who nevertheless exercises public functions, must also have due regard to those matters.
Raising the MRA to 75 is inconsistent with such a duty, or at least its objective and underlying ethos. The House should not endanger its reputation by accepting the increase to 75. To do so would lay it open to the criticism that it is out of touch in preferring to prolong the status quo, rather than enhancing equality of opportunity and inclusivity; in preferring age and standing over fairness and greater participation in our judiciary of all groups within our society, whatever their background, ethnicity, sex or gender. I urge the House to endorse the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton, in this debate, but it was of great concern to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said in his remarks. I am hugely impressed by the other names that have been supporting the suggestion that the age should be raised to 72 rather than 75, as the Government have proposed.
I have the advantage that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, perhaps has not—not yet, at any rate—of being considerably older than 75. I address the House on the basis of what I have learned during the period that I have been a judge and a former judge. I am absolutely committed, as, I am sure, are colleagues, to the need to have a judiciary that is as diverse as possible, to persuade the public that they can continue to have the faith in the judiciary that they have had up to now, and if all the evidence is looked at, I am convinced that the fears so eloquently described by my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, are unrealistic. They leave out of account another very important issue which, I suggest, is realistic.
Unfortunately, the evidence is that the change made 27 years ago to reduce the age from 75 to 70 produced a situation that was very dangerous to the judiciary’s standing. The most senior posts—the posts that should be most active and attractive to applicants—were not being taken up. There was a risk that we did not have the quality of applicant for those posts, which I am sure both previous speakers would agree is critical. Above all, the very best people available should be appointed to the most senior judicial posts of this country.
We have, fortunately, international standing as a judiciary because of its quality. I venture to suggest that advancement applies not only to the more junior judiciary but, above all, to the most senior judges in this country, who, when they retire, are offered all sorts of opportunities to serve in a judicial capacity elsewhere, where they recognise the quality of our judiciary.
The most telling evidence on this important and difficult question is the fact that now, for 27 years, we have had the reduction in the retirement age of the judiciary not to 72 but to 70. Attention must be paid to all the views expressed by colleagues with whom I served and whom I hold in regard. Surely the diversity in our judiciary that they and I desire would have been fulfilled in those 27 years. The fact is that the lamentable situation today is that we still do not have sufficient numbers in the two grades of the judiciary which have been referred to in argument.
My conclusion is that there is a real difficulty in getting the very best judges by changing the age to 72. There is a danger which is supported by evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone else would apply if the age up to which they could retire was 72. Unfortunately, the people we wish to apply who currently support our position in respect of diversity do not see it as their chosen career at that stage.
I say to the House that the Government are right. The evidence from their consultation supports what I say, and that is what we should do—not adopt a compromise that serves no particular purpose.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
I declare an interest: I sit as a legal assessor for regulatory bodies, and I am very nearly 77—and therefore significantly older than the age of 72 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. There are many other legal assessors of my sort of age sitting on regulatory authorities. I know full well that we are talking about judges, not legal assessors, but the principle is very much the same. If you were to say to legal assessors, “You cannot serve beyond 72”, you would lose an awful lot of quality which is now available to those regulatory authorities. I believe that the same is also true of the courts. I think judges should be able to sit until 75.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I join those who have indicated that they fully support Part 3 of the Bill and would raise the retiring age for judges—or rather return it to where it was 27 or 28 years ago—to 75, which it was for nine years of my own time on the Bench. I should declare that I too am well beyond the age when such as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, might be having a discreet word with me.
I point out that this provision is fully supported by—as I understand it from Second Reading—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who originally lowered the age to 70. He recognises that, all these years on, frankly, 75 year-olds now are a good deal younger than the 70 year-olds of those days past.
I suggest that the most important consideration is really that of judicial recruitment, which is still proving extremely difficult. The imperative surely is to get the most able people on to the Bench, whether they be men or women, whether they be gay, trans or straight, and whether they be young or old. The fact is that most cases are decided by a single judge. It is no good having the most wonderful judge trying the case in the next court if your judge is perhaps rather an indifferent one. So it is too with courts of three, five, seven or whatever.
Of course diversity is a highly desirable objective; obviously, public confidence in the justice system overall is enhanced if more people see themselves represented among the judiciary. In a three-judge, five-judge or seven-judge court, the wider the diversity of judges—including, of course, more women—the likelier the court is to bring to bear a wider experience and judgment on the questions. But I suggest that the argument in favour of 72 rather than 75 being supportive of diversity is, frankly, somewhat speculative; certainly, it is not sufficiently clear, I suggest, to justify sacrificing the goal of individual excellence on the altar of supposed greater diversity. Getting the best candidates to apply and appointing them on merit has to be the cardinal rule.
As to that, raising the MRA to 75 is, to my mind, assuredly going to assist in the recruitment of the ablest candidates, and I suggest that is so equally of women candidates as of male ones. First, it becomes more attractive because it is viable to take the job rather later in one’s career than at present. It gives candidates, male and female, longer to pursue whatever their initial career has been—it may have been in academe or in a range of areas on the borders of the law. It certainly gives practitioners a longer working life in which they can earn more than we all recognise they are going to be earning on the Bench.
Secondly, it gives candidates the option—it is not compulsory; they do not have to serve until 75—of being employed, useful and busy, as most of us would wish to be, for longer and later in their lives. Most of us do not actually want to be forced into compulsory retirement at 70—or, for that matter, at 72.
Thirdly, not only does a retirement age of 75 provide a yet better incentive than 72 for encouraging the best applicants to apply but it serves the public good. It retains supposedly skilled and experienced judges for that much longer. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggests, it is surely not to be supposed that judges suffer a significant and noticeable failing in their abilities between the ages of 72 and 75 sufficient to draw the line at 72. It must therefore be in all our interests to keep these judges working, if they wish to, for that much longer.
Finally, I add as a footnote that it will save the taxpayer the need to pay these reluctantly retired judges a judicial pension for those three years for doing nothing.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I too believe that the Government have made the right choice in going to 75 in one go, as my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton put it. We have to bear in mind that what is being suggested is a maximum; I think my noble and learned friend Lord Brown was making that point in passing in what he was saying a moment or two ago.
I am not sure that the examples that my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton gave of people going on until 70 is a very sound guide as to how people will behave if the age is raised to 75, for the very particular reason that a factor that someone has to bear in mind in choosing the age of retirement is whether he has served long enough to earn the full judicial pension. In my day, you had to serve for 15 years; now, you have to serve for 20. For those who have gone on to the Bench in their early 50s, the age of 70 does not give them long enough. When they reach the time when they have achieved that, they may well take the decision to go then, rather than going on for the extra few years, because they have actually earned their full pension. So we are, to a degree, in an area of speculation. We are having to consider human behaviour and how people will behave in view of the two choices of age that we are being given.
We are also contemplating human behaviour in the problem of diversity. I pay tribute to what my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton was saying about the need to increase diversity at all levels on the Bench. I had the responsibility for a while, as Deputy President of the Supreme Court, of being on a commission considering applicants for the position of justice. One of the issues that concerned us at the time was the lack of diversity in the applicants coming before us—a point that I think has been hinted at by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. Again, we are trying to speculate about human behaviour. There is an immense amount to be said for the diversity element, but I do not think one can be sure that choosing 75 instead of 72 is going to be as damaging as has been suggested.
As for the in-one-go point, I think my noble and learned friend Lord Etherton was referring to me when he mentioned someone who said at Second Reading that the opportunity to legislate on this issue comes quite seldom. I would be concerned, if we were to settle on 72 this time, as to when one would ever get back to the age of 75. As it happens, the Bill has enormous importance behind it because of the need to deal with pensions, which is a pressing issue. It has been possible to bring in the retirement age element and other parts of the Bill because the Bill is already there and the issue fits quite neatly with its broad aim and subject matter. How soon could we be sure that we could ever get back to this issue? For that reason too, the in-one-go point has a lot to commend it.
There is even more to be said for the points made by my noble and learned friends and the point that we are dealing here with an element of speculation, since we are setting a maximum age, not a compulsory one, and it will have the benefits that have been referred to. I believe the Government have made absolutely the right choice here.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I am in the rather unusual position of having brought the judicial retirement age down, all those years ago, to 70 from 75. Your Lordships will remember that 75 was a fairly recent innovation because, originally, judges were appointed for life, and if they did not care for resignation, that sometimes meant fairly long periods in office.
I am very given to wishing for diversity on the Bench, and I realise what the authorities responsible for appointments have done over the past few years. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, can be sure that if they get 72 instead of 75 there will be an increase in diversity on the Bench. I had a great deal of experience—it is a long time ago—of trying to work with the ethnic minorities to improve their chances of getting to the top. Indeed, the death of one of those appointments—Mr Kadri, the first Muslim Silk who originated from Pakistan—was reported just the other day. During my time in office, I struggled to bring up the standards of ethnic minorities at the Bar because I felt that was the way to build up a chance of diversity. One of the difficulties in doing that was getting the arrangements needed for that purpose. I was of the view, and am still, that the best chance for ethnic minorities is not Chambers that are entirely of an ethnic minority but diverse Chambers with people from different backgrounds. That has happened to a considerable extent in recent times. It has produced some ethnic-minority members on the Bench, although nothing like as many as I would have liked.
I am convinced that the situation is very different now from what it was 27 years ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said. Just after the Supreme Court was set up, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and I wrote to the then Lord Chancellor suggesting that the age limit for Supreme Court judges should be raised to 75 from 70 to accommodate for a reasonable length of time some of those who were there and had the potential to be very good examples of service in the Supreme Court. I am not sure that diversity has necessarily increased very much since then. It is perhaps worth my commenting that the President of the Supreme Court and the Deputy President of the Supreme Court are from Scotland. That is a very important move, although it is not in the way of diversity. It shows that those making the appointments are doing their best to secure the best quality they can at this time. However, it is important to do everything we can to raise the quality of those who are thinking of going to the Bench.
I do not know on what basis the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, whose experience and position is a matter of great importance so far as I am concerned, know that if this is left at 72 there will be greater diversity than now. The people making appointments are as keen on diversity as we are, but they find it difficult in the context in which they are working to bring it forward. I do not believe that it is at all likely that 72 will be more fruitful in that respect than 75. There is no doubt in my mind that going to 75 will increase the possibility of people in senior positions at the Bar taking the appointment. That is one of the things that I realised. The reason is simply that, as has been pointed out, the pension is important in these situations. People who are at the top of the profession are rather unwilling to take a judicial appointment unless they have a pension that encourages them to leave the Bar, with what they are making. I support this move to 75 very strongly, although I know it reverses what I did all those years ago.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, it is an enormous privilege and pleasure to be able to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, because when he was Lord Chancellor he swore me in as a judge of the High Court. At that time, the retirement age had been reduced to 70. Before turning to this particular amendment, because it is of particular relevance, I say how much I welcome and appreciate what the Government have done in bringing forward this Bill and clearing the terrible problem related to judicial pensions. Of all the research that was done during the time that I was the senior judge, it was clear that the biggest impediment to recruitment was what had happened on pensions, so I thank the Government with all my heart for putting this matter right.
I could not possibly begin to say that a retirement age of 75 was in ordinary circumstances the right age. It would be a difficult proposition to make to this House in any event, but I will be of that age next year and I still sit in a judicial capacity. However, that is not the issue. The issue is, starkly, diversity. I do not think that this House can run away from that, for reasons that I will endeavour to explain. The senior leadership judges whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has described all support moving only to 72 because of the imperative of diversity.
When I was Lord Chief Justice, I was under a statutory duty to promote diversity. Working hard with Lady Justice Hallett, as she then was—she is now the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett—we did it not because we were under a statutory duty but because we believed it was imperative for the judiciary to increase its diversity. The figures are telling. In 2005, there were two female members of the Court of Appeal. By 2015, there were eight, but—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, gave the figures—there are only 10 now. In the Supreme Court, there was one, then there were three, and now there are two, so the battle for diversity has yet to be won, particularly as regards our ethnic communities.
Why do I have this belief in diversity? There are three reasons. First, it is critical to public confidence in the judiciary—without which, the whole of society suffers. Secondly, diversity represents the fundamental principles of justice: equality of opportunity and fairness. Thirdly, unless we fully embrace the principles of diversity, for the whole of our society, we will not recruit and bring into the judiciary the broad background that we need—possibly not to decide the most intellectually important cases but to bring justice that is appreciated to everyone.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, the debate this afternoon has been passionate and enlightening. Here is a quote from Second Reading:
“I think that everybody in this House would say that it is important that our senior judges in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court reflect the society that we live in if they are to be respected and seen as part of our current era. At the moment, they do not.”—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 792.]
It is also a great pity that the Government have not conducted impact assessments with benchmarking of different ages, but they have not. In the absence of impact assessments, I look to the arguments that we have heard. The point has been admirably made: unless there are vacancies, there will not be opportunities for diversity.
We have heard arguments as to why we should not do this; for example—an argument we often hear when there is talk of promoting diversity—that somehow quality will suffer. I have heard those arguments for the last 40 years. Whether scientists, engineers or Members of Parliament, we now see women operating in spheres that were occupied only by men in the past, with no diminution in quality at all. In fact, the contrary has been the case.
I very much respect what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, with his experience and knowledge. He mentioned context, however, and, the more we listen to this debate, the more we realise that it is the context that has to change. The present context does not promote diversity at all; I would venture to suggest that, to create greater diversity, the circumstances need to change. This amendment seems to me to promote the kind of change that we need.
We heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that the position of women has improved and continues to improve slowly, but—to use his words—that the embarrassing position as far as minority ethnic judges is concerned is something we all ought to be ashamed of. The cause of diversity is one that we in this House, as well as people from all walks of life, welcome. Everybody here wants to see a more diverse judiciary. Whatever our own situation, and whether or not we believe, as some in this Chamber clearly do, that somehow the courts will not attract the very best people to be judges, the cause of diversity is absolutely self-explanatory and vital if the people of the country are to be able to respect those in eminent positions. From what I have heard today and in Committee, I would say that the cause of diversity is best served by this amendment. We on this side will support it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions during this lively debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for the consideration they have both given to this issue, not just today but throughout passage of the Bill. I have listened with care to both sides of the argument put forward today. However, I would like to use this opportunity to set out in full why—in a robust response following detailed public consultation—the Government continue to believe that 75 is the right judicial mandatory retirement age.
All four nations of the UK conducted public consultations on this important question and, following careful analysis of responses, the decision taken by each Government was to increase the mandatory retirement age to 75. I appreciate the support of noble Lords today, from my noble friend Lord Hailsham, to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Woolf, Lord Brown and Lord Hope, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay.
I remind the House of some of the data emerging from the UK Government’s consultation. The vast majority of respondents—84%—believed that the mandatory retirement age should be increased, with 67% indicating that a retirement age of 75 was better, all things considered. Notably, 74% of respondents believed that such a change would not damage confidence in our world-class judiciary—something raised by one or two noble Lords today.
On a point raised by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton and Lord Thomas, as to why we appeared to be going against the views of the senior judicial responses to the consultation, we recognise the varied opinions on the appropriate retirement age. However, I assure noble Lords that this decision was taken after careful consideration of all responses including those of the senior judiciary. Some 67% of respondents to the consultation on this matter favoured increasing the age to 75, as I have said. We recognise the concerns raised by the senior judiciary over impacts on judicial diversity, which I shall address later in my remarks. However, on balance, we believe that raising the retirement age to 75 sets the right balance.
It is clear that we agree on one point: that the mandatory retirement age should be increased. The question being debated here is to what age. Here is a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. If the retirement age is to be increased as this Bill intends, it should be a meaningful increase, which will bring a clear and tangible benefit to the resourcing of our courts, not just a minor raise by two years to 72—a decision which I suspect will not put this issue to bed and will mean that we find ourselves discussing it again in the not-too-distant future, as has been said.
This leads me to an important point on life expectancy. Since the current mandatory retirement age was set in 1993, life expectancy is longer, and social attitudes to working in later life have changed significantly. An age of 75 much better reflects this change. That was a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, alluded to in his powerful remarks. Indeed, as I have noted previously, many Members of this House over the age of 75 are among its most knowledgeable, productive and vibrant. I look around now—not wishing to bring any individual Peer to the attention of the House—but I hope that my point is well made.
I stress that the mandatory retirement age is a maximum, not a minimum. Judges will by no means be forced to continue working to 75. The key objective here is additional flexibility, both for officeholders themselves as well as for the resourcing of courts and tribunals. Increasing the mandatory retirement age to 75 maximises this flexibility. Indeed, we already have some officeholders sitting up to the age 75 who play a key role in the administration of justice.
I must also note that, based on the evidence available, it is not clear that all, or even most, judges would choose to continue working to 75. With some trepidation, I do not entirely agree with the statistics put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, on judiciary retirement. The average retirement age of salaried judges is, I understand, about 67. Over the last five years senior judges—that is, judges of the High Court and above—with a mandatory retirement age of 70, have also on average retired at 67. Evidence therefore suggests that the majority of judges do not continue working till their mandatory retirement age. As I have stated, the objective of this measure is additional flexibility to support the resourcing of courts and tribunals.
I understand that the intended effect of this amendment is to raise the mandatory retirement age to 72 rather than to 75, as has been made clear. However, I must make it clear that this presents a number of consequential issues for other related provisions in the Bill. I note that the amendments do not include changes to paragraph 25(2)(b) of Schedule 1, which repealed the powers to provide for extensions up to 75. In the consultation, only 10% of respondents believed that, if the mandatory retirement age were 72, extensions past the mandatory retirement age should not remain. The amendments as drafted would leave us with a lower retirement age but without retaining these provisions for extensions which are currently in place. Additionally, those “sitting in retirement” can currently continue to decide cases up to the age of 75. The effect of the amendment to Clause 107 would require those sitting in retirement to also retire at the age of 72. This would reduce the resourcing flexibility that “sitting in retirement” arrangements provide.
I also highlight that the amendments do not appear to take account of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which allows for the reinstatement of retired magistrates who are younger than the mandatory retirement age, where there is a business need. This would provide necessary additional capacity in the magistrates’ and family courts to meet forecast case volumes and provide timely access to justice as the courts recover from the pandemic. The Government’s modelling indicates a pool of about 4,000 retired magistrates would be eligible to be considered for reinstatement with a retirement age of 75, but only around 1,300 would be eligible to be considered with retirement at 72. In addition, an age of 72 would provide a much shorter timeframe over which those magistrates reinstated could sit, which means that, when the time and investment necessary to reappoint and retrain is taken into account, the number who would be able to make a meaningful contribution would be smaller still. Therefore, the amendments as tabled result in a hard cut-off at age 72, and with less flexibility than now.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, let me provide some context to the figures that the noble Viscount has given. He said that there are 12,000 magistrates in England and Wales today, but when I became a magistrate 14 years ago there were 30,000, so there has been a managed decline of the magistracy. I support, of course, the recruitment programme, which is targeting and, as he said, marketing to try to get greater diversity through that process.
The simple point is that you cannot run away from diversity. There is an absolute imperative to increase diversity within the whole of the judiciary. It is not good enough just to wring your hands and say, “It’s all very difficult”. It has been very difficult for decades and the situation has not improved. The maths is very simple; we heard the maths from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who also quoted the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, who is in a particular position to know. There need to be vacancies for people to progress through the system. It is a simple argument, which I do not think a number of noble Lords fully took on board.
When I introduced this debate, I made a simple example of my role as a youth magistrate and how I felt that I was moving further and further away from the youths I was judging. I gave the example that I am older than the grandfathers of nearly all the youths I am judging. Not one noble and learned Lord addressed that point. They addressed points about the difficulties of recruitment and the ins and outs of the pension scheme, but not the central issue that I tried to raise about the judiciary being further away from the people who they are judging. I argue that we need to have some level of connection to reach fair judgments.
My amendment is a modest compromise. It says that 75 is too far and that 72 is a better age to see how it goes. I acknowledge that people are working and living longer—I made those points when I introduced the amendment—but I say to the noble Viscount and to a number of contributors to this important debate that I am not convinced. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Lord Chancellor to remove a person from the supplemental list on a temporary basis for the purpose of facilitating the disposal of business in the family court as well as in the magistrates’ courts.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Lord Chancellor to extend the period during which a person is removed from the supplemental list if the Lord Chancellor is satisfied that the extension would be expedient as a temporary measure in order to facilitate the disposal of business in the family court as well as in the magistrates’ courts.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We shall now have a short interval for a change of personnel before we move on to the next business.
Covid-19 Update
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, with permission, I would like to make a Statement on the omicron variant and the steps we are taking to keep our country safe. We have always known that a worrying new variant could be a threat to the progress that we have made as a nation. We are entering the winter in a strong position, thanks to the decisions we made in the summer and the defences we have built. Our vaccination programme has been moving at a blistering pace and this weekend we reached the milestone of 17 million boosters across the UK. This means that even though cases have been rising, hospital admissions have fallen a further 11% in the past week and deaths have fallen by another 17%. But, just as the vaccination programme has shifted the odds in our favour, a harmful new variant has always had the opportunity to shift them back.
Last week, I was alerted to what is now known as the omicron variant, now designated a variant of concern by the World Health Organization. We are learning more about this new variant all the time, but the latest indication is that it spreads very rapidly. It may impact the effectiveness of one of our major treatments for Covid-19, Ronapreve, and, as the Chief Medical Officer said this weekend, there is a reasonable chance that our current vaccines may be impacted. I can update the House that there have now been five confirmed cases in England, and also six confirmed cases in Scotland, and we expect cases to rise over the coming days.
The new variant has also been spreading across the world. Confirmed cases have been reported in many more countries, including Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal. In this race between the vaccines and the virus, the new variant may have given the virus extra legs. So, our strategy is to buy ourselves time and strengthen our defences while our world-leading scientists learn more about its potential threat.
On Friday, I updated the House about the measures that we have put in place, including how, within hours, we had placed six countries in southern Africa on the red list. Today, I would like to update the House on the more balanced and proportionate steps that we are taking. First, measures at the border to slow the incursion of the variant from abroad. On Saturday, in line with updated advice from the UK Health Security Agency, we acted quickly to add another four countries to the travel red list: Angola, Mozambique, Malawi and Zambia. This means that anyone who is not a UK or Irish national or resident who has been in any of these countries for the previous 10 days will be refused entry; and those who are must isolate in a Government-approved facility for 10 days.
Beyond this red list, we are also going further to put in place a proportionate testing regime for arrivals from all across the world. So we will require anyone who enters the UK to take a PCR test by the end of the second day after they arrive and to self-isolate until they have received a negative result. The regulations for this have been laid before the House today and will come into force at 4 am tomorrow.
Secondly, we have announced measures to slow the spread of the virus here in the UK. We are making changes to our rules on self-isolation for close contacts in England to reflect the greater threat that may be posed by this new variant. So close contacts of anyone who tests positive with a suspected case of omicron must self-isolate for 10 days, regardless of whether or not they have been vaccinated. Face coverings will also be made compulsory in shops and on public transport in England, unless an individual has a medical exemption.
The regulations for self-isolation and face coverings have been laid before the House today and will come into force at 4 am tomorrow. I can confirm to the House that there will be debates and votes on these two measures to give the House the opportunity to have its say and perform valuable scrutiny. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House will set out more details shortly and we will review all the measures that I have set out today after three weeks to see whether they are still necessary.
Thirdly, we are strengthening the defences that we have built against this virus. We are already in a stronger position than we were when we faced the delta variant. We have a much greater capacity for testing, enhanced ability for sequencing and the collective protection offered by 114 million jabs in arms.
I will update the House on our Covid-19 vaccination programme, which has been a national success story. We have delivered more booster doses than anywhere in Europe, and we have given top-up jabs to over one in three people over the age of 18 across the UK. I pay tribute to the NHS, the volunteers, the Armed Forces and everyone else who has been involved in this life-saving work. Our vaccines remain our best line of defence against this virus, in whatever form it takes. There is a lot that we do not know about how our vaccines respond to the omicron variant, but although it is possible that they may be less effective, it is unlikely that they will have no effectiveness. So it is really important that we get as many jabs in arms as possible.
We were already planning to do 6 million booster jabs in England alone over the next few weeks, but, against the backdrop of this new variant, we want to go further and faster. So I asked the JCVI—the Government’s independent expert advisers on vaccinations—to urgently review how we can expand the programme and whether we should reduce the gap between second doses and boosters. The JCVI published its advice in the last hour. First, it advised that the minimum dose interval for booster jabs should be halved, from six to three months. Secondly, it advised that the booster programme should be expanded to include all remaining adults aged 18 and above. Thirdly, it advised that these boosters should be offered by age group in descending order to protect those who are most vulnerable to the virus. Priority will be given to older adults and people over 16 who are at risk. Fourthly, it advised that severely immunosuppressed people aged 16 or above who have received three primary doses should now also be offered a booster dose. Finally, it advised that children aged between 12 and 15 should be given a second dose, 12 weeks from the first dose. I have accepted this advice in full. With this new variant on the offensive, these measures will protect more people more quickly and make us better protected as a nation. This represents a huge step for our vaccination programme.
I will update the House on the part that the UK is playing. We currently hold the presidency of the G7, and, earlier today, I convened an urgent meeting of the G7 Health Ministers to co-ordinate the international response. We were unanimous in our praise for the leadership shown by South Africa, which was so open and transparent about this new variant, and we were resolute in our commitment to working closely with each other, the World Health Organization and the wider international community to tackle this common threat.
Our experience of fighting this virus has shown us that it is best to act decisively and swiftly when we see a potential threat, which is why we are building our defences and putting these measures in place without delay. Scientists are working at speed, at home and abroad, to determine whether this variant is more dangerous. I assure the House that, if it emerges that this variant is no more dangerous than the delta variant, we will not keep measures in place for a day longer than is necessary.
Covid-19 is not going away, so we will keep seeing new variants emerge. If we want to live with the virus for the long term, we must follow the evidence and act in a proportionate and responsible way if a variant has the potential to thwart our progress. As we do this, we are taking a well-rounded view, looking at the impact of these measures not just on the virus but on the economy, education and non-Covid health, such as mental health. I am confident that these balanced and responsible steps are proportionate to the threat that we face.
This year, our nation has come so far down our road to recovery, but we always knew that there would be bumps in the road. But this is not a time to waver; it is a time to be vigilant and think about what each and every one of us can do to slow the spread of the new variant: getting a jab when the time comes, following the rules that we have put in place and getting rapid, regular tests. If we all come together once again, we can keep this virus at bay and protect the progress that we have made. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement from today and for the Statement from Friday. I add my thanks to the scientists in South Africa for their prompt sharing of this information, as unwelcome as it may be.
We understand that scientists believe that it will take two to three weeks before they can establish whether the omicron Covid variant is more transmissible, causes more severe disease or can make vaccines less effective than was the case with delta, or all three. We support the Government’s strategy of tougher travel restrictions and mandatory face masks, as far as it goes. It seems that there is already real-world evidence from South Africa and Hong Kong that omicron is highly infectious, which begs the first question: why are the Government limiting the mandating of mask wearing to travel and to shops, and not extending it to indoor meetings and social events? Mask wearing is the single most effective public health measure in tackling Covid according to the first global study of its kind, which found that the measure was linked to a 53% fall in the incidence of the disease. As Dr David Nabarro said recently:
“We know that wearing a face mask reduces the risk. We know that maintaining physical distance reduces the risk. We know that hygiene by regular hand washing and coughing into your elbow reduces the risk. We should do it all, and we should not rely on any one intervention like vaccination on its own.”
On these Benches, we support taking swift action and the inclusion of new countries on the red list. We do not want a repeat of the inertia that saw the delta variant run rampant through the country and, as the Minister said, we must protect the progress that we have made. We welcome an increase in the availability of the booster jabs. The only question that I would ask him is about the capacity of the NHS to deliver the massive increase that the Government have reported today.
We support the move to PCR testing, but there are still holes in the testing programme. Ministers have not introduced pre-departure testing and there is little, if any, follow-up on PCR test results, so we need action on this if we are to take it seriously.
The Government could, of course, go further to keep people safe. Fixing sick pay, improving ventilation and properly utilising antivirals remain crucial to ensuring that we reduce the spread of this deadly disease. Do any of these feature in the Government’s plans?
I agreed with my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown when he said:
“Whatever happens to this particular variant, we’ve got to realise our failure to vaccinate the rest of world … is going to come back to haunt us.”
He said that the new variant was a “wake up call” for rich nations with surplus vaccines. There seem to be surplus vaccines which will expire within the next month. How many vaccines in the UK will pass their use-by dates before Christmas, and will these be destroyed? I am afraid that Ministers have not met the commitments made at this summer’s G7 to roll out the vaccine to other parts of the globe. There is now sufficient vaccine to reach almost every adult in the world. I agree with the Minister that we need to play our part in ensuring that everyone around the globe has access to vaccines to stop the emergence of new variants.
This variant is indeed a wake-up call. The pandemic is not over. We need to act with speed to bolster our defences to keep the virus at bay. In that context, I ask the Minister about preparedness for new Covid variants in general. Both Clive Dix and Kate Bingham, former chairs of the Vaccine Taskforce, have expressed worries about our preparedness for dealing with new variants. Mr Dix has said of a paper that he sent to No. 10 in May:
“I wrote a very specific proposal on what we should put in place right now for the emergence of any new virus that escaped the vaccine.”
It seems that, thus far, No. 10 has not responded, so perhaps I can ask on Mr Dix’s behalf what the Government’s plan is for an escape variant? What is the plan for resistance for the future? The country needs to know. He suggested that a strategy should involve a co-ordinating team to seek out new vaccines and give the company involved a fast track to a swift trial, access to the data and regulatory approval in return for early access to vaccines. If that sounds familiar, it is exactly what the Government did at the start of the pandemic, and it needs to be repeated. Is this in the Government’s plan?
Reports from South Africa and other places indicate that the new infection seems to manifest itself with nausea, headaches, fatigue and a high pulse rate, but not the original and distinguishing features of loss of taste or smell, nor the headaches, sore throat, runny nose, fever and persistent cough which have been the most common in the delta variant. Will the NHS stick to the old symptom guide or will it update it to allow those running test and trace to recognise that they are not necessarily looking for things like loss of taste and smell but for other symptoms?
If the Government intend to report again in three weeks’ time, if not before, it takes us into the Recess, so I would like the Minister to ensure that colleagues will be briefed appropriately. On Saturday evening, the Secretary of State held a Zoom call to brief MPs about the new world that we now entering. I hope that the Minister will do the same for all Members of your Lordships’ House.
We must all be concerned that any spike in serious cases from this new variant could coincide with the NHS’s peak winter period, particularly given that the service is already at full stretch. We all want to enjoy Christmas but, most of all, we all want to stay safe.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating today’s Statement. The World Health Organization and many globally respected scientists and doctors have been warning us that variants of Covid-19 might pose a serious risk, especially when a Government think that we are winning the war against the virus and that we can all afford to relax. Omicron reminds us that the battle is not won until it is won across the world. From these Benches, we also thank the South African scientists for their genome sequencing that has alerted the world, and I hope that the UK and the other G7 countries will offer them not just gratitude but countries in southern Africa more practical support.
I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about arrangements for international travel and test and trace. I also support her request for a briefing for Peers. For some bizarre reason, the Liberal Democrat MPs were not included in the MPs’ briefing. Please could the Minister make sure that we are included in any such meeting in the Lords.
In April, before the Minister was appointed, we warned Ministers that the Government were responding far too late to the reports of the delta variant in India. So we warn again. While the face mask mandate in shops and on public transport is welcome and well overdue, we are absolutely bemused that it excludes hospitality and that the advice to schools excludes classrooms. Professor Chris Whitty said in Saturday’s No. 10 press conference that when there is a risk we should go in hard, so can the Minister explain how the virus will be kept at bay in those indoor settings where masks are not required? Why is there no encouragement for people to work from home where possible? Trains and buses are crowded and unventilated. Risks will remain there too, even if lessened with masks.
I have said before that I am in the clinically extremely vulnerable group. I have had my third dose of the vaccine and now look forward to my fourth, or booster, dose. But many of those who should be getting the third dose still face a series of problems in the NHS about who should get it, as opposed to a booster, and how it is recorded. Indeed, today, in response to a Written Question to my honourable friend Daisy Cooper about the recording of a third dose, the Minister, Maggie Throup MP, replied:
“Work to assess the need to include boosters in the NHS COVID Pass is ongoing and we will provide a further update in due course”,
so even the records cannot distinguish. Can the Minister say when “in due course” is? I am afraid this is symptomatic of the way the clinically extremely vulnerable have been ignored and left to fend for themselves.
I will ask a question that I have asked the Minister’s predecessor repeatedly since June of this year. In May 2021, Jenny Harries left Public Health England to set up the UKHSA. For the preceding 12 months she had specific responsibility for co-ordinating all the different elements of Covid issues for the CEV and for shielding. When she left, no one was given that responsibility, and it was noticeable that all communications with CEV people and the different parts of the NHS on Covid just stopped when shielding stopped. Can the Minister tell us which senior person in the NHS has that managerial responsibility? It has been five months since I first asked and there are 3.7 million worried people still waiting for answers. It would be good to know which Minister has the responsibility to co-ordinate all Covid matters for the CEV or former shielders. This is important, because the last letter from the Secretary of State tells the CEV not to go into any environment where people have not been double-jabbed. There is no mention of boosters, and obviously no mention yet of omicron.
Is there a confirmed register that distinguishes between the CEV and the severely CEV? Unlike in Scotland, hospital consultants in England do not have access to individual patient records that GPs use or even to the Covid app data. Can the Minister say how NHS England will be able to communicate directly with eligible people if they do not have a register? Is there a specific communications plan to ensure that primary care, secondary care and the 119 vaccine helpline are fully aware of plans and processes for this group? Reports are coming back of blood cancer patients being told at vaccine centres that they do only boosters—there is no knowledge or understanding of the third dose.
I recognise that I am asking the Minister a large number of questions on the immunocompromised. I really do not expect answers to them today—written answers are always very welcome—but please will he agree to meet with me, Blood Cancer UK and the Anthony Nolan Trust to discuss these key questions, not least because we are now in a different situation, with the 3.7 million, which is 5% of the country, left in limbo?
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, it is too early to say whether omicron is more dangerous than delta or beta, or whether treatments such as Ronapreve and the current vaccines might not be as effective. The Government are right to be cautious. I echo her comments about Clive Dix, the former head of the Government’s Vaccine Taskforce. What plans are in place for vaccine development for an escape variant?
At a time when manufacturing is one of the key issues slowing down the delivery of vaccines worldwide, why is the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre at Harwell, which has received in excess of £200 million of public funding via UK research and development, now up for sale, long before the pandemic is over? We still need its expertise. Selling off a publicly funded, not-for-profit organisation during the pandemic, if at all, seems, frankly, bizarre.
Finally, the Statement has a passing reference to test and trace domestically. It says:
“We have a much greater capacity for testing, enhanced ability for sequencing”.
Genome sequencing in the UK has been a real strength of UK science and has undoubtedly helped us considerably in this pandemic. But, in recent weeks, with the Government’s determination to open up and return to normality, test and trace has been scaled back, with reduced centres and reduced hours for those that remain open. Can the Minister say what plans there are to increase these back as needed? Are directors of public health and their local resilience forums receiving funding for the current omicron problem? It also appears that there is no Covid funding for them next year at the moment. If omicron is a viable variant, we must plan to fund them to keep these safety nets of test and trace in place, because without an effective test, trace and isolate system, including proper payments to those who need to isolate, we will not manage, let alone control, this virus. Defences are not defences when there are large holes in them.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank both noble Baronesses for their questions. I will try to answer as many as I can.
On the first issue of face coverings and why not all places, we are taking temporary, targeted and proportionate action as a precaution while we learn more about this new variant. Face coverings have been introduced as part of the temporary measures being put in place to slow the spread of the omicron variant. We know that face coverings are effective at reducing transmission indoors when people are likely to come together—for example, on public transport or in shops—while having a low impact on our daily lives. We continue to encourage everyone to wear face coverings in settings that are crowded or where they meet or come into contact with people they do not normally meet, but we are also guided by the advice of our scientific and medical experts. We are constantly keeping these under review.
One of the reasons why our advice is not the same for hospitality venues is that the advice has been that it is not seen as practical for people to wear a face covering when eating or drinking. It is not recommended that face coverings are worn when undertaking strenuous activity, including exercising and dancing. That is the advice we have had to date on that one.
Questions were asked about NHS capacity. The NHS can respond to local surges in demand in several ways, including through expanding surge capacity in existing NHS hospitals, mutual aid between hospitals, and making use of independent sector capacity and accelerated discharge schemes. The NHS is the Government’s key spending priority. That is why we committed to the historic settlement of the cash increase of £33.9 billion a year by 2023-24, and other investments we have made to make sure we have that capacity.
The booster vaccine will be offered in order of descending age groups, with priority given to older adults. This will probably be the most complex phase of the NHS vaccination programme so far, but the NHS is working through updated guidance and will set out how this will be operationalised shortly. It will contact you when you need to act and book in for your life-saving vaccination.
On helping the rest of the world, the UK remains committed to donating 100 million doses by mid-2022. We will have donated more than 30 million vaccines by the end of 2021 and we have announced plans for 70 million doses in total so far. We will continue to work to ensure that any vaccine that the UK does not need is reallocated to other nations that require it, wherever possible.
On future preparedness for variants and future pandemics, as noble Lords will know, the UK Health Security Agency, which focuses on health protection, became fully operational on 1 October 2021. It will operate as an integral part of our health system and utilise state-of-the-art technologies and ground-breaking capabilities in data analytics, including genomic surveillance, as acknowledged by the noble Baronesses. The UKHSA will play a critical role in the route to developing vaccines that are effective against new and emerging variants. In the longer term, to make sure we learn the lessons, we will build on the infrastructure developed for Covid-19 to tackle and prevent other infectious diseases and external health threats. This work will include a strong focus on the life sciences, strengthening relationships with academia, research organisations and industries that have developed and grown through the pandemic, in which there are now several centres of expertise.
We are delighted to see students back at schools and higher education settings, but to reduce transmission we are keeping some sensible measures in place across education and care settings. These include access to twice-weekly testing in secondary schools and the provision of CO2 monitors to all schools. We have said that education settings must continue to comply with health and safety law, and we are working between the Department of Health and the Department for Education to make sure we have the right and appropriate response in our education settings.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about severely immunosuppressed individuals—I thank her for the acknowledgement that I will not be able to answer all the questions in detail and that it probably would be better if I write to her in more detail. So far, however, the individuals who have completed their primary course of three doses should be offered a fourth booster dose with a minimum of three months between the third primary and fourth booster dose. If they have not yet received their third dose, they should have that now to avoid further delay.
The other point I will make is that it is not too late for anyone who has not yet had their first or second dose. Please do not think that, because we are advertising for boosters, it means that you have missed the boat. In fact, we are working very hard—and I have received a lot of advice from noble Lords across the House—on how to address the low take-up of vaccines among certain communities and demographics. I am grateful to noble Lords for that. I also reiterate the point that it is not over. I humbly disagree with the statement that we have given the impression that it is over. We have been quite clear that it is not and that we must continue to be vigilant.
In terms of briefings, I will commit to giving a briefing to all Peers. I thank the noble Baroness for that suggestion. I have apologised for not being more proactive on that—maybe I should have done so on Sunday afternoon or evening after the Secretary of State. To the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I can only apologise for not having an answer sooner to the questions she has asked in the past. The best way to resolve this is for me to commit to the meeting that she has requested so that we can try to answer the questions that she has outstanding. I apologise to her for those questions not being answered previously.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is very difficult to find out why many people are hesitant about having a booster jab having had two vaccinations. Does the Minister think that, if something went wrong and left a person seriously disabled from the vaccine, but if they knew they would have adequate compensation, they might be more willing to have the booster?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising that important point. We have made the point that it is not over, but one thing that we have seen, sadly, with the uptake of the booster vaccine is that a number of people felt that because they had had the first and second doses, they could almost return to normal. Maybe we could have been stronger with the message that it is not over, but we continue to say that we should be ever vigilant. The important point is that, if you have not had the booster, we ask you to come forward, just as we ask all those who have not had their first or second vaccine to come forward. We are trying to work with all those in different communities to make sure that they come forward. We are, for example, working with interfaith communities and local groups.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement, but may I express the hope that the requirement to wear masks in shops and on public transport is not relaxed prematurely? Is there not a case for continuing those requirements while the pandemic is prevalent?
Lord Kamall (Con)
My noble friend will be aware of the constant debate that there has been in the public sphere about the effectiveness of masks, when they are effective and who is affected. Therefore, we have always followed scientific advice on the wearing of masks and where would be most appropriate. We know that many noble Lords and others have called on us literally not to let the masks slip, as it were, and to make sure that people continue to wear masks. There have been others, however, asking why people still need to wear masks. We have always been vigilant, and the fact that we now have this new variant means we are taking a precautionary approach. We will continue to review it and it could well be that, in three weeks’ time, we will see how dangerous it has been and how effective mask wearing has been in the places that we have specified.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, it is now recognised widely that none of us is safe until we are all safe, leading to the conclusion that we need a worldwide vaccination programme. However, there is mounting evidence that populations that are immunocompromised, especially people living with HIV, provide a particularly ideal environment for the mutation of the virus. Does the Minister accept that we must therefore contemplate the possibility of having a global programme of antiretroviral medicine as part of our response to Covid?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the point he just made. If he will allow me, I will take that back and try to get an answer for him.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I hear from colleagues in South Africa that nasal swabs alone are not as effective at picking up the new variant and that there have been many false negatives reported. I would welcome the Minister’s comment on that, as we are moving to more nasal swabs. I also suggest that it would be more sensible to encourage the use of face coverings in offices and to encourage people to work from home wherever it is feasible in terms of employers, so that the next two weeks can be used by scientists to really identify other problems that might be associated. This would help to safeguard NHS clinical staff as well as hospitals. If people are getting false negatives and then being admitted to hospital, it puts the very staff we need to keep at work at risk.
Lord Kamall (Con)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, will be aware, our scientific medical advice and the data are constantly reviewed. We are currently conducting thorough tests to review both LFT and PCR efficacy when it comes to the omicron variant. The advice that I have been given is that we must wait for the data and take a cautious, proportionate approach as scientists work urgently to better understand the variant. In terms of the question on more restrictions in terms of where face masks should be worn, the advice at the moment is still on public transport and in shops, and to continue to encourage people to work either from home or in offices, as appropriate.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, in my noble friend’s repeat of the Statement, he said that
“our strategy is to buy ourselves time and strengthen our defences”.
May I ask him about our border controls? Given our testing capacity, would it not make sense for us, for example, to test everybody who comes into our airports at the airport itself so that we have certainty that, where they are positive, we know who they are and are able to conduct the contact tracing required?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving me notice of the question; I appreciate it. The answer that I have been given in response is that we have built a thriving private diagnostic market to meet the demand of the international travellers and day 2 PCR testing for travellers is provided by these private providers. Based on forecast modelling, we are confident that the market has sufficient capacity to meet the rise in demand that omicron may pose.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement, in which he indicated that he was chairing a meeting of G7 members to deal with this specific issue. Will that meeting deal with the rollout of excess vaccines to the rest of the world, particularly those countries in southern Africa? I can only think of what my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown said at the weekend, which was also reaffirmed in the leader column in yesterday’s Sunday Times: that nobody is safe in this world until everybody is safe. So is there a strategic plan to deal with excess vaccines to ensure that they are all used up, and particularly that they are used in those countries in the developing world that need them most?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I believe all noble Lords will agree with the points made by the noble Baroness on making sure that as many people in the world as possible have access to the vaccines. Someone said to me today that we are talking about third and fourth doses in the UK, but there are people in many parts of the world who have not yet had their first dose. I am sure noble Lords are aware of that. There is an analogy with when you are on an aircraft and the oxygen masks fall; do you protect yourself before you protect others? There is clearly a debate on this.
The UK remains committed to donating 100 million doses by the middle of 2022. We will have donated more than 30 million vaccines by the end of 2021 and have announced plans for 70 million doses in total so far. We will continue to ensure that any vaccines that the UK does not need are reallocated to other nations which require them wherever possible. Having sat in one of those G7 meetings with Health Ministers and joint G7 meetings with Health and Transports Ministers, I can assure noble Lords that one of the issues that comes up constantly is how we can help the rest of the world, particularly those countries which have not had access to even first doses of the vaccine.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, on whether LFT swabs should be nasal or nasal plus throat, it is more important that the test is carried out properly; we know that LFTs have low specificity, as opposed to sensitivity, compared to PCRs. Those who test positive with the new variant and their contacts must isolate for 10 days. If a traveller arrives on these shores and tests positive for the new variant, will the whole of the aeroplane have to isolate for 10 days or only close contacts? If only close contacts, who counts as a close contact? What risk assessment have the Government made on the transmissibility of the new variant in superspreader events such as clubs and sporting events?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord raises an important point. I will double-check the details as I do not wish to mislead him or the House. Given that this is a fast-moving situation, in which the data is very new, changing constantly and constantly being reviewed, it would be more appropriate if I double-check before I answer.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
The new requirements are for all travellers arriving in the country to take a PCR test on or before day two and to self-isolate until they have received a negative test. However, on the government website today, it says that if someone has tested positive with a PCR, they should not be tested again using either a PCR or lateral flow test for 90 days, unless they have developed new symptoms. What are returning travellers who have tested positive in the last 90 days meant to do? Who is cross-checking the existing guidance against new regulations?
Lord Kamall (Con)
All I can do is thank the noble Baroness for her question. I will have to double-check; as she will imagine, I do not have all the answers at the moment. Throughout the day, as I was preparing for this, the advice was changing constantly, and things were being swapped in. Advisers from the Department of Health and Social Care were saying, “This is the latest advice”, but it was changing literally hourly. I will try to get the latest advice and share this with noble Lords.
Lord Naseby (Con)
In light of the overall success of the vaccination programme, is it now a condition of employment that every new recruit to the NHS, at every level, must be vaccinated against Covid and agree to accept any future recommendations on protection against it?
Lord Kamall (Con)
As my noble friend will be aware, vaccination as a condition of deployment has been brought in for the social care sector. It will be brought in for the wider NHS, but there is a grace period in certain cases. Management are being encouraged to meet with staff to encourage them, particularly staff who are vaccine-hesitant. There is a grace period to see us through the winter period; it runs up to April next year. However, we are encouraging as many members of NHS staff as possible to get vaccinated and we have a high rate of vaccination so far.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to a thriving diagnostic market in PCR tests. When these were previously commonly required, there were huge problems with misleading advertising about costs and people being misled about the services and timings on offer. Have the Government solved these problems and are they looking at how much money these companies are making out of this thriving market?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The important thing for us is to make sure that PCR tests are available and that there is sufficient supply and capacity to deliver them. Frankly, as much as we want to make sure there are enough PCR tests, we want to make sure that supplies come to the market. But, as the noble Baroness will be aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has raised concerns about the cost of some of the PCR tests and has been quite public about that.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, first, did the Minister see the interview with Dr Coetzee, the South African doctor who first identified the omicron variant, on “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday? She said that the British Government were overreacting and, when asked, specifically agreed that they were panicking. Secondly, could he identify and publish for the benefit of everyone the studies that have shown that wearing these flimsy, non-surgical face masks is effective in preventing transmission? I refer to the excellent research which my noble friend Lord Ridley detailed in the Grand Committee on 26 October, which is in column 123 of Hansard. So far, no proper study has shown that wearing a face mask is effective.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for those points. On the comments made by the South African expert, I raised these issues with officials and experts today; one of the points made was that there are different demographics of who has been affected. We want to make sure that we are being cautious and proportionate. Therefore, we have taken these measures as a precaution. On the efficacy of face masks, the point my noble friend makes shows that there is a debate, but we have decided to err on the side of caution to make sure that we are prepared.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, what is the position with aeroplanes coming into Dublin Airport? Have the Irish Government followed the United Kingdom Government? Otherwise, what will happen to people who have come into Dublin and then come across a border where there is obviously no restriction into the United Kingdom?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. Health issues are devolved to Northern Ireland, but I will double-check this point and write to her.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I too generally find the GOV.UK website wanting in the detail. Frankly, it is very confusing and is never kept accurate enough in a timely manner; I encourage the Minister to pay regard to that. May I drill into one particular issue on a point which other Peers have touched on? What is the rationale for the emphasis on testing after arrival into the UK, rather than catching those with Covid before departure?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Viscount raises a good question; I am afraid that I will have to double-check the answer.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s Statement says that close contacts of anyone who tests positive with a suspected case of the omicron variant must self-isolate for 10 days, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated. Can the Minister tell the House what specific scientific advice has been received in the recent past to support that? Or are the Government being excessively precautionary? If so, is this a permanent or a temporary provision?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government have taken these measures as a precaution and we will constantly review them as we get more data. We have already committed to reviewing the measures after three weeks. If the data becomes available and we are clear about whether or not this is effective, we may well have an announcement before then, but we have committed to reviewing this within three weeks.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say what steps will be taken to enforce the regulations being made? I ask the question because Transport for London has been saying for weeks that the wearing of masks is required on London transport. I am a regular passenger on the London Underground, and something like a quarter or even a third of passengers are not wearing masks. It is all very well making regulations, but they need to be enforced.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble and learned Lord makes a valuable point. One of the points I made previously about enforcement on public transport is that it puts staff in a difficult position. We therefore have to be careful about how we do this. When giving advice, you assume that some people will not follow the advice, whatever you do. It has been found that most people will wait until it is mandated on public transport, sadly, rather than doing it of their own volition. The police and police community support officers can take measures if members of the public do not comply, and I am sure the noble and learned Lord will have seen a number of police and community officers.
We are clear that face coverings reduce the risk, and until now we have followed scientific advice. We are now adopting a precautionary approach and taking precautions. Some may argue that it is overly precautious, but we feel that it is the right balance. None of these things is binary, and we want to make sure we balance the steps we take with the data we receive.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, what signal does the Minister think it sends to the world about doing the right thing when the consequence of South Africa’s excellent science and exemplary transparency is a total flight ban, with potentially devastating consequences for its economy and that of the region, with no apparent mitigating support package from the rich world? What conversations can he have with his friends in the Treasury so that they act to give some support to South Africa and the region?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes a valuable point: we should pay tribute to the openness of the South African Government, in real comparison with the openness of the Chinese Government at the beginning of the whole pandemic. It is clear that they have been transparent. It is important to recognise that one of the things about the WHO is that it relies on experts in certain countries to report early signs. I will have a conversation internally and see what can be done; otherwise, it almost acts as a disincentive to report to the WHO. We have to make sure we are not disincentivising others who may wish to report similar cases in future.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allocated for supplementary questions has now been fulfilled.
Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Bill
Monday 29th November 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 View all Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 October 2021 - (26 Oct 2021)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, before I move to Bill itself, I first thank noble Lords from across the House for their good wishes on my appointment. I am pleased to see in the Chamber this evening a number of noble Lords with whom I go back many years.
It is also a great pleasure to stand across the Dispatch Box from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The noble Baroness was a very popular and highly regarded Minister during a difficult period of direct rule in Northern Ireland, while the noble Lord served two distinguished terms as shadow Secretary of State. I look forward to working with them both, as I do the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, on his return to this House, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for the Liberal Democrats. Whatever differences we might occasionally have on points of detail, I am committed to maintaining a bipartisan approach, which has served Northern Ireland so well over many years and under successive Governments.
I also place on record both my own personal support and that of Her Majesty’s Government as a whole for the 1998 Belfast agreement, the constitutional principles it enshrines, all the institutions it has established and the rights it guarantees across the whole community. I first became directly involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland some 33 years ago and well remember the misery, death and destruction caused by totally unjustified and unjustifiable terrorist campaigns, and of course the security response that they necessitated. I for one will always salute the heroic service and sacrifice of the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and our Armed Forces.
The fact that those dark days are now mercifully almost a quarter of a century behind us is in large part down to the success of the 1998 agreement and its successors. It has been the bedrock of the progress achieved in Northern Ireland over recent years, and protecting it must be at the heart of everything we do. This Government will not take any risks with the hard-gained relative peace and stability ushered in by an agreement that remains an inspiration for so many across these islands and the wider world.
While of course that agreement is not beyond change and improvement, as has occurred a number of times through successor agreements and with further changes in this Bill, its principles are enduring. Not least of those is the consent principle, which guarantees Northern Ireland’s integral place within this United Kingdom for so long as that is the wish of a majority of those living there—a constitutional position that I, as a Conservative and a unionist, strongly support and on which I will never be neutral.
To strengthen the stability and effective functioning of the devolved institutions established by the 1998 agreement is the core purpose of the Bill before the House. It does so by implementing a number of the commitments made by Her Majesty’s Government in the New Decade, New Approach document of January 2020: extending the period for the appointment of Ministers in the Northern Ireland Executive following an election; enabling Ministers to remain in office and carry out functions for a period after the First and Deputy First Minister have ceased to hold office or following an Assembly election; reforming the use of the petition of concern in the Assembly; and updating the code of conduct for Executive Ministers in accordance with a request from the Northern Ireland Executive and in line with the recommendations around transparency and accountability in New Decade, New Approach.
That document was, of course, arrived at in the weeks immediately following the decisive general election result of December 2019, in which voters in Northern Ireland made very clear their desire to see Stormont return. The document was instrumental in securing the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. Yet the document itself was the product of almost three years of painstaking negotiations under three successive Secretaries of State following the resignation of Martin McGuinness in January 2017 and the subsequent collapse of the institutions. They were three years in which Northern Ireland was effectively left in a state of political limbo, with no functioning Executive or Assembly and with civil servants able to take only limited decisions.
I know from personal experience just how deeply frustrating a period it was, including many late nights, long hours and false starts. Many of the measures in New Decade, New Approach, and subsequently in this Bill, are designed to avoid a repeat of this. As a result, the Bill is fairly narrow in scope, though I appreciate that noble Lords in this House with a vast wealth of experience in Northern Ireland might want to make some broader points that go beyond the confines of the legislation before us.
I turn to the clauses of this short Bill. Clause 1 amends Sections 16A and 16B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by extending the time available to appoint a First or Deputy First Minister following the resignation of either, or after the first meeting of the Assembly following an election. Currently, the period for ministerial appointments is only seven days after the First or Deputy First Minister ceases to hold office, or 14 days after an Assembly election, after which the Secretary of State is by law bound to set a date for another election within a reasonable timeframe.
The Bill extends the period for filling ministerial offices to a six-week period that is automatically renewed, unless the Assembly resolves otherwise on a cross-community vote, for a maximum of three times up to a total of 24 weeks. This is designed to allow more time for discussions between the parties and to facilitate a resolution of issues and avoid the need to rush headlong into another election. It will also give some parties the opportunity to reflect on whether they wish to be in the Executive at all or, alternatively, to go into opposition.
Clause 2 will enable existing Ministers to remain in post following an election until the end of the 24-week period for appointing new Ministers, rather than ceasing to hold office automatically on polling day as at present, or for a maximum of 48 weeks since a functioning Executive was in place. This is designed to provide for greater stability and sustainability of the devolved institutions and for continuity in decision-making, thus avoiding the scenario I have described following the effective collapse of the institutions in January 2017, when Northern Ireland was left with little or no governance.
Clause 3 amends Section 32 of the 1998 Act which currently requires the Secretary of State to propose a date for an Assembly election in two scenarios: first, where the Assembly resolves to dissolve itself by a two-thirds majority, and, secondly, where the existing period for appointing all Executive Ministers, including the First and Deputy First Ministers, expires without those offices being filled. This Bill places the Secretary of State under a duty to propose an election date as soon as is reasonably practical and within 12 weeks of either scenario having taken place. This provides greater legal certainty over the date of an election than at present. Clause 3 also allows the Secretary of State to certify or call an Assembly election at any point after the end of the first six-week period for appointing new Ministers if he considers that there is not sufficient representation among Ministers to secure cross-community confidence in the Assembly.
Clause 4 substitutes a revised ministerial code of conduct which sets out expectations for the behaviour of Ministers, including provisions around the treatment of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, public appointments, the use of resources and information management. This is an excepted matter and, as such, exclusively for Parliament, and follows a request from the former First Minister and Deputy First Minister, with Executive approval.
Clause 5 reforms the petition of concern in the Assembly to reduce its use and restore it to its original intention in the 1998 agreement. The Bill keeps the existing threshold for triggering the petition at 30 Assembly Members but introduces a requirement that they must be from two or more parties. Once lodged, any petition will have to be confirmed after a period of 14 days’ reflection. The Bill limits the matters in which a petition can be lodged and prevents the Speaker and deputies from signing.
Finally, Clauses 6 to 9 deal with repeals, extent and commencement.
Nobody claims that the Bill will be a panacea should we again be in the unfortunate situation in which the devolved institutions come under severe political strain. It does, however, contain important safeguards against a situation arising in which one party can simply crash the institutions and leave Northern Ireland effectively with limited or no governance at all.
The Bill faithfully implements the commitments of the UK Government as set out in New Decade, New Approach to make the devolved institutions more resilient and more sustainable, so that they can continue to focus on delivering for the benefit of the whole community in Northern Ireland.
Successive surveys and the 2019 general election demonstrate—I think conclusively—that inclusive, power-sharing devolution within the United Kingdom is the preferred form of governance for most people in Northern Ireland. That is also the Government’s preference, and we are determined to do whatever we can to make devolution work in order to build a brighter, stronger and more prosperous Northern Ireland—a Northern Ireland where politics works, the economy grows and society is more united. This short Bill takes a number of steps to help us on that course and, in that spirit, I commend it to the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Caine, and want to be the first in your Lordships’ House to welcome him to his place at the Dispatch Box. We wish him well in his position and look forward to working with him. I thank him also for his kind and generous comments at the start of his speech, which were appreciated. I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, is with him today. We have welcomed him at the Dispatch Box and his answers to questions, but I think I speak for the whole House when I say that we really do appreciate having a dedicated Northern Ireland Minister in your Lordships’ House. That has been lacking, and he is very welcome in that role.
I thank the noble Lord also for outlining the position and the clauses in the Bill. He is right: this is a short Bill—just nine clauses—but it is no less important or less valuable because of that. When it was introduced into the House of Commons, the Secretary of State described the objectives of the Bill as being to
“strengthen the democratic institutions of Northern Ireland and serve to build the people of Northern Ireland’s faith in their locally elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/21; col. 774.]
Few could fail to agree with such an objective.
Your Lordships’ House will understand the pride and commitment of the Labour Party to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which led to the establishment of the Assembly. There is also pride from all those involved, across the political spectrum, that despite the challenges along the journey to reach the agreement, it was so overwhelmingly supported by those living in Northern Ireland.
When the stability of those institutions has been threatened, or when they have been suspended, it is a failure. It is a failure of politics and politicians, but it is most keenly and sadly felt by those who live and work in Northern Ireland. Whatever the intentions, it has proved easier to suspend the institutions than to reinstate them after suspension. I speak from experience, having been told on one occasion that I would be going there as a Northern Ireland Minister for three months but returning home three and a half years later.
We welcome the objectives of the legislation, which I think reflect commitments made in the New Decade, New Approach agreement—as the noble Lord said—to improve sustainability and to increase transparency and accountability. But following the debates in the other place, I was struck that even those supporting the legislation were disappointed. There was frustration over missed opportunities in the Bill to make progress on commitments which have been allowed to stall. There was frustration over a lack of progress on parts of the New Decade, New Approach agreement. There was also frustration, which I am sure he will understand, that it has taken so long to bring a Bill forward, when the New Decade, New Approach agreement was signed off in January 2020.
This is where I hope and think that there is an opportunity for the Minister to be a real asset to the Government, because—I am sure I am not alone in thinking this—too often it has appeared that Northern Ireland has been pretty low on the Government’s list of priorities, and that decisions have been taken without recognising their full implications. I find it extraordinary that the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed, and continues to be discussed, without representatives from Northern Ireland being part of those discussions. I thought the Prime Minister was far too casual and, not unusually but unforgivably, uninformed about how Brexit and the protocol would impact Northern Ireland trade and Northern Ireland politics. So there is a direct read across from the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s casual approach to Northern Ireland—I am not implicating the Minister in this; I hope he can do something about it—and the instability we see in the institutions. Those cannot be separated, and the connections cannot be ignored.
The Government need a broader commitment that goes beyond the legislation. If we genuinely and deeply support stability, that commitment has to run through all actions and all policy-making, and it has to be total. Northern Ireland cannot be considered as an afterthought to policy-making or as a means just of holding on to government.
Turning to the provisions of the Bill, as my colleagues, the shadow Secretary of State Louise Haigh and Alex Davies-Jones, were clear during debates in the other place, there is room for improvement. I appreciate that, while taking on board suggestions, the Government resisted any changes for improving the legislation in the other place. However, this is where I am an optimist in life, as I always remain hopeful that Ministers—particularly a new Minister who has real knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, does—may have reflected further on this.
One of our concerns about the cause of instability is when agreements are made but full implementation remains elusive. In the other place, we raised the issue of ensuring the full implementation of the NDNA agreement. We also raised parts of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement which have not been, or are currently not being, fulfilled, including the Bill of Rights and the Civic Forum. I do not know whether the Minister is able to give the House an update today on the Government’s plans to legislate on the Irish language protections and cultural package which are part of that agreement. If not, I hope he will be able to do so during the course of the Bill’s passage, or indeed write to noble Lords. The Government have previously made commitments to bring legislation forward if agreement or legislation was not achieved in Stormont by the end of September, but we have not had an update on next steps to date.
The Minister will be only too aware of the concerns raised over the delayed timing of the Bill. MPs were concerned that, after an already long delay, the Bill would not be out of Parliament before Christmas, and here we are, almost in December and just starting the Second Reading this evening.
I am sure the Minister is aware that, in the other place, there were helpful conversations about whether the two-month commencement period provided for in the Bill could be truncated or removed. It will be helpful if we can return to those discussions and conversations as the Bill progresses—and there are other issues we will want to seek clarification on or explore further with Ministers.
As the Minister outlined, the Bill provides that Ministers will no longer cease to hold office after the election of a new Assembly for two specified time periods, which certainly makes sense in terms of the stability and continuity of decision-making, and confidence in the institutions. We are all aware that, at times, civil servants have faced an almost impossible situation of having to operate without political direction or ministerial cover. There is nothing in the legislation about the extent of or limitations on the authority of so-called caretaker Ministers. Could it be the case that a Minister remains in office having not stood for election or, indeed, having lost their seat? Can the Minister say more about the limitations, guidance or instructions that will be in place?
My understanding from the answers given in the other place on this issue was that Ministers understood that this would be an unsatisfactory position but better than the alternative that currently exists. I would like to see greater clarity on that and, indeed, on whether we can do better. As a former direct rule Minister who was not elected by anybody in Northern Ireland, I understand and fully appreciate the difficulties here and support the principle of the Government’s approach, but we need to probe and seek a bit more information about how this is intended to work in practice.
On Clause 4, can the Minister confirm where responsibility lies in enforcing the Ministerial Code? He will know that in the UK Government it lies with the Prime Minister, and yet, when an independent investigation reported that a Minister had broken the code, the Prime Minister’s judgment was that they had not, and it was the commissioner who left office, not the Minister. I do not advocate that any breach of the Ministerial Code should result in a ministerial resignation or sacking, and I have suggested changes to the code here to change that, but I am seeking information from the Minister as to where responsibility lies for the enforcement and implementation of the code. Also, does the Minister consider that Clause 4 can play an important role in the management of caretaker Ministers? Again, we will want to probe the operation and extent of the code on that.
On petitions of concern, the Government have been clear about the intention of the clause and it has our full support. It is a limited reform that seeks to return the mechanism to what was originally intended. However, the Minister will be aware of the other vetoes that have been used to block agenda items from even reaching the Executive or have prevented discussion on issues of cross-community concern. Is there any more he can say about this, even if he is not proposing to include anything in the Bill at this stage?
Finally, this is a very modest Bill, but it is significant. The Government could have been bolder, and there are issues that we will want to probe further in Committee, but we welcome the proposals that have been made and look forward to deliberating further and in detail.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and join her in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord, Lord Caine, to his place as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. He has a lot of experience; I am sure he did not need to read up much on his brief, given that he has written so many of them in the past for other Ministers. He is a truly dedicated Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. As has been said, it is good to have a Minister who is dedicated to Northern Ireland, not just in terms of being a specific Minister but a Minister who is truly, in his own right, dedicated to the best interests of Northern Ireland.
I warmly welcome what he has said this evening about his position and, indeed, that of the Conservative and Unionist Party on the union. Of course, we all join in his tribute to the members of the security forces, the RUC, the Army and the UDR, and all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice or suffered life-changing injuries and still live with the scars of the violence and the protection they gave to all the communities in Northern Ireland over the period of the Troubles.
I want to make a few general comments and raise a few issues on the specifics of the Bill. The first general comment is that we welcome the Bill in so far as it goes; there are improvements that could be made, as has been said, and we will look at those in Committee, but it does implement certain aspects of the New Decade, New Approach agreement that was made some three years ago. There are many other aspects of the NDNA agreement that will be for another day—other pieces of legislation both in the Assembly and here—but one thing that the people of Northern Ireland will be looking for is to ensure that all aspects of NDNA are progressed, that certain issues are not picked out for special treatment, and that everything is brought forward.
In that context, it would be remiss not to raise the commitment that was given by the UK Government in annexe A, paragraph 10, on the integrity of the UK internal market, which, as we know, has been breached by the Northern Ireland protocol. It is important that, as we see progress on aspects of NDNA, we also see progress on that commitment, and that the Northern Ireland protocol is addressed in a way which brings stability to the institutions in Northern Ireland; we have yet to see that happen. Of course, discussions are continuing and we are aware of those negotiations. People said that there could not be any renegotiation; effectively, that is what is happening. People said the original form of the protocol had to be rigorously implemented; we have seen that bypassed. That is all good—it is progress—but the current discussions cannot be strung out much longer. We know the time has almost run out for those discussions, and by the end of the year it will have run out completely.
Action will have to be taken, either in the form of an agreement between the European Union and the Government, addressing the issues that are outstanding in all aspects—both constitutional and economic—or in the form of UK action to fully restore Northern Ireland’s position in the internal market and its constitutional integrity. The invocation of Article 16 may or may not be part of that, but it can be only part of it, because it is not a solution in itself.
If neither of those happens, unionists in the Executive will of course be in a completely untenable position, where the political processes and the political balance will not exist in terms of the institutions. That will have the inevitable consequence of making the institutions which we are debating here tonight inoperable. One thing is certain: it cannot be dragged out to the next election, or even to a time when this Bill may be a matter of law, because things will come to a head before that, and certainly by the end of the year.
I want to come on to another general point about the Bill and the context in which we find ourselves. The Government have said that they are legislating here for those parts that cannot be legislated for in the Northern Ireland Assembly. These are matters that are excepted, but the Government must be consistent in their approach, and it appears to many people in Northern Ireland that there has not been a consistent approach in terms of when and in what circumstances government here legislates in the devolved space. We see it in terms of the cultural package, for instance, where there is no agreement on the timing of its introduction for the reasons that I have mentioned—the protocol and so on—and yet the Government are proceeding without that cross-community agreement in an area which is exclusively devolved.
I gently ask the Minister to address the point about the inconsistency of the Government’s à la carte attitude to legislating in the devolved area, where there does not appear to be a lot of logic and where talk about ensuring the stability of institutions can be at variance with some of the actions that are being taken in that regard.
Coming on to some aspects of the clauses in the Bill, the Minister has outlined the provisions in Clauses 1, 2 and 3, in relation to the appointment of Ministers in circumstances where Ministers can remain in post after an election and so on. In the other place, there was a lengthy discussion about the powers and competences of temporary Ministers who would be in place after an election or if the Executive had collapsed. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in more detail how we will ensure that Ministers do not overstep the mark or that we do not end up in a situation where civil servants are effectively running the show again. It is a tricky balance—it is a difficult balance—but Northern Ireland went through a very difficult period over three years when the institutions were collapsed as a result of the resignation of Sinn Féin from the Executive, and we do not want to see a similar situation.
The Minister recalled the provisions where the Secretary of State can call an election after the first six-week period to give effect to the purpose of paragraph 3.15 of Annexe C of NDNA, as mentioned in the Explanatory Notes. Can he expand further on the precise circumstances in which that power would be used? The Secretary of State can call an election if two-thirds of the Assembly vote for one, or if the time limits have run out to form a Government. However, there is also this power, which is where they think that paragraph 3.15 of Annexe C of NDNA justifies it. I would be grateful for more explanation of that point.
The Ministerial Code had widespread agreement among the parties in Northern Ireland, but I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how it compares to the situation here in London in terms of the provisions and where it differs from the provisions governing Ministers’ activities and behaviours here in Whitehall and the statutory basis that exists here for any enforcement or measures taken against a Minister for breach of the Ministerial Code.
On the petition of concern, again there was protracted debate among the parties about this. Of course, there has already been a change to the operation of the petition of concern because, when the numbers in the Assembly reduced from 108 to 90, the threshold for activating the petition of concern remained at 30, so that change has already made it more difficult to have a petition of concern by default. In recent years, people have ramped up the attacks on the petition of concern—notably, those parties who agreed, in the Belfast agreement and the original 1998 Act, to this whole structure of the petition of concern—and criticised its use, although it has been used by all parties, particularly in the welfare reform debate, where the SDLP and Sinn Féin used it quite a bit. Interestingly, this has only become a major theme as a result of the unionists in the Assembly having lost the majority due to the reduction in the number of seats per constituency. It is important that there are those safeguards.
The Minister referred to the original purposes of the petition of concern, but can he—or, indeed, other Members who will speak in this debate—point to a specific reference in the Good Friday agreement or the Northern Ireland Act to the actual purpose of the petition of concern? There is none. This is continually stated as a matter of fact, but there is no reference in the Good Friday agreement or the Northern Ireland Act to the specific purposes that have sometimes been ascribed to it by people who speak about the subject.
The reason why the petition of concern was brought in is because it was genuinely felt, on both sides of the community and among the political representatives at the time, that there should be some safeguard mechanism. Actually, when you think about it, when the withdrawal agreement and the agreement on the protocol were made, the first thing the Government did was strip away that safeguard. Instead, the vote on whether the protocol should continue to be implemented became a straight-majority vote in case it might have been defeated. The single vote of any real significance—possibly the only vote—that can happen in the Northern Ireland Assembly by a majority vote is one on the Northern Ireland protocol. Everything else is a cross-community vote or susceptible to being turned into one. That is not lost on the unionist community, I tell you, with them having been told for decades that majoritarianism and majority rule were unacceptable. So when we come to the petition of concern, we recognise that there is room for improvement, but there have been reforms and we need to bear in mind its original purpose.
This Bill is not all that controversial in itself and will, no doubt, be subject to changes, criticism and debate in Committee. However, it comes at a time when there are massive stresses and strains on the institutions in Northern Ireland as a result of the protocol; as I said earlier, they will have to be resolved before we go much further. No amount of legislation, whether it is this Bill or any other, will piece together things if they unravel. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, rightly said, things are much harder to put together again after they unravel than they are to keep together as we try to work our way through all these problems. Time is short, and I hope that the Government will soon be able to bring forward proposals to deal with the issues with the protocol that underlie all our problems at the moment.
Lord Godson (Con)
My Lords, I wish to share in the pleasure in the appointment of my noble friend Lord Caine, whom I have known for many years. It is a welcome tribute to the continuing importance of genuine expertise and institutional memory that he should be standing here tonight introducing this Bill. I pay tribute to him for that and share in the pleasure of noble Lords and the noble Baroness.
On a sadder note, I think of someone known to many noble Lords here tonight: Sir John Chilcot, who died last month. He was, of course, one of the longest-serving Permanent Secretaries in the Northern Ireland Office, with service in relation to Northern Ireland from the earliest days of the Troubles when he was in the Home Office. I mention him specifically because he once said something to me—and to many other noble Lords, no doubt. In the run-up to the Belfast agreement, as the peace progress was gaining momentum, he said, “We had a choice between good governance and peace—and we chose peace.” After that gap of time, tonight’s legislation constitutes something of an attempt to tidy this up and ensure that there is good governance. That is why I stand in support of this Second Reading along with other noble Lords.
One of the great might-have-beens of recent history in Northern Ireland is that, had this legislation been in place at the time of the collapse of the institutions back in early 2017, there would still have been a First Minister and Deputy First Minister in place later that year for the debates on the introduction of the Northern Ireland protocol. I think it is fair to say that the results might have been very different, had those institutions been working on a cross-community basis, because we would not have had a situation on the island of Ireland where only one entity there—the Government of the Irish Republic—had a say throughout the process and was able successfully to weaponise the protocol in that period against the UK Government. The Irish Government certainly were able to do that when they were able successfully to trash the UK Government’s position paper in August 2017.
There would also have been a contesting voice from the unionist community the following month, when the EU stated its position on the UK Government’s paper and on the provisions of the Belfast agreement. It was notable that this imbalance and asymmetry would not have taken place had the institutions been up and running and this legislation been in place at the time. That would have been a welcome development and we would have had greater balance in all that. In concluding, I note the words of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who spotted this at the time of the withdrawal agreement of 2018. He said
“had the Assembly been up and running and had the Executive been working, the nationalists and unionists would have had to come together to resolve the issues that currently”—[Official Report, 6/12/18; col. 1122.]
bedevil them. There is no better statement than that. It would also have been the case that the principle of equal citizenship across these islands would have had a greater level of surety had the legislation proposed tonight been in place then.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Godson, and welcome the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to the Front Bench on Northern Ireland affairs. I have worked with the noble Lord, Lord Caine, on many occasions going back many years. Probably the first time that we worked together was on the visit of Sir Patrick Mayhew, then the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, on 19 June 1994 to Loughinisland. He came to meet my predecessor MP, Eddie McGrady, and all the various families who had lost loved ones in a very untimely, brutal and callous way. That was a visit that they, and we, deeply appreciated. I wish the noble Lord well in his new position. I also welcome my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who served as a Minister in the direct rule Administration, and my noble friend Lord Coaker, who was shadow Secretary of State, when they were in the other place.
The most important thing for me, as a democratic Irish nationalist, in coming to this debate is that we are particularly zealous about wanting to build that shared future, respect for political difference and parity of esteem. For me, that was encapsulated in the three sets of relationships embodied by my late friend and former leader John Hume, and became that noble agreement, the Good Friday agreement, on 8 April 1998. I never forget the sense of hope, expectancy and excitement on that day in Castle Buildings. That agreement was between the British and Irish Governments, as co-guarantors, along with my party, the Ulster Unionists and other parties. I know that some parties were not there because they had absented themselves, but the basic tenet and central to the core of the agreement was that infrastructure and architecture that provided the framework for people to work together with respect, mutual understanding, trust and confidence in each other.
We are in no doubt—I talk on behalf of my colleagues here on the Labour Front Bench and in the SDLP—that we want to see the fulfilment of that expectancy and to use the architecture of the Good Friday agreement to work together in partnership, reconciliation, parity of esteem and respect for difference. Those are the kernels we urgently need to build the political stability and resilience of government.
I welcome the legislation, but there are certain areas for improvement, and I have already spoken to the Minister about them. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and others that the commencement date needs to be foreshortened and that the sense of urgency needs to be fed into this legislation to ensure that it is on the statute book fairly quickly—because in Northern Ireland we need that political stability.
Parties such as Sinn Féin and the DUP have talked about taking nuclear action to provide political stability. We had examples of that back in June, with Sinn Féin declaring that it might not nominate a deputy if it did not agree with the DUP’s nominee first. We then had the DUP threatening—shall we say—institutions over the protocol. But, by trying to create political stability, they are in fact creating political instability. So I tell them: in the good interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, that is not the way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to the protocol. I support the protocol, but there is a need for mitigations—I am in no doubt about that—and the European Union has provided them in its papers to the UK Government. There is also a need to promote the benefits of the protocol: for example, in the survey that the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry carried out some days ago and that was published at the end of last week, 70% supported that. Queen’s University Belfast takes this view in its recent poll, as does the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool. That is part of the political context, so could the Minister provide us with an update on those negotiations between the UK and the EU? He—in his former state—and the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Dodds and Lord Hain, were all members of the protocol sub-committee, and we agreed our first report and achieved consensus. But the important thing is that we arrive at a position that provides the very best for the people of Northern Ireland in trade, jobs and opportunity.
Other issues provide that political context. All the parties in Northern Ireland fundamentally disagree on the Government’s proposals on legacy issues because we all believe that they need to be victim centred. Will the Government respect the wishes of the parties and remove the amnesty proposal? The Minister may disagree with the use of the word “amnesty”, but, to us, that is the way it can be best characterised.
Other areas from NDNA are outstanding, and the Minister will be aware of them: the whole area of rights, language and identity proposals. I thought that, whenever the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive had not brought forward those proposals, the UK Government were to do so by October, but we still have not had any legislation in relation to that issue. There is information about the progress on the civic advisory panel and, of course, the Bill of Rights, which we have been talking about. On Friday, I met Amnesty International in Downpatrick, and it is active in this respect but anxious that there has not been a Bill of Rights. In Northern Ireland, all that we can do on many issues is talk about them—we are not good on the doing—so, if the Minister could pursue the Northern Ireland Executive in relation to those outstanding issues, that would be useful.
Generally, I support the Bill, but I felt that several areas could be built on. There is now an opportunity to move forward on the following areas and return to that vision in 1998 that created the infrastructure and architecture to manage differences and be able to realise a better shared future, based on partnership in Northern Ireland.
I go back to the position in 1998 about the appointment of Ministers and the purpose and intention of the GFA on the equalisation of titles: the joint election of First Ministers. I believe that there is some divergence from the concepts of the Good Friday agreement, on restoring the joint nature of the First Minister’s office, which was changed by St Andrews and was a centrepiece of strand one. That is what parallel consent was about. I understand why things did not happen at St Andrews, such as the Assembly collectively nominating the First Ministers who would then be accountable to it. There is a three-Minister provision that is causing a logjam in the Executive office and prevents Ministers bringing forward productive and progressive legislation because it is thwarted by one of the bigger parties. That issue needs to be addressed as well.
The Good Friday agreement and the 1998 Act were destined to build reconciliation, partnership, equality and parity of esteem, but that was thwarted at the next stage at St Andrews. I feel that we need to revert to the original principles and purpose, and I hope, with colleagues, to bring forward amendments in Committee about the equalisation of titles and the joint election of the First Minister.
Political, economic and social stability and sustainability will ultimately not come from rules and procedures. Yes, they are required but, finally, they will come from people in Northern Ireland believing, understanding, having confidence in and accepting that sharing power with their neighbours is the right thing to do and does not negate or diminish their identity. We knew that as far back as 1973, with the first power-sharing Executive arrangement. I was 15 years of age at that stage, and I remember feeling a sense of excitement and hope. Sadly, that did not last all that long. I hope that the matters related to the protocol can be resolved and, while I accept the main provisions in the Bill, I would like to think that the Minister can look at the outstanding areas and work with the Northern Ireland Executive to bring about a resolution.
I return to what a political commentator said—this is my final comment—on journal.ie in February 2020. He said that NDNA was not short on political ambition. Many of us thought it was a document of aspiration, but then it comes back to the willingness of parties to implement it and to underpin the power-sharing parity of esteem to fulfil the needs of a modern, progressive society that has been hit by the outworkings of a hard Brexit and Covid. The people of Northern Ireland have been hit by Brexit, long waiting lists, Covid and the need to recover from the pandemic. When you meet people and talk to them, they want access to a hospital bed, surgery and investigations that lead to diagnosis. Those are the issues that matter to them most, but they want respect for political differences. I accept the provisions in the Bill. I believe that they can be built on by going back to the 1998 agreement to look at the principles of duality of collective responsibility in the election of joint Ministers.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister to his position. Having served for more than 30 years in the Northern Ireland Office, he is eminently qualified on these matters and has considerable understanding of the issues that the people of Northern Ireland face.
The Bill, though far from perfect, has my party’s support, as it goes some way towards delivering on items agreed in the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Due to the nature of institutions at Stormont, decision-making can be a slow process; a conversation about reform will perhaps be a debate for another time. Any coalition Government made up of parties with diametrically opposed political ideologies will always be challenging. Ultimately, it is about people’s willingness to get together to try to find a solution that works. In Northern Ireland agreements to date, consensus decision-making has been built in and seen as the priority over a simple majority system. In negotiations and in the daily operations of the Stormont institutions, consensus is essential in achieving successful outcomes.
On petitions of concern specifically, in the past there have been incidents where the mechanism has been misused. On other occasions, the tool has been used in a way that reflects the reality that on some key issues there is no consensus. In some instances where a petition of concern has been used, this is a clear indication that an issue has been pushed forward without any real agreement. For this reason, I support the provisions proposed in the Bill—namely, the idea of a 14-day cooling-off period for petitions of concern. Stability is required, and the 14-day period in this Bill is welcome, as it would allow a period for people to find agreement and a way forward.
The main objective of devolution was to give the people of Northern Ireland a say on legislation that affects their lives; it allows them directly to elect their decision-makers and hold them accountable. When dealing with issues related to Northern Ireland, we must be mindful of this. If significant amendments or changes to agreements are planned, or new legislation is introduced, the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives must have a say. In our deliberations, we must seek to respect the devolution principle and the principle of consent which underpins it, rather than attempting to breach it.
We cannot discuss the real-time realities of Northern Ireland at this time without acknowledging the threats presented economically and constitutionally by the Northern Ireland protocol. Northern Ireland’s representatives and the rights of the people they represent are being undermined by the protocol and the imposition of its Irish Sea border. With the latest comments from the CEO of Marks & Spencer, and previous comments from other leading supermarkets regarding trade in Northern Ireland, the negative effect on the import of goods from mainland Britain to Northern Ireland is there for all to see. Regrettably, policymakers in Brussels and elsewhere are either blind to or ignorant of this.
I hope for practical solutions, which would see the removal of the Irish Sea border and the integrity of the UK’s internal market fully restored. However, inaction cannot be allowed to cripple businesses in Northern Ireland. Many small and medium-sized businesses rely on the supply chain from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and the present uncertainty is destroying livelihoods in many instances. Those who support the protocol are not only calling for the long-term integrity of the UK internal market to be put into serious question but prioritising the 23% of Northern Ireland’s trade that is with the EU over the 77% of the trade that is with the rest of the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The volume of domestic trade between all parts of the UK highlights the importance of finding a workable, long-term solution that protects everyone. What we have at present is unsustainable. The uncertainty caused by the protocol breeds instability, which in turn can unfortunately lead to hostility. The people of Northern Ireland have suffered enough.
When we discuss the institutions of government, we look at the agreements on which they are built. The most fundamental pillar of the Belfast agreement and subsequent peace agreements is the principle of consent; Northern Ireland’s devolved settlement is based on that. However, the protocol has set that principle aside and undermined the very institutions that we are seeking to improve.
Many people in Northern Ireland feel that these regulations, which have been imposed upon them, run contrary to everything that they understand about democracy and the democratic principles that underpin Northern Ireland’s society. The people of Northern Ireland did not consent to spending more for goods, waiting longer for medicines or becoming second-class citizens within this United Kingdom.
It is regrettable that after so much progress in our society, in our politics and in Northern Ireland’s economic attractiveness on the global stage, this protocol risks taking us backwards. Does the Minister agree that we need to see a workable solution to this issue soon, and can he confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to set a deadline for the end of these negotiations with the EU?
It is quite clear that invoking Article 16 is rapidly becoming a necessary response. I support the Bill and I trust that it will go some way towards achieving stability in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join others in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to his new role.
When it comes to day-to-day politics, Northern Ireland, for all its particular issues, encounters many of the same problems as your Lordships’ House and the other place. Last week the Green Member of the Legislative Assembly, Clare Bailey, joined many others in speaking out against the accelerated progress of a finance Bill without adequate scrutiny. Last week independent research discredited Edwin Poots’s exaggerated figures about the costs of a cross-party net-zero climate change Bill, led by Clare Bailey, which rather reminded me of your Lordships’ House hearing some exaggerated figures on sewage costs.
Our other Green Member of the Legislative Assembly, Rachel Woods, was meeting with the Northern Ireland Youth Forum, noting that far more needs to be done to ensure that the voices of young people are heard. Among the things that the youth forum has called for is votes at 16, something that young people in Scotland and Wales of course enjoy—a call that has been backed by the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People.
So there are similarities, yet we also have some real contrasts here that I think are interesting and possibly have some broader lessons for us. The legislation before us is based on New Decade, New Approach, an attempt to address the issues of the functioning of the Northern Ireland Executive exposed by experience. This is looking at a constitution, seeing a crisis and producing a planned and thought-through response. What a contrast to Westminster. It should not need a crisis for us to look regularly at a constitution and consider ways in which it might be updated; the constitution here in Westminster has not been updated significantly since women got the vote. So that is a different way of approaching a constitution—or at least part of a way. If we look across the border at the Republic of Ireland, there we can see how citizens’ assemblies and people’s constitutional conventions showed a way in which participatory democracy can effectively deal with and settle difficult political issues, as it did on both abortion and equal marriage.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, talked about the people being better consulted. The Library briefing on the Bill notes that the New Decade, New Approach deal was agreed by the five main Northern Ireland political parties. It does not talk about consultation with the people. None the less, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, we seem to have some progress here —not sufficient issues are being dealt with, but at least some are.
However, there are many things that the Bill cannot deal with. The Minister talked in his introduction about the need for the economy to meet the needs of society. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, talked about the hit from Brexit, as many other noble Lords have, along with NHS waiting lists and the level of NHS services.
I want to add to that a report out today: a truly, deeply, shocking report from Action for Children, which found that more than a quarter of working parents in Northern Ireland expect to take on extra work or forgo time off to pay for Christmas, and that most of them will miss at least one key family event in that process. This comes after last year’s Christmas was cancelled by Covid.
Another report a week or so back showed that among the families hit by the £20 cut to universal credit in October, two-fifths are likely to cut back on heating and one-third are likely to skip meals, while 20% said that they expected to go to a food bank. I note that eight out of 18 parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland rank in the bottom third of the UK for children living in low-income households, and that the two-child limit for universal credit is felt particularly acutely in Northern Ireland.
We are tackling some constitutional issues here. But, as the Minister himself acknowledged, there are many other ways in which Westminster needs to provide more support to Northern Ireland to tackle the issues it faces, including constitutional ones.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, before I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Caine, on his promotion as Minister, with his long service in Northern Ireland I hope he will be able to bring much greater understanding to the Northern Ireland Office, which I once had the privilege to lead with some of the finest-ever civil servants and advisers. As things stand under the stewardship of the present Secretary of State, I am sorry to say that it will certainly need that.
As a former Secretary of State I, along with other noble Lords across this House who worked for many years to establish stable political structures in Northern Ireland, will support efforts in this Bill to safeguard power sharing and improve the sustainability of the Executive and the Assembly. There were hard lessons to be learned following the collapse of the Executive in 2017, and during the three long years until their restoration with the New Decade, New Approach agreement at the beginning of 2020. In so far as the Bill represents a sensible evolution of the arrangements for the appointment of Ministers following an Assembly election, or in the event of the resignation of the First or Deputy First Minister and restores the original purpose of the petition of concern mechanism, it should command the support of the House.
My serious concern, however, is that the legislation which the Government agreed to implement nearly two years ago will come too late to deal with the political crisis that will inevitably ensue if the current leader of the DUP carries out his threat to bring down the Executive and Assembly over the entirely predictable outcome of the Brexit deal negotiated and agreed by this Government—namely, the Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement. There is no shortage of ironies in this potentially disastrous scenario. The DUP would bring down the painfully hard-won Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly over Brexit, which is way beyond its competence to deal with, and the political representatives of the people most adversely impacted will be kept out of the room while the negotiator-in-chief who got them into this shambles in the first place has another go. This is not an oven-ready Brexit; it is an Eton mess.
There are other aspects of the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which the noble Lord, Lord Caine, helped to negotiate, that are yet to be implemented—one of which, we are told, will imminently be legislated for—which cause me great concern. The NDNA agreement promised that within 100 days from 9 January 2020 the Stormont House agreement of December 2014, which set out the structures to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s violent past, would be implemented.
Although noble Lords will have their views on the efficacy of the Stormont House agreement, it is an agreement not least between the UK and Irish Governments. On 18 March 2020, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland announced in a two-page Written Ministerial Statement that the Government were unilaterally repudiating the agreement. There was no consultation with the victims and survivors sector in Northern Ireland, who are most directly affected, no consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland, and no consultation with the Irish Government.
Fast-forward to July of this year, and the Government produced a Command Paper which in so many ways is the most shocking document I have come across in my 50 years in politics and in government. It proposes what is, in effect, a blanket amnesty which would include those who carried out some of the most unspeakable atrocities imaginable during what is still euphemistically called the Troubles. It would halt all court proceedings on crimes related to the Troubles, both criminal and civil. It would halt all inquests, even those currently listed for hearing. It would say to traumatised and still-grieving victims that what happened to their loved ones is no longer of any interest to the state, and it says to the perpetrators that what they did to those victims is no longer of any interest to the state—and this from a Government who purport to respect and uphold the rule of law. These proposals are legally dubious, constitutionally dangerous and morally corrupt, in my view. I am raising it here in an effort to get the Government to think again before the Bill is brought to Parliament.
On 24 October 1990, Patsy Gillespie, who worked as a civilian cook in an army base, was chained to the steering column of his van, which had a 1,200 lb bomb placed in it. While his wife and young family were held at gunpoint, he was made to drive the van to an army post. He shouted a warning but, while he was still in the driver’s seat, the bomb was detonated, killing Patsy and five soldiers. No one has been made accountable for this horrendous crime and, if the Government have their way, no one ever will be. The police in Northern Ireland are convinced that one of those responsible is today part of an active dissident republican group in Derry/Londonderry. If the legislation as currently proposed is enacted, who do you think will sleep easier in their beds: Patsy’s wife, Kathleen, or the people who turned her husband into a human bomb? Could any of us look Kathleen in the eye and say: “I voted for a law that will offer succour and protection to the men who robbed you and your children of the love of your life”? I could not, and I urge the Government to think again before their Bill is presented to Parliament.
In our joint letter in September 2018, a cross-party group of Peers, each with direct ministerial or parliamentary experience in Northern Ireland, suggested another way forward. So does Operation Kenova, so ably headed by former Chief Constable Jon Boutcher; having observed how Kenova is working, my thinking on dealing with legacy issues has evolved. In essence, Kenova prioritises an information-recovery process rather than a prosecutorial process, but—and this is crucial—it leaves open prosecutions if the evidence uncovered sustains those.
Victims and survivors will be properly served only through a criminal justice process that is compliant with Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I urge the Secretary of State, through the Minister, to change his proposals and follow a Kenova-type model, or I predict his amnesty for some of the most terrible crimes will face certain defeat in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, like others, I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Caine on the Front Bench. He has laboured long in the vineyard and it is long past time that recognition for that effort was given—I think we are all of one mind on that in this place. We are also delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the Labour Front Bench. The noble Baroness was an excellent Minister during her time there and, while the noble Lord did not manage to exercise power in Northern Ireland because he was appointed Admiral of the Fleet before he got that opportunity, we have nevertheless got a pretty good team, with plenty of experience.
This Bill, to be honest, is a bit of sticking plaster, along with many other pieces of legislation that come along. What we are actually doing is trying to fix holes in the bucket that have been created by people who just do not behave properly. We will go into a lot more detail in Committee, of course, but I want to make a couple of points.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made the telling comment that commitments are made and then not delivered. That, unfortunately, is a feature and has been for some time, so it is important to know who makes these commitments. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, pointed to the Library note, while page 2, paragraph 1 of the Explanatory Note says:
“This Bill will deliver aspects of the New Decade, New Approach deal which was agreed by the five main Northern Ireland political parties”.
That is not true. Paragraph 6 says that the five main parties, which it names, entered into a power-sharing Government
“following their agreement to the New Decade, New Approach deal.”
Again, that is not true. My party has never agreed to New Decade, New Approach.
In fact, on 16 January 2020, when my noble friend’s predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, was in post, I made that point to him. When he referred to it
“as a basis to re-enter devolved government”,—[Official Report, 16/1/20; col. 841.]
I said in response:
“That is not true. This is not an agreement. It is a government Statement and a Statement of the British and Irish Governments collectively. It was shoved into our hands at 8.30 pm last Thursday.”—[Official Report, 16/1/20; col. 850.]
That was 36 hours before the Executive was reformed. We took our positions in that Executive based on our rights under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, not under the New Decade, New Approach agreement. It is necessary to correct that because, with some of the commitments in New Decade, New Approach—for example, on cultural and language issues—the structures envisaged are basically grievance factories in the making.
The noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to the legacy issues. We have never supported those; we never supported the Stormont House agreement either. It is important that we get our facts straight. We will obviously have an opportunity to tease out some of these issues in greater detail in Committee, but I thought it was important to say that.
The issues about petitions of concern and so on, as well as the commitment to keeping the institutions going, are driven by the fact that people just have not used common sense. Take the Assembly from 2011 to 2016: there were 115 exercises of the petition of concern; 86 of them were initiated by the DUP, 29 by the SDLP and Sinn Féin, and two by my party. That pattern extended to shielding Ministers from sanction even by departmental committees—come on, that is just out of control.
The Bill tries to patch up and fix abuses of the system. One can see why. If people walk out through the front door for political purposes and bring the institutions down, I can understand why it is necessary to try to build in some safeguards. But equally, if we say that somebody can be in office for 48 weeks—effectively a year—without clarity on what they can or cannot do, and indeed against any democratic principle, is it fair or reasonable to expect them to hold office under those circumstances? Can you imagine the situation here if we had that? I do not think it would go down terribly well. I understand that they are trying to keep things held together, but that is because they loosened the glue that held the agreement together in the first place—that is why we have the problems that we have.
We will come to a lot of that detail again when we come to Committee, but it is important to recognise that any institution built on a diplomatic agreement and a diplomatic document will always be under stress. The point has been made about a coalition of five parties. It is not easy; those of us who have been in them for a number of years will know. We can imagine what it would be like if we put Bill Cash and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, together in the one Government; multiply that by what we have to deal with and you get some sense of how difficult it is.
One has to have a different approach than simply implementing things à la Westminster. That is undoubtedly the case. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, rightly pointed out, you have to understand where we were coming from in the late 1990s and what had happened. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, gave us a very vivid example of the backdrop to how the agreement was finally put together. To those who have been saying that Brexit had to be implemented on the basis of a 52% to 48% vote, I remind people that 71.2% of the people supported the agreement. That is a big majority.
That leads neatly on to the comments made by a number of noble Lords about the protocol. People have exceptionally short memories. The protocol is the embodiment of the border in the Irish Sea. It is the legal framework to give effect to the border in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have to remember where that came from. That border in the Irish Sea was proposed by the Prime Minister on 2 October 2019 in his document. He proposed border inspection posts and that all goods coming into Northern Ireland from Great Britain would be subject to inspection and to EU rules. If that does not bring in the European court, I do not know what does. This is an entirely self-inflicted mess within our own United Kingdom. Sadly, the Prime Minister was not without endorsement for the proposal at the time. The fact is that that is the genesis of it. You cannot expect to fix it without going back to the fundamental points as to where it came from.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others mentioned this legendary Article 16. Article 16 of the protocol, which is part of the withdrawal agreement, is a safeguarding mechanism for the protocol. It is a safety valve so that, where issues arise, renegotiation takes place on a very limited number of articles, Articles 5 to 10. The people who negotiated those are the same people sitting at the table today. I was given a Parliamentary Answer last week by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. It was only a one-liner, but it spelled it all out. He made it very clear that, even if Article 16 is triggered, the remainder of the protocol is unaffected.
Some unionists have latched on to Article 16 as some kind of a way out. Friends, it is not; it is a way to protect the protocol. The only way out is to have an amended treaty. We have to have a treaty because we have a trade treaty with the European Union, and the only way we can effectively deal with that problem is with a new or an amended treaty. Article 16 merely deals with mitigations, welcome though some of them may very well be.
That is a bit of background to the circumstances in which we find ourselves back in Northern Ireland right now. I hope we can make improvements to this legislation. A question for my noble friend is: when will the other piece of legislation we are anticipating come forward? I have no doubt at all that he will give us a chapter and verse on that when he comes to reply.
A number of people have said there are things they would like to see changed, and so on. Even though we may not be particularly agreeable to some of the proposals that are coming forward, we are duty bound to listen to what people are saying. If something is concerning them, we have to listen to what they are saying. If we are not prepared to do that, there is no point criticising everybody else, or criticising the Government for ignoring people or for shoving a piece of paper into your hand 36 hours before you are asked to put your hand up for it. That sort of negotiation does not work. We have to listen to people and to be prepared to negotiate in good faith—it does not mean you agree but at least people would get their opportunity to put their case and have it respected.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Minister to the Dispatch Box. I have no doubt his experience working in the Northern Ireland Office will have prepared him well for his brief here. I wish him well in his new role.
I broadly support the Bill before us. It reflects what was agreed in New Decade, New Approach, where there was agreement on a wide range of issues. While there may be disagreement regarding some aspects of that agreement, the Bill presents an opportunity for us to strengthen the legislative framework—to make the institutions in Northern Ireland more workable and more stable. Equally, it is the case that the Northern Ireland Assembly is the place for discussion and debate of issues that relate directly to the daily lives of people in Northern Ireland.
If we are to continue to move forward in Northern Ireland, we must continue to try to do so with some form of consensus. We must not repeat some of the mistakes of the past, where decisions were rushed through without much local scrutiny. We must not adopt a half-in, half-out version of the devolved settlement, whereby this Parliament is seen to be changing agreements, passing new legislation or bypassing the sitting Northern Ireland Assembly altogether. Such an approach would lead only to mistrust, discontent and disillusionment and, in the longer term, would only undermine devolution in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, spoke about the petition of concern in Northern Ireland. As a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I can tell your Lordships that I saw that petition used by all the political parties in Northern Ireland. You would think from some party leaders now in Northern Ireland that they never used the petition of concern; it was only one or two parties. That certainly was not the case while I was Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is true that in some instances this mechanism was not used properly, nor as it was originally intended, but it would also be true to say that in many instances it was used purely because on some key issues cross-party consensus could not be found.
The Northern Ireland Assembly and the institutions of government, certainly since St Andrews, were built on the idea of consensus. It would also be true to say that there is certainly room for improvement in respect of this. As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, said, we must remember that the parties of government in Northern Ireland are different not just constitutionally speaking but in that they come from across the political spectrum, from left and right. Any manner of coalition government with parties so different will always be very challenging.
The only way of moving forward and progressing is by getting round the table and finding consensus. The answer is not found by legislating for one party’s wish list, nor by bypassing the Northern Ireland Assembly altogether. The issue we have in Northern Ireland is that we have a party that does not believe in consensus but also believes that if it comes here, it will get what it wants anyway. That is the problem when we try to get consensus in Northern Ireland: we have a party that does not need to reach consensus because it gets what it wants here anyway.
I assure noble Lords that, where an opportunity presents itself to improve the scheme in a fair, balanced and appropriate way, we should take it. Where an opportunity presents itself to improve the quality of debate and discussion in a devolved setting, we should seek to take it. We want a devolved institution that works for all the people of Northern Ireland. We want a Stormont that offers good government to all the people of Northern Ireland.
The current situation, brought about by the Northern Ireland protocol arrangements, is, as ever, deeply regrettable. The protocol continues to damage Northern Ireland economically and constitutionally; I stress “constitutionally” although it has had a serious effect economically as well. The barrier to trade between parts of our United Kingdom damages internal business, lacks cross-community support and fundamentally undermines the core principles that underpin the democratic structures in Northern Ireland. We hold our discussions about changes to our institutions at a time when the future of those same institutions has been threatened by the ramifications of this flawed arrangement.
Only by fully restoring the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market will the political, economic and social stability of Northern Ireland be safeguarded. I say this to the House: do not underestimate the strong feeling that there is in the entire unionist community on the Northern Ireland protocol. We would be fools to try to write that situation off because there is strong unionist opposition to what is going on in Northern Ireland. If the EU insists on imposing a border in the Irish Sea, the Government must fulfil their commitments to protect Northern Ireland and its people. Triggering Article 16 is only a start, and needs to remain a real option. The people of Northern Ireland rightly expect the Government to act decisively on this. Does the Minister agree that the time has now come for decisive action to end the current uncertainty around the Northern Ireland protocol?
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords—oh, sorry, I did not see the noble Lord there.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to his position. It is wonderful to have in this House somebody with so much expertise on this subject and so much genuine, heartfelt concern for the people of Northern Ireland and their future prosperous development. I am also glad to see here tonight the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who was such a distinguished representative for his party as shadow spokesman on Northern Ireland in the other place.
First, I support the Bill’s basic principle: to provide further durability and flexibility to the institutions of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have one particular concern. It relates to new paragraph 1(1)(c), as proposed by Clause 4—titled “Ministerial Code of Conduct”—and the reference to Ministers upholding the Nolan principles. There is a pre-history here. I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to be able to resolve it tonight because it is rather messy but the pre-history is that, in 2011, the then Government decided that it was not desirable for the Committee on Standards in Public Life have a role in the devolved regions, particularly Northern Ireland—or Northern Ireland in particular in the context of this Bill. As it happens, I became the chairman of the committee a few months later, after that decision. Nobody in Northern Ireland noticed that Northern Ireland had been removed from the sway of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Throughout 2013-14, Members of the Assembly constantly insisted that my committee play a role with respect to this or that issue—indeed, at one point, it gave evidence to a Select Committee in the Assembly on these issues—but we had in effect been removed.
There is one thought here. The issues that brought down the Assembly were in a sense Nolan principles issues. I completely agree with the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Godson, earlier, reflecting on the remarks in this House of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, on 6 December 2018. He said that the collapse of the Assembly contributed greatly to what he saw as the deep flaws in the 2018 withdrawal agreement. The overall problem is the way in which that agreement—and you can also argue this about the 2019 agreement—is an imposition from the top down on the people of Northern Ireland. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. This is a dangerous and risky thing to do, and it was made much more possible by the absence of the Assembly in the years leading up to the 2018 agreement, and indeed the 2017 joint report that set in stone so much of what subsequently followed.
I cannot honestly claim that, if the committee on standards had had a role in Northern Ireland, it would have averted the collapse of the Assembly, because there is such a thing as the selfish strategic interest of a number of parties that helped to bring that about. However, I can say that it is now slightly airy and weak for there to be a reference in this document to the Nolan principles as being central to the functioning of Ministers, when the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the guardian of the Nolan principles, is not actually present in Northern Ireland.
I would like the Minister to inquire within government: is there any way this question can be looked at again? We seem to have lost something. We certainly lost something by the loss of the Assembly in the lead-up to the 2018 withdrawal agreement. That was the point made so powerfully that day by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy.
Before I conclude, I will make one point about the underlying principle of the Bill, which I strongly support, and one comment. The underlying principle shows that the UK Government are determined to achieve stability in Northern Ireland. Last Thursday I was speaking in Dublin at one of the Royal Irish Academy series of discourses, which started in the late 18th century. Afterwards I talked to a number of people involved in political and economic life in Dublin. What slightly surprised me was an idea in their minds that the UK Government were not committed to stability, that the current debate going on between the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and Maroš Šefčovič is not about real issues—well, I think they thought it was about real issues; everybody knows there are real issues, including medicines for Northern Ireland and so on—and that somehow there was no point in responding to the concerns of the United Kingdom Government because fundamentally they just liked and were addicted to having rows in and around these issues.
First of all, there are real issues and I do not think the UK Government are doing anything other than the correct thing in raising them. Indeed, the very fact that the EU has made substantial moves in response to the initiatives from the noble Lord, Lord Frost—moves that would not have been made absent his efforts—shows that there are real, substantive issues here.
The point I really want to make about the Bill is simple. It is coming from a Government who are much criticised but determined to defend the institutions of the Good Friday agreement. That is exactly how the Minister opened his speech tonight. It is about stability and maintaining the institutions in and around the Good Friday agreement. It sends out a clear signal that we do not wish or need to see these endless, difficult debates and threats to the institutions continue for ever. We want to see stability.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bew. I was getting rather ahead of myself. His knowledge of Northern Ireland is probably greater than anyone else’s in your Lordships’ House, so I apologise to him.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Caine. When I first came into the Lords last year, I was so surprised that there was no Minister for Northern Ireland. I absolutely welcome him and his remark at the beginning that he is a unionist and a pro-union Minister, and therefore, if there ever is a referendum while he is a Minister—I do not think that there will be one for a very long time, if ever—on Northern Ireland’s position within the union, I am sure that he will be out campaigning for the union, because nothing in the Belfast agreement stops that happening, and I was very disappointed that the shadow Secretary of State of my old party said that she would have to be neutral.
As many people have said, the proposed changes in the Bill have been made by the Government to try to improve the stability of Northern Ireland institutions and to improve transparency and accountability. It is rather ironic that we are talking about accountability when we have had discussions over the past few months on the protocol, where there has been no accountability. Along with all the unionist, pro-union parties in Northern Ireland, I am involved in the Court of Appeal action, which started again today—we had the first day. It is absolutely fascinating, and it is worth telling your Lordships what the Government have said today: they have gone back on their assertion that the Acts of Union are subject to implicit repeal, as they argued in court at the first hearing. Instead, they have suggested that Section 7A(3) merely suspends the Acts of Union for as long as the protocol exists. What an incredible suggestion. It suggests that the very legal contract that is the union—the Acts of Union—can be suspended as a requirement of the protocol. The implication is that, while the protocol remains, Northern Ireland’s position in the union is suspended. That is worth bringing to your Lordships’ attention tonight. I do not expect the Minister to respond on it, because he is clear that this about one area of legislation.
But it is also important that, as has been pointed out, the New Decade, New Approach agreement of January 2020 has, first, never actually been voted on or even debated in the Assembly. However, it is there and it is the agreement that we are working to—but this is only one aspect of it. I join with other noble Lords who have said that they want to know when the rest of it—the bits that actually make a huge difference—will be brought in. Some of the parties have been pushing particular aspects of it. It is very important that the Government do not look at one area alone but at the whole thing. The question of internal trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in particular is absolutely crucial. We have to get that legislation very quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, said that this was a “sticking plaster”. I am afraid that, in my view, the Bill is just a further distortion of democracy in Northern Ireland. Ministers will now be able to stay in office for up to a year after the Executive collapse or are not reformed, while no new election needs to be called in that time. As he has said, not a single Lord or Member of Parliament would allow that to happen in any other part of the United Kingdom, so let us not pretend that we have a real, genuine democracy in Northern Ireland: it makes old-style direct rule look almost more democratic.
The Bill has a huge flaw because, if a particular party removes its Ministers, the Executive will then become lopsided and unsustainable as they fail to cover both communities. Remember: everything in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was about balance. It also reminds us of the nearly unsayable truth that the Belfast agreement’s reconstruction of Stormont is all about keeping republicans with the tent. It was Sinn Féin that pulled out for three years in 2017, leaving the Secretary of State in charge. That involved a new policy of punishing the citizens of Northern Ireland by refusing to make any changes or necessary reforms, thus requiring Westminster to legislate every six months to at least ensure the money supply. Will the Government give a commitment that, if this should ever happen again and the Executive were to collapse, this would not happen again—even if it does offend the Dublin Government?
Extending the purgatory just underscores the instability of the unworkable—in my view—system in Northern Ireland. It really is time to ask why this system is lurching from one crisis to another. We all know the answer, even if we do not want to admit it. It is very simple: Sinn Féin has a vested interest in instability. Why would it not? It does not want Northern Ireland to work. It does not want Northern Ireland to be successful. So we have the folly of a system that permits a Government only if a party that does not want Northern Ireland to work is at its heart—otherwise, there can be no Government. In my view, mandatory coalition does not work, cannot work and will not work. It is a recipe for perpetual, politically inspired instability.
Turning to the petition of concern, it was a safeguard to ensure that no one community could lord it over the other. The compulsory power-sharing arrangement that we have at Stormont could not operate without it, given that the previous majoritarian system has been deemed improper and inappropriate for Northern Ireland, unless the Government decide that it is useful, which is what they did with the protocol and the consent principle. So the petition has been used by both unionist and nationalist parties in legislation on the Floor of the Northern Ireland Assembly and, of course, it effectively stymies the Executive bringing forward reforms in many areas, since there is no advance cross-community agreement.
The case in February 2016, when the Assembly voted to remove the exception in fair employment law in relation to appointing schoolteachers, is a unique exemption from anti-discrimination law, applicable nowhere else in Europe—including no longer in the Republic of Ireland. The amendment, supported by the unionist and Alliance parties, passed, but a petition of concern was immediately invoked by the SDLP and Sinn Féin, and the reform was blocked. So let us not think, again as has been said earlier, that it is only one side that does petitions of concern.
However, concerns over the use of the petition of concern mask the reality that the Assembly can never legislate for reform. As a result, that task is almost exclusively exported to this Parliament. I instance past examples: welfare reform, abortion and gay marriage—in fact, all the gay reforms since initial decriminalisation in 1982 have come from here. Irish language and legacy legislation will be with us over the next year and inevitably many more will depend on Westminster finding the time to do what Stormont cannot or will not.
No matter the changes in this Bill, the basic difficulty remains: the two communities have different interests and often different ways of looking at things. A Bill of Rights is one such issue. It is worth reminding noble Lords that the Good Friday/Belfast agreement did not promise a Bill of Rights, and certainly not an all-singing, all-dancing one, as so many nationalists still demand. The agreement’s terms were met when proposals from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission were forwarded in 2008 to Shaun Woodward, the then Secretary of State. They suggested 80 new statutory rights; he found that they were inoperable and inappropriate and had no cross-community support. The proposal duly fell and will not be revived via the Belfast agreement, no matter how many investigations are held in the Assembly.
So it is time for clarity and honesty. Your Lordships’ House is the only assembly where Northern Ireland reforms are debated and perhaps amended. The other place is where the Government bring in their ready-cooked Northern Ireland Bills to Parliament, once they have decided what needs to be made law. I will just say briefly, on the case of legacy, which we are all going to have to talk about and discuss soon, and the Northern Ireland Office’s July Command Paper, with its proposed statute of limitations—which is actually an end to the whole Troubles criminal investigations—that this is the final capping of a process in train for 25 years. We have had more than a dozen partial amnesties since the 1998 Good Friday agreement, starting with the early release of prisoners, those guilty of the grossest abuses of human rights. In the terrible case of Patsy Gillespie, which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, mentioned, if the person had been got for that at the time, probably now they would be out on a royal pardon or some other way in which those guilty of the grossest abuse of human rights—murder—have been let off.
Those many parts of amnesty have been advocated, proposed and agreed by the Irish and British Governments in the past, so I find it a little surprising that the Irish Government are getting so angry about this when, in the past, they have gone along with it and asked for it. We will have to discuss this legacy Bill at some stage, but I hope that people will look at the past and the history of it before they make their decision.
Finally, I hope that nobody in your Lordships’ House will believe that the central problem of what is happening in Northern Ireland legislation, Stormont and the Assembly is resolved by this legislation. This House remains the legislature for Northern Ireland; that is the reality. Maybe it is time to recognise that those of us who were integrationists all those years ago may have had a point.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I will be brief and make just some general points about the Bill this evening. I, too, warmly welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box and congratulate him on his well-deserved appointment. We from Northern Ireland are very aware of and appreciate his commitment to Northern Ireland over some 30-odd years. He is well acquainted with the hostelries in Hillsborough. I cannot think of any previous Minister, either here in your Lordships’ House or in another place, who has taken up post in the Northern Ireland Office with such a deep understanding of the brief and the Province of Northern Ireland. I wish him every success in his new role.
I support the Bill before us today which is, of course, a consequence of the New Decade, New Approach deal. However, I find it disheartening that, more than 23 years after the Belfast agreement was signed, most of the Bill’s provisions are necessary. I well remember leaving Castle Buildings on Good Friday 1998 with a real sense of hope that, at long last, normal politics would be coming to Northern Ireland. Yes, everyone, certainly at a political level, appreciated that there would be teething problems. More people tragically lost their lives at the hands of terrorists—29 people died and 220 were injured in Omagh—just over four months after the agreement. Devolution itself was also suspended on several occasions in those early years when my noble friend Lord Trimble held the position of First Minister. But it was still hoped that serious political upheaval in Northern Ireland would soon join the Troubles in being consigned to history. Instead, we saw Sinn Féin/IRA collapse the Assembly in January 2020, depriving local people of devolved government for three full calendar years. For most of 2021, we have witnessed a never-ending series of threats from the DUP to bring down the institutions as a means of distracting from the fact that the Prime Minister had betrayed them on Brexit, including by imposing a loathsome regulatory border in the Irish Sea.
The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want good government and want the Assembly to work. They have had enough of public skirmishes between Executive Ministers and the impression that too many decisions are made for party-political reasons rather than for the public good. I share the fear expressed by some, including my own party leader, Doug Beattie, that, should the institutions be brought down again in the coming months, they will not be coming back any time soon.
With the Assembly elections a little over five months away and with uncertainty growing over what Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union may or may not do in relation to the protocol, we can be sure that more choppy waters lie ahead for Northern Ireland. However, should the institutions survive these challenges, and if a new Executive and Assembly can be established next year after those elections, I hope that MLAs and Ministers will choose to concentrate their energies on working together to deliver for all communities in Northern Ireland, with no more stunts, no more walkouts and no more need for legislation such as the Bill before us tonight.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to his ministerial office and wish him well. I have no doubt concerning his unionist credentials and know that he will treat everyone in this House with respect and integrity.
Having listened carefully to the debate thus far, I wish to make a short intervention. The legislation before us today is to deliver some aspects of the New Decade, New Approach deal, which was agreed when the Executive was formed and the Assembly returned in January 2020. The New Decade, New Approach deal was to be a package of measures that were to be implemented simultaneously. However, it seems that the Government wish to cherry pick parts and cast aside others at their pleasure.
Devolution in Northern Ireland has been seriously undermined in recent months. Indeed, many view the devolution settlement as thrashed by actions in this House and the other place when very sensitive matters that were clearly devolved issues were legislated for, over the heads of the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland. This was done on the first occasion under the disguise and pretence that the Northern Ireland Assembly was not functioning. Indeed, legislation was hastened through Westminster because the Assembly was about to be reconvened, and it was perceived that the legislation promised to appease Sinn Féin/IRA would not get through the Assembly’s democratic process.
However, this was not the only time the devolution settlement was violated. It happened at the whim of the Government, aided and abetted by the opposition parties in this House and the other Chamber, to appease the republican demands of Sinn Féin. So much so that many in Northern Ireland, including the original architects of the Belfast agreement, now believe that it has been seriously breached, most recently under the protocol deal with Europe, a protocol that grievously undermines Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said that the protocol is not consistent with the principle of consent enshrined in the Belfast agreement. Indeed, he said the Irish Sea border demolishes the key premise of the 1998 Belfast agreement and rips the heart out of it. This is in spite of the assurances from Europe, London, America and so on, and even in this House, that nothing will or can be done to undermine the Belfast agreement. What they really mean is that nothing must be done to upset Sinn Féin, as its demands are of paramount importance. They are about to add to this with a cultural deal made over the heads of the people of Northern Ireland, once again taking away from the authority of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is in spite of the Prime Minister’s promises that
“nothing will affect the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. We will make sure that we uphold that.”—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/21; cols. 263-64.]
Time is running out for the Government to reverse the mistakes of the Northern Ireland protocol. The majority community within Northern Ireland are not willing to allow their constitutional rights to be scrapped to appease republican-leaning politicians in Europe. Under the Belfast agreement, the people of Northern Ireland were promised that they alone through the ballot box would have the final say concerning the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. In recent opinion polls, it is clearly evident that the vast majority right across the community cherish Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom, desire to remain a full and vibrant part of the United Kingdom and reject the republican vision of a united Ireland.
Yet under the protocol, this position is fundamentally changed. It is clear that the protocol is dismantling the union and the unionist majority are not willing to sit on the sidelines and permit this to happen. No unionist worth the name supports the protocol. It is time to take a stand. This Government had better listen to the will and wish of the people of Northern Ireland and remove the protocol, for it must go.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the Minister on his appointment to the Northern Ireland Office. He and I first met, I believe in the Red Lion on Whitehall, when I was a young researcher for the Liberal Democrats and he was working as a special adviser to the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Sir Patrick Mayhew. Our paths then crossed again in 2010 when we were two of the more mature—indeed, probably the two oldest—spads in the coalition Government. I wish him well on his appointment at what I am certain will be both a challenging and hugely important time for politics in Northern Ireland. I hope that this will turn out to be a very positive chapter in the book which we all hope he is going to write.
Last night I was re-watching the documentary about the Blair-Brown years, and I was reminded that this delicate peace process in Northern Ireland requires leadership, bravery and commitment. It needs to be nurtured and based on trust and respect among the political players. This is something I believe the Minister truly understands, with his many years of experience. He will also understand that, right now, there are very real fears that in recent months the elasticity of trust in Northern Ireland has been stretched to its absolute limit.
From these Benches, we support the Bill but regret that it has taken so long to get to this point—a point made so powerfully by the noble Lords, Lord Godson and Lord Rogan, this evening. It is now nearly two years since New Decade, New Approach was agreed by the majority of but—as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, pointed out—not all of the parties in Northern Ireland. I accept that we have all faced unprecedented challenges with the global Covid pandemic but, none the less, those were two wasted years when so much could have been achieved to consolidate the peace process and move on from the past—two years when so much more could have been done to improve healthcare in Northern Ireland, strengthen the economy, move forwards on integrated education and begin to deal properly with the legacy of the past.
While the Bill is welcome in so far as it deals with the governance aspects of New Decade, New Approach, it does not yet cover legacy issues, as other noble Lords have said. It would be good to hear from the Minister in his concluding remarks when he expects the Government to publish their legislation on legacy. However, I should add, like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, that we on these Benches could not support the proposals as they currently stand.
In terms of the Bill before us this evening, I would like to concentrate my remaining short remarks on two aspects. The first relates to the commencement of the Bill, and here I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Ritchie. My Alliance Party colleague Stephen Farry MP tabled an amendment in the House of Commons which aimed to accelerate the enactment of the Bill. Given the current febrile political context, does the Minister agree that it would be desirable to have these new governance measures in place as soon as possible?
The second area is that of designations. It is now more than 20 years since the Good Friday/Belfast agreement was signed. Life has changed hugely since 1998. Back then, it was understandable that governance structures were based on having designations for nationalist and unionist camps. The group of people who considered themselves to be “others” or non-sectarian then was really very small. But despite the current political tensions there, a 20 year-old in Northern Ireland today will have a very different world-view from people of that age back in 1998.
If politics in Northern Ireland is to move on to the next stage of its development, it is not unreasonable to begin to ask questions about how and when progress can be made towards a normalisation of democratic politics there. This Government’s approach to Northern Ireland has all too frequently been characterised by carelessness, crises and reacting too late to events. I hope the Minister, with all his experience, will help to steer a more considered path, and I look forward to debating the Bill in more detail in the weeks to come.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie. It is good to hear the words that she had to say and the way in which she said them.
I join noble Lords across the House in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Caine, to his position. It is not only about his experience and knowledge; people think of his personal interest and desire to do something. It makes a big difference when people believe that a particular noble Lord or Minister has integrity in what they are doing, and that is something that he will bring to this role. He will know that I have said on many occasions that the people of Northern Ireland—indeed, many of their representatives here, including noble Lords—have often felt that it is a neglected part of the discussions that take place here. I think there is some truth in that, but with him as a Minister here I think people can be reassured, and that will go a long way towards helping with this situation.
I thank many noble Lords for welcoming me to this position. At the moment, I am merely off the subs bench for my noble friend Lord Murphy—but you never know where that is going to go. It is a privilege for me to wind up this debate for Her Majesty’s Opposition. As noble Lords will know, and as others have mentioned, I have had the privilege of the post of shadow Secretary of State twice over the years, first when Ed Miliband was leader of the Labour Party and then under Jeremy Corbyn—which was a challenge in itself.
I visited all the parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland—in fact, the constituencies of former Members of Parliament here. I did so not only to show a commitment but to try to gain a better understanding of the sorts of issues that we talk about here and to meet and talk to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that, as a result of that, I better understand the challenges that there still are but also the way in which the determination and work of so many people here has led to huge amounts of progress. In rereading the history and in the visits that I made, I have always been struck by the way in which so many people, including many people here, overcame huge difficulties and challenges, things that I could not possibly comprehend in my own life.
I was thinking about when I went to Stormont and met Peter Robinson as First Minister alongside Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister in a functioning Northern Ireland Government. I know that a couple of years later, in 2017, the Assembly collapsed and did not function for three years, but many noble Lords and others spent those three years trying to restore the Assembly according to the principles on which it had been based. In January 2020—notwithstanding the point that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made about the facts of it; I take that point—an agreement was reached by the majority in the New Decade, New Approach document. It is the implementation of that which we have been discussing today, and which indeed was discussed in the other place.
The Minister will know that the Bill has much support in this place, as we want it used as a springboard to move forward to the promise of a better future for all in Northern Ireland. Quite rightly, though, as many noble Lords have stated in this debate, there are issues of concern that will quite rightly be raised in Committee, not as a way of opposing what the Government are doing but to try to improve the legislation and take it forward.
To go back to the point about the noble Lord, Lord Caine, being the Minister here, I think people believe that he will listen to the debate and try to act on it. Whether that changes the primary legislation, who knows? But people will know that in the discussions that he has with civil servants, with people and their representatives in Northern Ireland and with noble Lords in this House, there is someone who will take account of what is being said to him and try to influence it.
Without going through every contribution, let me highlight a couple of those issues. The contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, are customarily thoughtful, whether here or in the other place; he highlighted the protocol, which I want to ask the Minister about. The noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Godson, Lord Hay, Lord Browne, Lord McCrea, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, all in different ways raised the protocol. It is of fundamental importance to the context in which this debate is taking place. It is almost beyond how we have got to this point. We are here and if we want this to move forward and for the Assembly to function, unionists, nationalists and those of all strands of opinion must come together to find a solution. As my noble friend Lady Smith said, you would have thought that representatives from Northern Ireland would be involved in those discussions. I find that deeply disappointing.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, is leading the negotiations for the Government. Can the noble Lord, Lord Caine, with his knowledge and understanding of Northern Ireland, say anything about whether his appointment will make any difference to the way in which those negotiations are taking place? He may not want to answer that or may not be able to, but people are saying that this cannot just carry on without some acknowledgement of the difficulties that it is causing and how to overcome them without upsetting nationalist opinion or part of unionist opinion.
Can the Minister undertake to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, to ensure that he is aware of the discussions and the points that have been made by so many noble Lords in this debate on the seriousness of the situation? I know that he understands the seriousness, but what will he do about it in representing Her Majesty’s Government in negotiations that are taking place between the UK and the EU, and the impact that those negotiations have on Northern Ireland? To be fair, I do not expect the Minister to be able to say that he will do so, but can he undertake at least to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and emphasise the importance of this? That might provide some reassurance.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, made a really important point about new paragraph 1(1)(c) in Clause 4 and how upholding the Nolan principles relates to the Committee on Standards not applying to the devolved Administrations. I am sure that the Minister will take that forward. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Godson, for his reference to my noble friend Lord Murphy, who is not well enough to be with us in person. He is taking the necessary precautions, but the quote from him that the noble Lord used shows the importance of establishing the Assembly and having it up and running. That would show the people of Northern Ireland, or their representatives, that the voice of Northern Ireland is properly heard wherever it needs to be.
I thank my noble friend Lady Ritchie for highlighting again the principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the subsequent agreements. Whenever particular issues arise in Northern Ireland, it is always something to read those documents and look at the brilliance of how they were negotiated. People overcame difficulties that nobody expected would be overcome.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hain for his contribution. He is right to point out the issue of legacy. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is not necessarily within the scope of this Bill and will have to be dealt with in other Bills, but it is an issue that must be dealt with.
These legacy issues impact on the context within which other legislation is discussed. If the Minister were able to say something about when we might expect some discussion of this and some legislation, people would find it reassuring, even if they disagreed with it, that the Government were coming forward with this. We would know where we were, and that would provide some context for all this.
This has been an important debate. There are issues around petitions of concern, what powers caretaker Ministers—however we want to describe them—will have, who will monitor them and who will hold them to account, what it means with respect to standards and so on. However, the Bill provides progress, but we need that progress to come quickly—and the commencement period is something the Minister will have to address. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be involved in a Northern Ireland debate again, and I hope that the discussions we have had, and my contribution and that of my noble friend Lady Smith, help to inform the debate and that we get back to the place where we want to be: a functioning Northern Ireland Executive, with a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly, working with the UK Government to provide for the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am incredibly grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to such an excellent and well-informed debate this evening and, if I may say so, for giving a new Minister such a warm welcome—so much so that I was thinking of inviting the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, to do some of my PR in future. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for reminding me of some of my misspent years in the Red Lion public house during the 1990s. As part of my approach to this role, my door is always open to noble Lords on all sides of the House. Whatever concerns, issues or queries they have about Northern Ireland, however big, however small, they should always feel free to contact me and to come to see me and talk about matters.
The quality of the contributions this evening on all sides of the House is testimony to the expert knowledge and interest that so many Members of your Lordships’ House have in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I am, of course, very grateful for the general welcome of the Bill and its provisions. I welcome many of the comments made and look forward to discussing a number of them in greater detail and at greater length, no doubt, in Committee and during the passage of the Bill through the House.
As we heard, the Bill implements a number of the commitments set out in the New Decade, New Approach deal/agreement/document—however you want to describe it—made in January last year. It will improve the sustainability of the devolved institutions. It is not just on legislative commitments that the Government have been delivering through New Decade, New Approach. There are other areas outside the scope of the Bill, which include the appointment of a Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner for the first time, legislation to enshrine further the Armed Forces covenant in law, UK Government contributions to the creation of a new graduate-entry medical school in Londonderry/Derry and funding to promote Northern Ireland as a cybersecurity hub, which are all commitments in New Decade, New Approach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, mentioned some of the economic issues in Northern Ireland. The Government are supporting the Northern Ireland economy through the levelling-up fund, the community renewal fund, the community ownership fund and, of course, the spending review that delivered the largest funding settlement for Northern Ireland since the start of devolution in 1998-99. Taken alongside the more than 360,000 jobs protected as a result of government schemes during the pandemic, this underlines to many noble Lords the strength and security that Northern Ireland gains as part of the world’s fifth-largest economy.
Turning to the debate itself, most of the contributions fell into one of three categories: those relating directly to the narrow provisions of the Bill, those dealing with possible broader reforms of the devolved institutions—what might be deemed other strand 1 issues—and those more generally about the situation in Northern Ireland, notably, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, talked about, legacy, and of course contributions from across the House that dealt with the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol.
I shall try, in the time available, to respond to as many of these points as I can, beginning with a number of issues that were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. She, along with many other noble Lords, highlighted the importance of the institutions established under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. As I outlined in my opening speech, I remain very personally committed to those institutions. I have worked in the Northern Ireland Office during periods of direct rule, which I have to say were very unsatisfactory, as has the noble Baroness. Like her, I think that the institutions are far easier to collapse and dismantle than they are to bring back together. They were down between 2002 and 2007 for five long years, and we just experienced the lack of functioning institutions from 2017 to 2020, very much to the detriment of Northern Ireland.
I agreed with a number of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, about the beauty of the architecture of the agreement. For me, one key aspect of that is the way in which the agreement is able to accommodate difference, but in ways that allow us all to work together. I think that is terribly important.
A number of noble Lords referred to the commencement clauses in the Bill—I shall deal with those straightaway—and to the speed with which the Bill had been brought forward, or the lack thereof, in the view of the noble Baroness. The reality is that the provisions in the Bill were only ever intended to be made in relation to the next Assembly mandate—so never necessarily in the context of this Assembly—and the commencement date does follow the conventional “two months after Royal Assent”. However, if the political situation changes dramatically, that is something that the Government will be prepared to look at during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House; noble Lords have my assurance on that.
A number of noble Lords raised what were described as unfulfilled commitments from New Decade, New Approach and from previous agreements. A Bill of rights is an issue that has obviously been around since the 1998 agreement. The agreement itself, as somebody pointed out, is actually quite ambiguous in its wording around a Bill of rights. The issue has always been around consensus, or lack thereof. New Decade, New Approach does contain provision for an ad hoc Assembly committee to look at this, and we look forward to seeing work on that.
On language, it is important to stress that what the Government are proposing to bring forward is not just around language, but a balanced package that covers identity culture and language, and we will do so as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to caretaker Ministers and the powers they would have. We would expect, as New Decade, New Approach sets out, that Ministers who are still in office would have regard to the Administration’s previous programme for government. There would be constraints: cross-cutting issues would still have to go to an Executive for executive approval. If we were in a scenario where there was no First Minister and Deputy First Minister, the Executive could not meet, so those cross-cutting issues could not be agreed anyway.
There are clear limitations on which issues caretaker Ministers could take decisions on, but the principle that there is continuity of decision-making in Northern Ireland is very important. The alternative could well mean just going back to the situation that we endured between 2017 and 2020, which nobody found satisfactory and is one of the reasons for the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, talked about Clause 3 and sufficient representation in the Executive. New Decade, New Approach does not define what is meant by that, and the Bill essentially follows that document. As the noble Lord, with his long experience of Northern Ireland affairs, will know, there are some areas where it is sometimes advantageous to give the Secretary of State some leeway and discretion on these matters, which is why it is not defined more clearly in the legislation.
I am very pleased that my noble friend Lord Godson referred to Sir John Chilcot, who was my first Permanent Secretary when I walked through the door of the Northern Ireland Office 30 years ago next month and a very wise and good man. My noble friend made a number of important points about the lack of an Executive during the Brexit process and about the protocol. I commend the work of my noble friend and Policy Exchange, which has consistently taken an interest in this issue and put forward a number of suggestions on the protocol and so on. Those points were reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Bew.
I think back to the summer of 2016, shortly after the referendum, when Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness, as First Minister and Deputy First Minister, signed a joint letter setting out the priorities for the Northern Ireland Executive throughout the Brexit process. It is a great tragedy that, as a result of the collapse of the institutions in January 2017, the voice of the Northern Ireland Executive was simply not heard. That is something we should remember and not go back to. The Bill is designed to try to avoid that kind of collapse and political limbo.
The nobles Lord, Lord Hain and Lord Coaker, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie and Lady Suttie, all mentioned legacy. It was the main focus of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Before I respond on legacy, I pay tribute to his work on victims’ payments over the past couple of years. They are now open for application, and I know that he stays in very close touch with groups such as the WAVE Trauma Centre and our mutual former colleague, Dennis Godfrey.
Legacy is an issue that has eluded successive Governments ever since 1998. It was not part of the 1998 agreement. The Labour Government made efforts to deal with it through the Eames-Bradley commission. This time seven years ago, I was permanently based in Stormont House during the discussions that led to the Stormont House agreement, but that was seven years ago. For better or worse and for whatever reasons, the bodies envisaged in Stormont House have never seen the light of day.
The Government are committed to bringing forward legislation to try to deal with this subject, and I hope very soon. It will focus on providing better outcomes for victims and survivors, principally through looking at information recovery but also, importantly, ending the endless cycle of reinvestigations and possible prosecutions of former members of the Armed Forces. I cannot give a precise date for when this will be introduced, but I hope it will be very soon.
A large number of noble Lords mentioned the Northern Ireland protocol. I am slightly limited as to what I can say on that issue, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I assure him that I will discuss these matters with my noble friend Lord Frost and keep in very close contact with him on this crucial subject.
The reality is that the construction and implementation of the protocol has increased burdens on businesses, disadvantaged consumers, diverted trade and contributed to some of the political instability we have seen in Northern Ireland over recent months. An agreement or protocol deemed to be essential for upholding and supporting the Belfast agreement has now had the unintended effect of undermining confidence in and support for that agreement. Therefore, it is very important that the Government iron out the difficulties that are apparent.
Our clear preference, as my noble friend Lord Frost has said many times from this Dispatch Box, is to resolve these issues through agreement and negotiation with the EU. That is very much our preference, but we cannot rule out having to take measures should that agreement not be forthcoming. I remember years ago John Major wringing his hands at a press conference and saying, “Like me or loathe me, don’t bind my hands when it comes to negotiations with Europe.” I think that is very sensible. My noble friend is continuing those important discussions. I agree with the comments of noble Lords behind me from the unionist Benches and elsewhere across the House: it is vital that we resolve this, to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place within our United Kingdom and our internal market is absolutely secure.
The noble Lord, Lord Bew, referred to the code of conduct, the Nolan principles and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It will not surprise him to hear that I am not completely across the detail of those decisions, but I undertake to go back to the department, look into that issue in some more detail and come back to him. On the code of conduct, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me a rather specific question about who polices the code. That would be the Commissioner for Standards in the Assembly, and the Assembly itself would look into breaches and bring forward whatever sanctions there are.
My noble friend Lord Dodds—he is my noble friend —referred to the petition of concern and where its original purpose is set out. My understanding is that that is contained in strand one, section 5, under the heading “Safeguards”, in the original Belfast agreement, but, not having a copy to hand, I will undertake to give him a fuller response in that respect.
I am conscious of time and the hour. I have endeavoured to deal with a number of the issues raised this evening. If I missed any glaringly obvious ones, I trust noble Lords will forgive me, on this my debut at the Dispatch Box, but I commit to follow up in writing any that I have missed. In the meantime, it just remains for me to thank noble Lords once again for their contributions. I look forward to working very closely with Peers from across the House during the remaining stages of the Bill. On that note, I comment the Bill to the House.