House of Commons
Prayers
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Order. Before we start today’s business, I must inform the House that I have received a letter from the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), indicating that he wishes to resign as Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. I therefore must declare the chair vacant. I will make an announcement about the date and arrangements for the election of a successor next week.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
The Government are committed to addressing the gender pension gap. Automatic enrolment and the new state pension are already enabling more women to build up retirement provision. Recognising that this issue derives primarily from differences in work and pay, we continue to work across Government with employers and partners to address inequalities relating to the labour market.
David Linden
My constituents in Swinton regularly tell me that the gender pensions gap is exacerbated as a result of a lack of ambition on the part of the Government regarding auto-enrolment. Will the Minister meet me to hear those concerns from constituents in Swinton, and see how we can change that to ensure we close the gender pensions gap?
Chloe Smith
I am sure that the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), would be happy to have a further conversation on that. Automatic enrolment is important. It has made progress, but there will be more to do.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Whether it is the menopause, child rearing, or caring for elderly relatives, women are impacted across their careers in the contributions that they make to their pensions. Most of all, they need better work opportunities, and for the DWP to be championing them into better paid work. What work is the Minister doing with the Minister for Employment to ensure that women’s careers are at the forefront of the Government’s efforts?
Chloe Smith
I will ask my colleague the employment Minister to write to my right hon. Friend to ensure she has a full update, and I touch briefly on an example such as mandatory pay gap reporting, which is helping to drive progress.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
We are doing a huge range of work right across defence, both institutional and cultural, to ensure that sexual harassment is not an issue. We have taken the complaints procedure out of the chain of command, and established the Defence Serious Crime Unit to tackle any criminal wrongdoing. We will introduce training right across defence to ensure that we generate a military culture that respects women. That is all the more important because women can now serve in every single role.
Dame Nia Griffith
If the Minister has not already done so, I recommend that he make contact with the excellent organisation Salute Her, which I visited in North Tyneside. It supports women veterans, many of whom suffered sexual abuse in the armed forces, and their stories are harrowing. I remind the Minister that, shockingly, a recent Ministry of Defence survey showed that one in seven women in the armed forces has been subject to sexual harassment in the past 12 months alone. What more can he do to work with colleagues throughout the armed forces to root out that dreadful culture?
Leo Docherty
I have met Salute Her, and we pay attention to its recommendations. The work being done following the Wigston review is hugely important, and I commend the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton). That body of work, and the recommendations that we have overwhelmingly accepted, will be carried out at pace across defence.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I remain extremely concerned about the plight of LGBTQ+ service people who before 2001 were routinely court-martialled,
dismissed, or lost their pensions or the right to wear their medals and so on. That is bad enough, but it remains the case today. What more can the Minister do to put that demonstrable injustice right? It is no good setting up a committee—we want it sorted.
Leo Docherty
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. The Government look forward to the recommendations of the independent reviewer, Lord Etherton. They will be credible, and we will take them very seriously.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
The increasing number of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics has been a huge asset to our country. Look at Sarah Gilbert, creator of the covid vaccine. Around 35% of the wage gap can be overcome if we get more women into high paid occupations, and that is exactly what we are working on.
Margaret Ferrier
Lack of diversity in science academia is an obstacle that must be overcome to maximise creativity and scientific innovation. Among the findings on diversity data and grant funding from Cancer Research UK was the fact that female and ethnic minority researchers hold fewer programme awards than their white and male colleagues. How can the Government level the playing field for women and ethnic minorities who are applying for research grants in those essential areas?
Elizabeth Truss
I am pleased to say that we are now seeing more women enter undergraduate courses in universities: 42% of undergraduate STEM students in the United Kingdom are women. What we need to do is open up all those research opportunities—those more senior opportunities—in our universities.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The good news, of course, is that young women are taking up and studying STEM subjects, but there is a drop-off when it comes to those people going into good, well-paid jobs. What more can my right hon. Friend do to make sure that people not only continue their STEM studies, but continue into good careers?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that girls and women are moving through the STEM pipeline. There has been a 31% increase in girls studying STEM subjects since 2010, and more employers are opening up opportunities around the country. We have the STEM boot camps to help people mid-career with STEM training. As my hon. Friend says, that is the way in which we will unleash talent in our country and make sure we are leading in the industries of the future.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Alan Mak)
The Treasury carefully considers the equalities impacts of policy on those with protected characteristics, in line with both its strong commitment to promoting fairness and its legal obligations under the public sector equality duty. In May, the Government announced over £15 billion of additional support targeted at those with the greatest need.
Jessica Morden
Single parents—nine in 10 of whom are mothers—are among those most exposed to the cost of living crisis, particularly those aged 25 and under, who get a reduced rate of universal credit. What are the Government doing to evaluate the impact of soaring prices on that group, and why have they not taken steps such as ending the age-related universal credit limit?
Alan Mak
The Government’s support package targets the most vulnerable households, including single parents, providing a £650 cost of living payment. I would certainly urge her constituents to contact the local council to see whether the household support fund can also be of assistance.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s report from the Resolution Foundation shows that our economy is over a decade into a period of stagnation after 12 years of Tory rule, yet all we see from the Government Benches is a chaotic Tory tombola of tax cuts, and no plan for the more secure economy that women need. The impact on women has been stark, with 115,000 fewer women in employment now than before the pandemic. Does the Minister have any plans to halt that fall?
Alan Mak
The Resolution Foundation has actually praised this Government’s handling of the cost of living pressures. The cost of living support package, totalling £37 billion this year, is in line with our international competitors and more generous than France, Germany and Japan.
Anneliese Dodds
There we have it: there is no Conservative plan to support women’s employment. Women are being hammered by the Conservative cost of living crisis, which is getting worse by the day. After 12 years of economic failure, it is little wonder that Tory leadership candidates are trashing their own record. How else can the Minister explain the fact that by next April, average real pay for full-time women workers will have fallen by £670 since the Tories came to power?
Alan Mak
There are more people in employment and on payrolls than pre-pandemic levels, and women are driving that growth in our economy. The support programme this Government have introduced is helping women back into work, and I hope that will benefit the hon. Lady’s constituents as well as mine.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
According to the Women’s Budget Group, the UK Government’s erosion of the social security system is a key contributor to the current Tory cost of living crisis. Women—particularly those with disabilities or caring responsibilities and those from ethnic minority backgrounds—are disproportionately impacted by that crisis, which is a crisis unlike anything most of us have ever experienced. Knowing that, what specific steps has the Minister taken to make sure those equalities impacts are properly taken into account in the UK Government’s response to the cost of living crisis?
Alan Mak
As part of our cost of living support package, we have introduced a very specific disability cost of living payment, worth £150 per person. I would add that in the spending review, the UK Government gave the Scottish Government £41 billion a year as part of its settlement: the biggest since devolution, and a 26% increase compared with the average across the UK.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
We set up a taskforce on women-led high growth enterprise, which met for the first time this month. It will use its convening power to influence high growth investors and the business community, and to raise aspiration of the next generation of female entrepreneurs right across the country.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the fact is that if women were starting and scaling businesses at the same rate as men it would add a staggering £250 billion to the UK economy. We need to turbocharge the investment and support we are giving to female entrepreneurship. What thought has been given to pivoting some of the existing financial packages, such as the enterprise investment scheme, to better support women-led enterprises?
Chloe Smith
The enterprise investment scheme has specific objectives. It is designed to encourage investment in higher risk early stage companies. However, the Government are committed to supporting women entrepreneurs in a range of ways, as highlighted by the implementation of recommendations from the Rose review. I would be happy to ask a colleague of mine to discuss the issue further with my right hon. Friend.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) rightly points out some problems with the Government’s schemes, but the Minister, who works within the Department for Work and Pensions, should know that the way that childcare functions within universal credit does not help women become entrepreneurs either. What conversations has she had with the other Ministers in that Department and civil servants on reform to childcare?
Chloe Smith
The Government are committed to a range of ways to help families—not just women, but parents—with childcare. There is a set of messages we could let go out from this exchange today, which includes encouraging families to take up the childcare options that are available. There will be more that we can do to continue to encourage people to take the work that is right for them and to support them as they do so.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
Continuing the previous theme, we are committed to helping women in every workplace and we have announced new initiatives to do that. For example, we have called on all employers to provide salary information in job adverts. As the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) has already articulated, we are helping women to return to STEM roles where their talents are most needed, and, as already touched on, a new taskforce will increase the number of women-led high growth businesses.
Joanna Cherry
I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she join me in welcoming the unequivocal judgment of the employment appeal tribunal and the employment tribunal in the case of Maya Forstater v. the Centre for Global Development, to the effect that gender-critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act 2010 and that women, and indeed men, must not be discriminated against, harassed or victimised for either holding those beliefs or stating them? Does she agree with me that all employers will require to review their workplace practices in human resources and their equality, diversity and inclusion policies to ensure that they comply with the law as stated in that judgment? Can she tell me what steps she will take to ensure that that happens?
Chloe Smith
I thank the hon. and learned Lady for that question. She is, as we all know, very thoughtful on these issues and looks very carefully at the important consequences of the issues at hand. The rulings in that case and others reflect the important balances that the Equality Act already provides for. I think the key point to make in response to her is that we agree that we must protect free speech and allow open discussion. It is, of course, the responsibility of all employers to ensure that they comply with the law as set out in legislation, such as the Equality Act 2010, and interpreted by the courts.
Dame Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
In March, the UK Government ratified the International Labour Organisation convention outlawing violence and harassment in the workplace, something that still disproportionately affects women at work. In ratifying that convention, the UK Government need to have in place a programme of work to prevent and enforce the law around those issues. Will the Minister outline how the Government will make sure that they live up to the important provisions in that convention?
Chloe Smith
My right hon. Friend, as always, makes vital points and I am very pleased that she does. I will ask the Minister for Women and Equalities to write to her with a fuller update so that she can be assured of the Government’s commitment to these vital matters.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
Women are an integral part of our armed forces and have thriving careers, as my hon. Friend will know from her report, which contained a number of important recommendations. Having tested those with the Army Servicewomen’s Network, we are adopting almost all of them. We have a target of a 30% in-flow of women into the armed forces by 2030. We have improved equipment and uniforms and wraparound childcare. Most importantly, we want to generate a military culture that respects women.
Sarah Atherton
Since the Defence Committee’s report that highlighted inequalities for women in the military, the Ministry of Defence has made good, if not excellent, progress and change is being felt on the ground. The MOD went further and committed to hosting an international Five Eyes conference to share best practice. Will the Minister commit to attending with me?
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Following the report from the Defence Sub-Committee, which was chaired by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), may I ask the Minister why, if the Government are taking gender equality in the armed forces seriously, they do not learn from the report from the Sub-Committee and make sure that rape goes into civilian courts and does not remain on an unequal basis in the court martial system?
Leo Docherty
When the hon. Member sees the formal response to the report, he will have no doubt that we are taking note of these recommendations in absolute earnest. The feedback that I get from young women serving in all roles right across defence is that women should really look forward to service life. There are terrific role models that they can be very proud of.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Minister for Equalities (Amanda Solloway)
As we prepare legislation to ban conversion practices, we continue to assess equality impacts in relation to all protected characteristics, including gender reassignment. We intend to introduce a ban that protects everyone who attempts to change their sexual orientation. There are different considerations for transgender conversion practices and the Government remain committed to exploring them.
Dr Huq
There is a respectful debate to be had on single-sex spaces and on trans people in sport, but the Government’s failure on their promise of a full ban on conversion therapy, which caused one equalities Minister to resign last week, is not it. Eight royal colleges and the British Medical Association want this. When will the Government act?
Amanda Solloway
We want to ensure that everyone is protected from the extensive harm that conversion practices cause. It is not unreasonable to take some extra time to avoid an unintended consequence and to build a consensus, so that, together, we can make our legislation as inclusive as possible.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place. Will she reassure the House that the discussions and legislation on banning conversion practices will include protecting everybody from these harmful practices?
Amanda Solloway
I acknowledge all the work that my hon. Friend has done on this subject. I absolutely agree that the legislation to ban conversion practices is fundamentally about protecting LGBT people from harm. The experience of victims needs to continue to be at the heart of all considerations, as I know they were when my hon. Friend was the Minister.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Minister for Equalities (Amanda Solloway)
Rwanda is a safe and secure country with respect for the rule of law. We would only ever work with countries that we know are safe, and we will treat asylum seekers in accordance with the relevant international human rights laws. Furthermore, Rwanda’s constitution includes a broad prohibition on discrimination.
Owen Thompson
The United Nations said that the UK Government’s cruel Rwanda policy breaches international law. The Home Office’s equalities impact assessment of the policy clearly states the dangers for LGBTQI+ people and the UK Government’s website advises against travel to Rwanda for LGBTQI+ people. Women for Refugee Women stated that threatening the removal to Rwanda of women fleeing gender-based violence
“exposes them to further risk of violence and harm”.
How can the UK Government justify this cruel policy?
Amanda Solloway
We have published a robust country assessment, which will be used by caseworkers to inform relocation decisions for each individual case. Nobody will be relocated if it is unsafe to do so.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Elizabeth Truss)
The use of rape and sexual violence by Russian forces in Ukraine is central to their appalling war tactics. We are campaigning internationally for sexual violence to be treated as a red line in war, akin to the use of chemical weapons. We have sent a team of experts to the region to collect evidence so that those who commit these appalling war crimes can be held to account.
Julian Sturdy
Sadly, Lib Dem-run City of York Council is continuing with its restrictions, which have an impact on blue badge holders, and is dodging decisions on city centre parking. This is causing a huge disadvantage to rural communities in my constituency who have poor transport links. Does the Minister agree that city centres should be accessible to all?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
Yes, passionately, and the Equality Act 2010 sets out ways in which local authorities should ensure that. I will make sure that departmental colleagues know of my hon. Friend’s concerns.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister for Equalities to her place. She sure has a lot to catch up on, whether that is finally addressing LGBT+ hate crime or finally publishing a women’s health strategy. She will be aware that her predecessor resigned last week because of the Conservative party
“creating an atmosphere of hostility for LGBT+ people”.
That is a damning charge from a sitting Conservative MP. Does the Minister agree with her predecessor?
The Minister for Equalities (Amanda Solloway)
The Government take all hate crimes seriously, and we have robust laws to respond to them. While police have recorded an increase in hate crimes targeting LGBT communities, the biggest drivers for this are an improvement in police recording and the increased willingness of victims to come forward. It is taken very seriously by the Home Office, and we are working with the police on it.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: one of the biggest issues that we face in this country is geographical inequality. That is why we have appointed Katharine Birbalsingh as head of the Social Mobility Commission. Her school, Michaela Community School in Brent, is fantastic at helping to level up among all groups of people. We want to see more of those types of schools all around our country.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Chloe Smith
I will be meeting the Department for Transport’s disability champion this very afternoon, and I will take that question to discuss with her.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
I am pleased to say that I have been to the Holkham estate and seen her fantastic business operating in rural Norfolk. We need to turbocharge rural economies, and we need to get more women into business; we know that if women set up businesses at the same rate as men, it would add £250 billion to our economy. She is a fantastic businesswoman.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Ind)
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to make sure that we are protecting people from HIV.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I first got involved in politics when I was 16. One of my many motivations for joining David Cameron’s Conservatives was his socially liberal stance on LGBT+ issues. One of our party’s proudest achievements, in my view, is introducing same-sex marriage. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, whatever the outcome of the leadership election is over the next few weeks, she and her Department will continue to prove that the Conservative Government are on the side of LGBT people?
Elizabeth Truss
I was proud to vote for and support gay marriage, which has been a very important step forward for our country.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the question answered. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I could not hear it. Please, Minister, try again.
Chloe Smith
I apologise for the confusion, Mr Speaker. The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is yes: I am happy to do that.
Mr Speaker
Excellent. Thank you.
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I should point out that a British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
From tomorrow—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Shut up a minute. [Interruption.] Order! I say to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) that I will not tolerate such behaviour. If you want to go out, go out now, but if you stand up again, I will order you out. Make your mind up. Either shut up or get out. [Interruption.] I warned the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Shut up a minute. [Interruption.] Two at once! [Interruption.] Order! Sit down.
I now warn the hon. Members for East Lothian and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) that if they persist in refusing to comply with my order to withdraw, I shall be compelled to name both of them, which may lead to their being suspended from the House. [Interruption.] Order. I am now naming you, Neale Hanvey and Kenny MacAskill, and I ask you to leave the Chamber. Serjeant, deal with them. Out—now. Serjeant at Arms, escort them out. Take them out. Serjeant, get them out!
Now then, let us just see if we can—[Interruption.] Mr Costa, you do not want to want to escort them to the Tea Room, do you? I suggest not. I think you are better behaved than that.
The Speaker directed Neale Hanvey and Kenny MacAskill to withdraw from the House, and the Members withdrew accordingly.
The Prime Minister
From tomorrow, the first instalment of the cost of living payment will start landing in the bank accounts of 8 million households across the country. This is a much-needed £326 cash boost for families, which forms part of the £1,200 in direct support that we are giving the most vulnerable households this year.
I am sure the whole House was appalled and saddened, as I was, to hear about the despicable attack on Shinzo Abe. Our thoughts are with his family and loved ones, and with the people of Japan, at this dark and sad time.
This week we remember the genocide in Srebrenica and the victims of those appalling events. We must learn the lessons of history, and do all in our power to prevent such a thing from happening again. We will continue to combat war crime deniers, both in Bosnia and Herzegovina and elsewhere.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Robin Millar
I thank the Prime Minister for his personal interest in Aberconwy. Whether he has been eating ice cream on the pier in Llandudno, sampling Welsh Penderyn whisky or standing in the granite quarry in Penmaenmawr, he has seen why people love this constituency. He has also heard from them their gratitude for the vaccine and furlough programmes that this UK Government delivered. Will my right hon. Friend now support our plan to level up Aberconwy and our bid for almost £20 million of funding to invest in community and cultural programmes, and give us the opportunity to match our potential?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend; he is a great champion for Aberconwy. I much enjoyed the Penderyn whisky that we sampled together, although I ignored the Revolver, as some of you may have noticed. We are committed to uniting and levelling up the UK, and as for the second round of the levelling up fund announcements, it will be coming this autumn.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in his comments about the former Prime Minister of Japan—a deeply shocking moment—and of course in his comments about genocide.
May I welcome the new Cabinet to their places? We have a new Chancellor who accepted a job from the Prime Minister on Wednesday afternoon and then told him to quit on Thursday morning, a new Northern Ireland Secretary who once asked if you needed a passport to get to Derry, and a new Education Secretary whose junior Ministers have literally been giving the middle finger to the public. It is truly the country’s loss that they will only be in post for a few weeks.
The Prime Minister must be feeling demob happy since he was pushed out of office. Finally he can throw off the shackles, say what he really thinks and forget about following the rules! So does he agree that it is time to scrap the absurd non-dom status that allows the super-rich to dodge tax in this country?
The Prime Minister
It is perfectly true that I am grateful for the ability to speak my mind, which I never really lost, but what I am focusing on is continuing the government of the country. As I have just said, from tomorrow £326 is arriving—[Interruption.] Never mind non-doms. Doms or non-doms, I don’t mind. From tomorrow £326 is arriving in the bank accounts of 8 million vulnerable people. And how can we do that? Because we took the decisions to get the strong economy that we currently have, which I am afraid were resisted by—[Interruption.] Growth in May was at 0.5%, which the Opposition were not expecting. As I have said before, 620,000 more people are in payroll employment than before the pandemic began, and one of the consolations of leaving office at this particular time is that vacancies are at an all-time high.
Keir Starmer
Cut him some slack—faced with an uncertain future and a mortgage-sized decorator’s bill for what will soon be somebody else’s flat, I am not surprised the Prime Minister is careful not to upset any future employers. So here is an even simpler one: does he agree that offshore schemes can pose a risk because some people use them to avoid tax that they owe here?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of the investment this country attracts from around the world. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about people from offshore investing in the UK, and I am absolutely thrilled to see we have had £12 billion of tech investment alone coming in over the last couple of months. It is possible that he is referring not to me but to some of the eight brilliant candidates who are currently vying for my job. Let me just tell him that any one of them would wipe the floor—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The furniture has to be repaired. One Member has already had a bill, and I am sure he does not want another.
The Prime Minister
Any one of the eight candidates would wipe the floor with Captain Crasheroony Snoozefest. In a few weeks’ time, that is exactly what they will do. They will unite around the winner and do just that.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister has been saying all week that he wants revenge on those who have wronged him. Here is an idea: if he really wants to hit them where it hurts, he should tighten the rules on tax avoidance. At the very least, does he agree that anyone running to be Prime Minister should declare where they and their family have been domiciled for tax purposes, and whether they have ever been a beneficiary of an offshore tax scheme?
The Prime Minister
To the best of my knowledge, everybody in this Parliament and everybody in this House pays their full whack of tax in this country. Members across the House should cease this constant vilification of each other. I think people pay their fair share of taxes, and quite right.
Thanks to the tax yield we have had, we are able to support the people of this country in the way we are. We have been able to increase universal credit by £1,000, and from tomorrow we are putting £326 into the bank accounts of those who need it most. Thanks to the policies we have pursued, as I have just told the House, we have unemployment at or near record lows. That is what counts.
The Opposition are very happy to see people languish on benefits. We believe in getting people into good jobs, and I am looking for one.
Keir Starmer
I am not sure the Prime Minister has been keeping up with what has happened in the last few days. Over the weekend, the candidates to replace him have promised £330 billion in giveaways, which is roughly double the annual budget of the NHS. Sadly, they have not found time to explain how they are paying for it, even though one of them is the Chancellor and another was Chancellor until a week ago. They all backed 15 tax rises, and now they are acting as if they have just arrived from the moon and saying it should never have happened.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, rather than desperately rewriting history, they should at least explain exactly where they are getting all this cash from?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is completely wrong. I have been listening very carefully, and all the commitments I have heard are very clear. Whoever is elected will continue to put more police out on the street, exactly as we promised. There are already 13,576 more police, and it will go up to 20,000. The Opposition always complain about this, but whoever takes over will build the 40 new hospitals. [Interruption.] They do not like it because they voted against the funding that makes it possible. During the time for which the Leader of the Opposition has been in office, they have made extra public spending commitments worth £94 billion, which would be thousands of pounds of extra taxation for every family in the country. That is the difference between them and us.
Keir Starmer
Totally deluded to the bitter end. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Holden, I think that is the last time I hear from you today, otherwise you might be able to buy a couple of other people a cup of tea.
Keir Starmer
To be fair to the new Chancellor, he has at least attempted to spell it out. He has promised tens of billions in tax cuts and confirmed that he would cut the NHS, the police and school budgets by 20% to fund it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon and Gibraltar is complaining, but he said it on TV. And yesterday he said:
“It is simply not right that families are seeing their bills skyrocket and we do nothing.”
Was the Chancellor speaking on behalf of the Government when he promised huge spending cuts and when he said they are doing nothing on the cost of living crisis?
The Prime Minister
This is really pitiful stuff from the party that voted against the £39 billion, which is necessary to pay for those 50,000 nurses—who we are recruiting and will recruit by 2024—and which is necessary to pay for those hospitals, those doctors, those scans and that treatment. Labour Members do not have a leg to stand on. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman something else: the reason we have growth at 0.5% in May is that we took the tough decisions to come out of lockdown on 19 July last year, which he said was “reckless”. Never forget that he said it was reckless. Without that, our economy would not be strong enough now to make the payments that we are making to our fantastic NHS, and they know it.
Keir Starmer
I really am going to miss this weekly nonsense from the right hon. Gentleman. Let us move on from his current Chancellor to his former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak). Last week, he resigned, accusing the Prime Minister of not conducting government “properly”, “competently” or “seriously”. He suggested that the Prime Minister is not prepared to work hard or take difficult decisions, and implied that the Prime Minister cannot tell the public the truth. Yesterday, he claimed that his big plan is to “rebuild” the economy. Even the Prime Minister must be impressed by that Johnsonian brass-neckery. Can the Prime Minister think of any jobs that his former Chancellor may have had that mean he bears some responsibility for an economy that he now claims is broken?
The Prime Minister
I think everybody who has played a part in the last three years has done a remarkable job in helping this country through very difficult times. I just want to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the next leader of my party may be elected by acclamation, so it is possible that this will be our last confrontation over this Dispatch Box. [Interruption.] It is possible. So I want to thank him for the style in which he has conducted himself. It would be fair to say that he has been considerably less lethal than many other Members of this House, Mr Speaker, and I will tell you why that is. He has not come up—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I just say to Members at this end of the Labour Front Bench that I expect better behaviour, and I am certainly going to get it.
The Prime Minister
As I was saying, there is a reason for that: over three years, in spite of every opportunity, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has never really come up with an idea, a plan or a vision for this country. At the end of three years, we got Brexit done, which he voted against 48 times; we delivered the first vaccine in the world and rolled it out faster than any other European country, which would never have been possible if we had listened to him; and we played a decisive role in helping to protect the people of Ukraine from the brutal invasion by Vladimir Putin—it helped to save Ukraine.
I am proud to say that we are continuing, and every one of the eight candidates will continue, with the biggest ever programme of infrastructure, skills and technology across this country, to level up in a way that will benefit the constituents of every Member of this House. It is perfectly true that I leave not at a time of my choosing—[Interruption.] That is absolutely true. But I am proud of the fantastic teamwork that has been involved in all of those projects, both nationally and internationally. I am also proud of the leadership that I have given. [Interruption.] I will be leaving, soon, with my head held high.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaign. Our thoughts are of course with the friends and family of Pitchfork’s victims, Lynda and Dawn. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), will be submitting his views on the Pitchfork case to the Parole Board before Pitchfork’s hearing. As the House will know, a root-and-branch review of the parole system is currently under way, and that includes plans for greater ministerial oversight for the most serious offenders. We will bring that forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on the murder of Shinzo Abe—a dreadful event that took place last weekend.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for last night hosting the charity Remembering Srebrenica. We should all take time this week, on the 27th anniversary of the genocide that took place there, to think of the circumstances, and the shame that we were not able to step in and stop the murder of so many innocent boys and men, and the rape of so many women. We must learn the lessons from that—of course, at this time we think very much of those in Ukraine who are facing a war criminal—and make sure that those responsible are ultimately held to account for crimes against humanity.
The Tory leadership contest is quickly descending into a toxic race to the right, and it is clear that whoever wins that race, Scotland loses. The former Chancellor has pledged to govern like Margaret Thatcher; the current Chancellor is threatening 20% cuts to the NHS and public services; and they are all trying to outdo each other on an extreme Brexit that will cost the economy billions. Is the real reason the Prime Minister will not endorse any of these awful candidates that whoever becomes the next Tory leader will make Genghis Khan look like a moderate?
The Prime Minister
I feel a real twinge that this may be virtually the last time that I will have the opportunity to answer a question from the right hon. Gentleman— whether it is because he is going or because I am going, I do not know. All I would say to him is that the next leader of my party will want to ensure that we do everything we can to work with the Scottish Government—in the way that I have been able to do, and am proud to have done, over the last few years—to protect and secure our Union. My strong view, having listened to the right hon. Gentleman carefully for years and years, is that we are much, much better together.
Ian Blackford
I can say with all sincerity that I hope that whoever is the next Tory leader will be as popular in Scotland as the Prime Minister has been.
For people in Scotland, Westminster has never looked so out of touch. We have right-wing Tory contenders prioritising tax cuts for the rich, and a zombie UK Government failing to tackle the cost of living crisis. While the Tories are busy tearing lumps out of each other, MoneySavingExpert’s Martin Lewis has warned that the energy price cap could rise by a sickening 65% in October—to £3,244 a year. After a decade of Tory cuts and Brexit price rises, that will mean that many families simply cannot afford to put food on the table and heat their homes. Scotland literally cannot afford the cost of living with Westminster. Does the Prime Minister not get that people in Scotland do not just want rid of him—they want rid of the whole rotten Westminster system?
The Prime Minister
What is actually happening in this country is that we are using the fiscal firepower that we have built up to cut taxes for working people and cut taxes for those on low incomes—we saw that last week with an average tax cut on national insurance of £330. We are increasing support for those vulnerable households, with another £326 going in from tomorrow. It is thanks to our Union that we were able to deliver the furlough scheme, which helped the entire country, and to make the massive transfers that boost the whole of the UK economy. The last thing that the people of Scotland need now is more constitutional wrangling when we need to fix the economy.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is thanks to the massive exertions of this Government in levelling up, with the £650 billion investment in infrastructure, that we have a new railway station in Cheadle. I know that the bids that my hon. Friend has just mentioned are now being actively studied by those at the Department for Transport, and she should feed in more to them.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
In a recent opinion poll, conducted by LucidTalk for Queen’s University, only 5% of the people of Northern Ireland expressed any trust whatsoever in this Government. As the Prime Minister prepares to leave office shortly, will he apologise for his legacy in Northern Ireland, where power sharing has collapsed, the Good Friday agreement has been undermined, an unwanted protocol Bill has been imposed on the people and businesses of Northern Ireland, and Anglo-Irish relations are in their worst state for 40 years?
The Prime Minister
Well, no, Mr Speaker. What we have—and I know that every single one of the candidates will want to deliver this—is a Bill to fix the problem of the protocol. I accept that there is a problem, and I hope that the whole House will support the Bill.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I say to my hon. Friend that, if anything, I am even more optimistic. I have only one anxiety. We all know that there are people around the world who hope that this will be the end of Brexit. [Interruption.] I can see them all! Look at them! Did my hon. Friend notice those on the Labour Front Bench? That is them. They are wrong, Mr Speaker, and we will show that they are wrong.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
As I continually advise the members of the Scottish National party—or nationalist party, I should say—they should look at what is happening to educational standards in Scotland, which they are responsible for, instead of endlessly asking for a repeat of a constitutional event that we had in 2014. We had a vote, and they lost.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is possibly fair to say that I am responsible for building more river crossings and bridges than anybody else in this House, including the Suggitts Lane crossing, which I delivered for my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). At this stage in my political career, I could not in all honesty promise that I will deliver this bridge, but my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) has eight people to whom she can direct that request right now, and she is in a strong bargaining position.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister
Of course the Labour Government in Wales is responsible for schools, but what we have been doing is not only increasing the living wage by £1,000 and providing the £37 billion-worth of financial support that I mentioned, but helping councils with a £1.5 billion household support fund to get families such as those the right hon. Lady mentions through the tough times. We will come out very strongly the other side.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am delighted that there will be a new hospital scheme in this area. I am told the local hospital trust has considered a full range of options and that it considers that new hospital builds at Watford General, alongside further investment at Hemel Hempstead and St Albans City hospitals, represent the best option for the health services in the area.
Sir Mike Penning
I thank the Prime Minister for delivering Brexit and the fantastic vaccine roll-out programme, which I was proud to be involved with and which saved so many lives in my constituency and around the country. Sadly, the trust has not considered all options—I know my constituents would be astonished by what it has said. It now wants £1.2 billion for the refurbished tower block situation in Watford. Can the Prime Minister do me a great favour before he leaves? Can he put a little note in the drawer of No. 10 for when the new incumbent comes in, saying, “Penning needs a new hospital on a greenfield site”?
The Prime Minister
I can tell my hon. Friend that I will ensure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss his proposals.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about staffing levels: the NHS now has a record number of people working in it, with 10,900 more nurses this year than there were last year and 6,000 more doctors. On ambulances, and he is right that this is absolutely critical, the crucial thing is to help the hospital staff to move patients through the system. Too often, I am afraid, it is impossible because a proportion of the patients sadly are in delayed discharge and that is making life very difficult for the ambulances as they come up to hospital. That is why it is so crucial that this Government, in addition to everything else we have done, are fixing social care and helping patients out of hospital. That is why we put in the £39 billion, which unfortunately his party voted against.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition knows a lot more about Stoke Newington than he knows about Stoke. [Interruption.] That is absolutely true. I am proud that we are getting young people into work up and down the country. I was at an event last night to celebrate the 163,000 kickstarters who we have helped into work. That is our ambition—to help people into good jobs. I am proud to say that I leave office with unemployment at roughly 3.8%; when Labour last left office it was at 8%. That is the difference between them and us.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
It is a long-standing practice, I think accepted on both sides of the House, that we do not comment on special forces. That does not mean that we in any way accept the factual accuracy of the claims to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded; nor does it mean that anybody who serves in Her Majesty’s armed forces is above the law.
Mr Speaker
I warn other Members that the matter is sub judice—I allowed the question because it was very general, which is the only way I would allow it to be discussed at the moment.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As I mentioned earlier, we are engaged in a massive programme of improvements and building and rebuilding in our NHS estate. With great respect to my hon. Friend, he is going to have to continue to lobby for this decision. The local NHS bodies will have to make up their minds on it, but I am sure he will continue to make lively representations.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
As I understand it, the people of the SNP are currently deciding what to do with the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). Heaven forfend that they should change their minds.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I know from my own experience of running the city the anguish that that particular tragedy caused and the deep feeling that surrounds it, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising it. Whatever my own views, this is a matter for the independent Metropolitan Police Service, and I am sure that the new commissioner will consider what he has just said.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
May I say to the hon. Gentleman that after three years of listening to this delirium of monotony from the Scottish nationalists, I really think they need to change the record? What the people of this country want is a focus on the cost of living, on the economy, on schools and on standards in schools—those are the things he should fix, and that is to say nothing of the tragedy of drug deaths in Scotland, which the SNP still has not done anything to address. Everything I have seen has taught me that whether it is Ukraine, covid or furlough, there is absolutely no doubt that we are better off working together.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
On behalf of the Ukrainian community that is at the heart of Kensington, I send huge thanks to the Prime Minister for his support for Ukraine.
Yesterday was the first anniversary of the devastating flooding that affected more than 1,000 homes in my constituency. People in basement flats lost all their belongings and many people are still in temporary accommodation. Will my right hon. Friend back my fight to ensure that we get serious investment in infrastructure in west London from Thames Water?
The Prime Minister
I know the problem of which my hon. Friend speaks very well. There is no single solution to tackling surface water flooding, but she is absolutely right in wanting to put more pressure on Thames Water to try to come up with sustainable solutions. That has to be done working with partners and councils, and with developers as well.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
A few short weeks ago, Zara Aleena was walking home through Ilford. She was dragged off the street and brutally murdered. Zara’s family made a touching tribute to her life. They said:
“She was authentic and refused to try and impress anyone, but she impressed us. She was the rock of our family.”
Last week, on 8 July, another woman was stabbed in St Johns Road, just yards from my family’s church that I have attended for 15 years, so I know the area like the back of my hand. Women in Ilford should not have to police themselves or impose curfews on their behaviour when they just want to go about their daily business. Will the Prime Minister commit to a greater allocation of policing funding targeted on specialist knife crime into Ilford and across all that part of north-east London? In addition, what measures will the Government take that will make a difference to the lives of women? Will they toughen sentences for rape, stalking and domestic violence and put in place proper police support to end the epidemic of violence in this country against women and girls?
Mr Speaker
Before the Prime Minister answers, let me say to Members that, although I have allowed the matter to be raised, we should be careful about going into detail on the first person because the case is sub judice. I am sure the Prime Minister can answer the question in general terms.
The Prime Minister
I thank you for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I think we can safely say how much we sympathise with the victim and her family. Knife crime is a scourge, and I believe there are many different solutions, but one of them unquestionably is allowing the police to do more stop and search and making sure we have more police out on the street. That is why we have made the massive investments we have, and I hope that those investments will continue. I am sure that they will.
Rape and serious sexual offences—offences particularly against women—are a matter that is incredibly important to the whole House, and they are something we have worked on very hard over the past three years. We have done everything we can; not only have we introduced more streetlights, but we have invested more in independent sexual violence advisers and domestic violence advisers and all the people we need to give victims the confidence they need to get cases to trial, which is such a problem. In addition to putting more police out on the streets and specialist units to tackle—[Interruption.] Yes, we have. We have also introduced tougher sentences for rape and serious sexual violence. I have to say I am amazed that it is still the case that the party of the Leader of the Opposition voted against those tougher sentences. That was a great mistake, and I think they should take it back.
Mr Speaker
Order. At the start of Prime Minister’s questions, the hon. Members for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) persistently denied the authority of the Chair. In their absence, I wish to proceed to name them, and I call on the Leader of the House to move the relevant motion.
Kenny MacAskill, Member for East Lothian, and Neale Hanvey, Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, were named by the Speaker for wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair (Standing Order No. 44).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44), That Kenny MacAskill and Neale Hanvey be suspended from the service of the House.—(Mark Spencer.)
Question agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise a point of order relevant to his question to the Prime Minister.
Sir Mike Penning
As a former Minister, I am very aware of the information that is given to Ministers and Prime Ministers when they are going to be answering questions, especially when they are pre-informed of a question. The information the Prime Minister was given was that my hospitals trust had looked at all options for the decision on a new hospital in my part of the world. That is not correct, and I want to put it on the record that the Prime Minister has been misled by my trust. It is not the Prime Minister’s fault that he had that information.
Mr Speaker
I am not going to carry on the debate raised in the question, but the right hon. Gentleman has certainly put the matter on the record. I am sure that the trust will be hearing of it as he sits down.
Ambulance Services and National Heatwave Emergency
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on ambulance services and the declaration of a national heatwave emergency.
The Minister of State, Department for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Our ambulance service performs heroics every single day, and I put on the record my thanks to every single one of its staff for their dedication and hard work. We have a duty to support this vital service and give it the resources it needs.
The latest figures from the NHS in England show that ambulance service response time performance has improved month on month, and that ambulance hours lost are also improving month on month. However, we fully acknowledge the rising pressures facing the service, and there are three significant factors influencing the situation. First, bed occupancy is currently around 93%, which we would normally see during winter. Secondly, there are high rates of hospital covid admissions—whether “with covid” or “because of covid”—and that puts pressure on A&Es’ ability to admit patients. Thirdly, void beds are running at roughly 1,200, partly due to a 16% increase in the length of stays. Delayed discharges are another significant influence, but they remain flat. We also have record numbers of calls to the ambulance service—100,000 more compared with May last year. There is therefore significant pressure on the system.
We also have to be mindful of the weather in the coming days. We do have a heatwave plan for England, which was published earlier this year—I am sure the hon. Gentleman has read it—and we also have the hot weather plans that NHS trusts have put in place. In addition, we are providing sector-specific guidance setting out the best way to protect people who may be at risk. We are also supporting the service more widely to make sure it has the resilience it needs. We have allocated £150 million of extra funding for the ambulance service this year, and we are boosting the workforce too. The number of national 999 call handlers had risen to nearly 2,300 at the start of June, which is a considerable increase on the previous September, and we are on track to train 3,000 paramedic graduates a year nationally every year until 2024. On top of this, we have invested £50 million in NHS 111 to help give extra capacity to the service.
I will be meeting all 11 ambulance trusts over the coming days to make sure that they have the capacity and the resilience they need not just to deal with the pressures now, including with the warm weather, but to prepare for the forthcoming winter pressures that we know are inevitable. This is an important issue that I take extremely seriously, and I will keep the House updated as the situation develops.
Wes Streeting
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, but what a disgrace that the Secretary of State is not here. Our NHS is going through the biggest crisis in its history, every ambulance service is on the highest level of alert, patients are forced to wait hours in pain and discomfort, and he is yet to say a word about any of it. The Home Secretary was not at the Home Affairs Committee this morning, and the Health and Social Care Secretary is not here this afternoon. This is not even a Government in office, let alone in power.
One person who is still in office, however, is the Minister. Her boss resigned saying he could not put loyalty above integrity any longer. Well, the Minister obviously made a different choice. Can she say whether any further meetings of Cobra are scheduled beyond the meeting held on Monday? As we saw during the pandemic, public health emergencies require clear communication from Government. Can she tell the House what the consequences of a national heatwave emergency would be for schools, public transport services and other public services, and what guidance will be provided to the general public? What assessment has she made of the suitability of care homes to protect residents from the extreme heat, and what contingencies are in place should further measures be necessary?
Every ambulance service is now on the highest level of alert, so what is the Secretary of State doing about it? The Minister talks about targeted help for ambulance services—she is going to be hitting the phones this week; presumably the Secretary of State is too busy—but, as I think she acknowledged, this is a crisis across the health service. Last month, a crew in the west midlands waited 26 hours outside A&E because clinical staff were not available to hand over to. What are the Government doing to provide additional support to A&Es during this heatwave? These pressures are not new. Average waiting times for stroke and heart attack victims are one hour. Patients in the north-east were told to phone a friend or call a cab rather than rely on emergency services. Is it not the case that, although extreme weather is of course putting further pressure on our emergency services, it is 12 years of Conservative underfunding that has left them unable to cope?
In conclusion, if people such as the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary cannot be bothered to turn up to do their jobs and are not interested in the business of running this country because they are too busy making endorsements for fantasy candidates with far-fetched promises, perhaps it is time they step aside so that Labour can give Britain the fresh start it needs.
Maria Caulfield
Can I say how disappointed I am at the shadow Secretary of State’s response? If he is not happy that a female Minister with over 20 years’ experience in the NHS is able to answer a question on NHS waiting times, I find that very disappointing.
As I said in the debate a few weeks ago, I do not want to bring politics into health because I think it is too important, but if the shadow Secretary of State wants to play politics, I will give him politics. If we look at Wales, where Labour runs the NHS service, we see that the ambulance service and A&E departments are facing exactly the same pressures. Only 51% of red calls in Wales are being seen in eight minutes; the target is 65%. If he looks at the call time for strokes, he will see that only 17% of those people are being seen in time. Those numbers are falling month on month, whereas in England our responses are improving month on month. On the four-hour wait in A&E in Wales, 34.9% of people have been seen within four hours.
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he stood at the Dispatch Box just now and said that Labour would do better. It is not doing better in Labour-run Wales; it actually has either similar response times or worse response times.
I have set out a plan. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not read the heatwave plan for England, which was published earlier this year, because he would have the answers there. We are making sure that all NHS trusts are prepared. I am happy to work with each and every Member across this House to make sure that the ambulance service, our A&Es and hospital trusts have the support that they need, but if all he wants to do is play politics, I think that is extremely sad.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Would the Minister like to put on record her thanks to all the hard-working ambulance crews of the West Midlands Ambulance Service, particularly those working throughout the county of Shropshire? Does she agree with me that this is not just about ambulances, but about local authorities—in my case, Shropshire Council and the borough of Telford and Wrekin—working alongside acute trusts such as the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust? A collective effort is required, not a single effort by a single ambulance service.
Maria Caulfield
I thank my right hon. Friend, who is absolutely right, because a number of factors are influencing the wait times at A&E. While delayed discharges are not increasing, there are still a significant number of them, which means that the NHS and local authorities have to be working together. That is why we have created the integrated care boards, which Opposition Members voted against, to better co-ordinate care between health and social care so that we can have better systems in place to discharge patients sooner. As I have said, we have 1,200 void beds, which is either due to infection control measures because of covid rates increasing or because patients cannot be discharged. I will be meeting every single ICB in the coming days, because as part of our winter preparation, we need to improve co-ordination in those areas.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Last October, I revealed through a parliamentary written question that every ambulance service in England was at the highest alert level. We are now nine months on, and we are in that situation again. We are facing warnings of extreme weather this weekend. The Government need to reinstate the funding for discharge packages into social care homes. We need primary care to be used to stabilise people in communities, and we must be using first responders from the fire service. Will the Minister agree to convene an urgent meeting of Cobra today to protect patients and paramedics, who are really operating at the brink?
Maria Caulfield
I say to the hon. Lady that we have put additional investment this year—over £150 million of extra funding—into ambulance services to help them meet demand, because they do have significant demand. The rates we are seeing at this time of year are the sorts of rates we would normally see in winter, and we are doing exactly as we would then. We have our heatwave plan, which was published earlier this year, and we are confident that we are working with all NHS trusts, and all the ambulance trusts too, to make sure they have the support they need. Can I gently say to her that this is not just about funding? This is about bringing care together to ensure that hospital beds are freed up so that when ambulances arrive at A&E they can unload their patients. As I said to the shadow Secretary of State—I am not sure if he is going to take me up on this—I am happy to work with every single Member across this House to make sure that we support our emergency services.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I welcome the reassurance the Minister has provided regarding capacity and resilience planning over the coming weeks. A&E services at Blackpool Victoria Hospital have been under significant pressure of late, and the planned £15 million Government-funded improvements to increase capacity there frankly cannot come soon enough. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the progress of these plans to ensure that patients can see the benefits as soon as possible?
Maria Caulfield
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been campaigning vigorously for better healthcare provision in his local area. I am very happy to meet him to discuss those plans, and I recognise that there is an urgency about that. I can reassure him that six areas of the country account for about a third of the handover delays, and we are specifically focusing our efforts on them. This is about relieving the pressures in the system, whether through more capacity at A&E so that patients can be seen more quickly once they arrive by ambulance, or support for the ambulance service itself. I am very happy to meet him to discuss the problems in his local area.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Despite the promises and assurances that the Minister set out in the heatwave plan and in her response, I am very disappointed that previous promises made in the House by the Minister, that she would speak with North East Ambulance Service whistleblower Paul Calvert, my constituent, have not been honoured. If Ministers will not engage with those who identify ongoing problems and learn lessons to fix our failing ambulance service, how can we expect the ambulance service to respond to an acute crisis such as the current heatwave?
Maria Caulfield
The North East Ambulance Service is one of three areas of concern in terms of performance. I reassure the hon. Member that I have met the families, and offered other families a meeting, to discuss the matter. In relation to his constituent, there is a tribunal ongoing. It is difficult for me to meet him while that is ongoing. Once that is over, however, I would be happy to meet his constituent to discuss the issues that he raised as a whistleblower.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that the chances of recovery for those who suffer a stroke are greatly improved if they get specialist care within the first half hour, 45 minutes or so. So will she do everything she can to address administrative blockages and other delays, to ensure that people get the chance of life-saving treatment at the earliest possible stage?
Maria Caulfield
Yes, and I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point. Different response times are required, depending on the reason for the call. Strokes would be a C2 emergency, for which the target is 18 minutes. The latest figures we have are from May, when we were performing better than in April. The figures are not where we want them to be, but we are seeing month-on-month improvements. For C1 and C2 cases, which need urgent treatment as soon as possible, particularly for strokes, every minute counts and we want to see further improvements in those times.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
The Manchester Evening News is reporting that the North West Ambulance Service has raised its operational pressure level to “critical incident” level, which indicates a potential for failures as ambulance services try to cope with extreme pressure. A&E departments at the Royal Bolton and Stepping Hill Hospitals have admitted that they are extremely busy, with long queues of ambulances at some times. The Minister did not even mention social care in her response, which we know is so broken that it adds to delays and discharges. Twelve years of Conservative mismanagement and neglect have left those services, on which my constituents rely, so vulnerable. What does the Minister have to say to the patients suffering as a result?
Maria Caulfield
I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not hear my response. I specifically mentioned social care as well as the integrated care boards that we have set up to bring health and social care together—I think Labour Members voted against that. As I said, one factor affecting ambulance delays is the bed occupancy issue. Part of that—not all of it—is about delayed discharges and lengths of stay are 16% higher. We have a plan for fixing social care and it is unfortunate that Labour Members voted against it.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Cheltenham General Hospital’s A&E was saved from a trust plan to close it, thanks to the fantastic support of more than 20,000 of my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addressing the enormous challenge of the demands we face, capacity is important as well as flow through the system? In the light of that demand, the decision of the trust, and indeed the Government, to keep Cheltenham’s A&E open has been vindicated.
Maria Caulfield
I am pleased that my hon. and learned Friend is already seeing the benefits of the A&E in Cheltenham staying open. He is very modest—I am sure he played a significant part in ensuring that it stayed open. This is absolutely about capacity and there is no magic bullet that will make the pressures on the ambulance and emergency services any easier. This is multi-faceted and capacity at A&E is crucial. I am meeting the ambulance trusts to find out where good practice is making a difference, so we can help to share that across the country.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
In June, a 59-year-old man collapsed in the west midlands, going into cardiac arrest. Neighbours called an ambulance, but it took 90 minutes for one to arrive—six times longer than it should have taken. Sadly, the man soon passed away. We see this time and again across my region, where ambulance waiting times are among the worst in the country. When will the Government provide the much needed extra support to stop horrific incidents such as that reoccurring?
Maria Caulfield
I am sorry to hear about the sad death of the hon. Member’s constituent. Her region is one of the six areas that have the worst handover times and at which we are targeting support. I would be happy to meet her and update her on the specific support that we are offering her region.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
When discussing ambulance response and waiting times, the Minister kept using the phrase “month-on-month” improvements. Can she specify which months? She will know that it depends on which month you choose as your baseline—if it was the worst month in recorded history, it is not difficult to show month-on-month improvements.
Maria Caulfield
When we look at our figures, of course we look month on month, but we also compare them with previous years. As I said in my opening remarks, we are seeing an increase in calls—over 100,000 more compared with May 2019. The hon. Member shakes his head, but those are the facts. We are comparing month on month, and comparing with previous years. We are seeing an improvement in response times and in the amount of ambulance hours lost to ambulances queuing at A and E.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Of the 22,000 people who visited Newcastle’s Royal Victoria Infirmary A&E in May, 13%—more than 3,000 people—faced a wait of more than four hours. In the last month, people were facing waits of seven hours, and constituents with rapid heart fluctuations were told that they faced a wait of 11 hours for an ambulance and that they needed to get a cab. Is not it negligent of the hon. Lady’s Government to leave our NHS unable to protect my constituents, particularly facing a heatwave, and what is she going to do to ensure that they have the resources necessary?
Maria Caulfield
As I explained in answer to the shadow Secretary of State, these are problems facing all devolved nations. I highlighted the four-hour waits in Wales, but in Scotland there are similar pressures—in Ayrshire there is a three-hour wait. These problems are not specific to any one Government. I have set out what we are doing to help all ambulance trusts and regions of the country. We have put in funding to support the ambulance service and to support NHS 111 to try to take some pressure off the ambulance service. We are looking at the novel approaches that in some parts of the country are working well—whether that is having GPs in A&E to try to take pressure off people who are waiting a long time, or having paramedics in GP surgeries. Whatever works we will look at, to help to take pressure off the system.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Rochdale is especially vulnerable because its A&E was closed many years ago. It means people are dependent on an ambulance service that is not in crisis because of the heatwave; it has been in crisis for some considerable time. We do not need blandishments. Why does it take a crisis for the Minister to come before the House to explain what has not yet happened?
Maria Caulfield
We are not waiting for a crisis. I have set out the funding that we have put in place this year—£150 million extra funding for the ambulance service—and highlighted how we are boosting the workforce. In case the hon. Gentleman did not hear my opening remarks, there were nearly 2,300 more 999 call handlers at the start of June, and we have invested £50 million in NHS 111 capacity, to help us reduce demand. We have been doing this. There will be pressures on the ambulance service and our emergency services at times. We saw that with covid and the heatwave this week will put pressure on the NHS. There will also be pressures in winter. Opposition Members may think there is some magical way to avoid pressures, but there is not. We need to provide resources and capacity to ensure that the service can meet that demand.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Further to the question about strokes, as we know, every minute counts. The Minister just told the House that in not every case is the ambulance response meeting the 18-minute time that she said is the target. Given that, what advice would she give to members of the public who think that a loved one has had a stroke? Should they ring 999 and hope that the ambulance will turn up within the 18 minutes? If not, should they put the person in a car or taxi and take them to A&E? When they arrive at A&E and say, “I think my loved one has had a stroke”, what confidence might they have that they will be seen quickly, given that time is of the essence?
Maria Caulfield
As someone who has suffered a stroke myself, I am very aware of the urgency of seeing stroke patients on time. I am not going to give clinical advice at the Dispatch Box. It is important that, if a person suspects a stroke is occurring, they dial 999 immediately. The ambulance callers will normally stay on the line with that person, advise them on what to do, depending on their symptoms, and get an ambulance to them as quickly as possible. Once they arrive in hospital, if a stroke is suspected, they will be seen immediately—we are not seeing reports of stroke patients being delayed once they are in hospital. It is crucial that those patients are seen urgently, and the advice is to dial 999 and clinical advice will be given to them over the phone.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The West Midlands Ambulance Service says that it has been at resource escalation action plan 4—the highest level of alert—for several months now, which is almost unprecedented. Has the new Secretary of State spoken to the chief ambulance officer for the west midlands yet about that terrible situation?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: ambulance trusts are under record pressures, the sorts of pressures that we would normally expect in winter. We are seeing them in the summer months, which is usually their down time, a fact that is extremely concerning for the months ahead as we head into winter.
As I said, I will meet all 11 ambulance trusts over the coming days. In the first few days of his appointment, the Secretary of State has already been out with ambulance crews to hear from them directly about the pressures they are facing. I hope the hon. Gentleman is reassured that we are both taking the issue extremely seriously.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
This is a situation that my constituents are desperately worried about. We know that ambulance waiting times were not being met before the pandemic, so this problem has a long background to it, as the Minister knows. We also know that there has been a crisis in A&E waiting times, and in my own hospital of Arrowe Park—a hospital in my constituency—in May this year, almost half of patients had to wait more than four hours.
Given that this problem has been a long time in the making, that the Government have known about it, and that one senior leader in the north of the country who does not want to be named has described the situation as “dire” for staff and patients, can the Minister tell us what the Government are going to do as a matter of urgency to sort it? My constituents are desperately worried about this issue. I have constituents who have lost people because of—well, we cannot say “because of”, but in circumstances that have involved very long ambulance waits, so this issue could not be more important to them. I would like an answer about what the Government are going to do urgently.
Maria Caulfield
There are two aspects to that question. In terms of urgency, we have procured a contract with a total value of £30 million for an auxiliary ambulance service, which will provide national surge capacity if needed to support the ambulance response during periods of increased pressure. That capacity is there, should we need it.
The hon. Lady also talked about long-term plans. We have been investing in the ambulance service since 2010. I talked about the extra paramedics: we are training 3,000 graduates every year to 2024 in order to increase our capacity. We have also made significant investments in the workforce, with an almost 40% increase since February 2010, so we are improving. Sometimes, those changes take time to come through, but we are investing in the workforce, providing more funding and training more paramedics, and we also have an auxiliary ambulance service procured should we need it.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
“24 Hours in A&E” used to be a reality TV programme; now, it is Government policy. Can the Minister tell me why this Government have presided over a watering down of standards that will see the zero tolerance for 12-hour waits in A&E and the 30-minute standard for ambulance handover delays scrapped?
Maria Caulfield
The reason I am standing at this Dispatch Box is my experience of working as a nurse in A&E under the last Labour Government. I believe it was them who introduced the four-hour target. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Lady want to listen to my response? Those targets looked good on paper, but were very often just driven as tick-box exercises.
I used to look after patients. I remember an elderly gentleman who was waiting for over four hours on a hospital corridor when I was a nurse under the last Labour Government. He was lying there on his trolley, wanting to go to the toilet, and all we could do was wheel a curtain around him on a busy hospital corridor so that he could do so. That was the experience under the last Labour Government, so I will not take any lectures from Opposition Members about performance.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I urge the Minister to consider the position again, and consider declaring an emergency. I especially want to draw her attention to issues in the South Central Ambulance Service area, where there are long-standing, severe pressures, particularly around recruitment and retention of staff—linked to the high cost of living in central and southern England—and areas of very high house prices where NHS staff pay has not kept up with the local labour market. In particular, I draw her attention to the additional enormous pressure of the heatwave in the south of England and London, where temperatures are particularly high. I hope she will look at this issue on a national basis, but also consider the particular problems that exist in our parts of England.
Maria Caulfield
I have set out to hon. Members the work we are doing to increase capacity in the ambulance service, including £150 million in funding, training more paramedics, and increasing the workforce by 40%. We published the heatwave plan for England earlier this year—the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), was not sure whether he had read it, but I urge all Members to do so. We are watching this issue on a daily basis. It is not just about the heatwave; it is about covid pressures, enabling hospitals to discharge patients, the winter pressures that will come later this year, and making sure we have resilience in the system.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I have heard from one of my constituents who suffered a stroke and was left to wait for nearly two hours for an ambulance, and is now severely disabled. That issue is being seen repeatedly across the country, so can the Minister tell me what she is doing now, urgently, to make sure that when my constituents in Durham need an ambulance urgently, they get one? The plans she has outlined and the investment she has spoken about are obviously not good enough.
Maria Caulfield
We are working urgently on this issue—as, I am sure, are the health services in Wales and Scotland, which are facing the same problems. We are all working hard to address them. As I have said, we have procured a contract with a value of £30 million for an auxiliary ambulance service to increase capacity, should we need it. I will be meeting all ambulance trusts in the coming days to make sure we have the resilience we need, not just to catch up with some of the pressures that existed before covid or to deal with the pressures that those trusts are facing now, but to future-proof them for the coming winter months.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Joyce, a 96-year-old survivor of the Coventry blitz, sadly fell in her care home back in April, and lay in agony screaming for 10 hours. At the time of the 999 call, there were 63 people awaiting ambulances, and on that day, over 1,100 hours were lost due to hospital handover delays. Clearly, a major factor in those delays is the handover capacity in our A&E services and in wards. The Government have had 12 years to sort out the issue of social care, so does the Minister support the calls from various leadership candidates to make tax cuts and remove the national insurance increase that was supposed to support social care?
Maria Caulfield
I am not sure whether that means the hon. Gentleman is now supportive of the social care levy, which is there to pay for improvements to social care. This Government are making those changes and bringing forward the integrated care boards that are bringing health and social care together to deliver on those delayed discharges. I have been very honest: delayed discharges are having an impact on bed capacity and a knock-on effect on our ambulance services. If the hon. Gentleman has changed his mind and now supports the social care levy, I welcome that news.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
With the greatest of respect to the Minister, I cannot fathom why the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is not at the Dispatch Box when we are facing such a perfect storm. Given that the Home Secretary failed to turn up to the Select Committee on Home Affairs this morning, may I ask the Minister whether this is the Government’s new approach: that members of the Cabinet no longer turn up to be accountable and so that scrutiny can happen in this House?
Maria Caulfield
I can reassure the right hon. Lady that I am the Minister responsible for ambulances, which is why I am standing here at the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State has been out on visits this morning, meeting clinical teams; it is important that he hears at first hand from those who are on the frontline. I got into politics to make sure that those of us who work on the frontline—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady rolls her eyes; maybe she does not have much respect for those of us who worked on the frontline. We are dealing with this situation, and will be supporting the ambulance service over the coming months. The right hon. Lady’s response is extremely disappointing.
Mr Speaker
I granted the urgent question because the shadow Secretary of State tabled it and normally we would expect a Secretary of State to come. I recognise that they may be busy in other areas, but it is something we ought to be aware of. More and more, we are seeing fewer Secretaries of State across all Departments, not just this one.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Last Friday, I passed by Royal Shrewsbury Hospital. It is in a neighbouring constituency, but it serves my constituents. It was not a particularly bad day, but there were eight ambulances with their doors open in the heat, waiting to transfer patients. This is not a new situation and I have repeatedly raised the issue in this place: on my first day in Parliament with the Prime Minister; with the Secretary of State for Health in an Adjournment debate; and in a Westminster Hall debate with the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar). All those people have now resigned. Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital Trust has declared its fifth critical incident this year. When will the Government end the chaos and infighting, and start taking steps to prevent avoidable deaths in Shropshire and across the country?
Maria Caulfield
I can reassure the hon. Lady that the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) has been working very hard behind the scenes to get more investment into that local hospital. We will be making announcements shortly on future funding for hospital trusts.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister and the Government were able to respond to the covid-19 pandemic and showed that resources could be made available. Can I ask the Minister this question in a positive fashion? Is it possible to use some of the very successful covid-resourced helplines for people to contact to provide short-term advice on heat-related issues, rather than perhaps ringing, as they often do, the GP out of hours? What else can the Minister’s Department do to take pressure off A&E and out-of-hours GP surgeries?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman makes a very constructive suggestion—one of the first of the afternoon, if I may say so. There were lessons during covid that are being rolled out across emergency services. We are looking at best practice in those parts of the country where response times are better to see if we can share it. I am very keen to look at any option that relieves the pressure. We are investing in 111, which enables people to have alternative ways of getting urgent care directed to them. We are looking at 111 being able to make direct referrals as well, so there are a number of options. I am happy to take suggestions from any hon. Member if they are keen to see those happening in practice.
Mr Speaker
You have tempted me and I should not really, but it would be very helpful if you reopened Chorley A&E for 24 hours rather than 12 hours. It would reduce the number of ambulances queueing at Preston and Wigan, and we would have more ambulances on the road.
Sri Lanka
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
(Urgent Question) To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the state of emergency declared in Sri Lanka.
The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)
We are closely monitoring the fast-moving and fluid political, economic and security situation in Sri Lanka. The Minister of State with responsibility for south Asia, Lord Ahmad, has engaged directly with our high commissioner and team on the ground. We encourage all sides to find a peaceful, democratic and inclusive approach to resolving the current political and economic challenges. Sri Lanka’s political and economic challenges should be resolved through an inclusive and cross-party process. Any transition of power should be peaceful, constitutional and democratic. I call on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from violence.
Siobhain McDonagh
A state of emergency has been declared in Sri Lanka by Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe after President Rajapaksa fled the country last night. That follows weeks of protests on the island, with inflation running at more than 50%, rocketing the price of everyday goods. The health system is on the verge of collapse due to a lack of medicine. There is no fuel for essential transport services and medical vehicles. There have been power cuts, school closures and we woke this morning to protestors overtaking the Prime Minister’s office, tear gas fired by police, a curfew imposed on the capital and the national TV broadcast suspended.
This is a crisis in democracy decades in the making. The world turned away when the Rajapaksa Government cluster bombed their own people committing genocide, murdered their journalists and enriched a small group led by one family. Their malign, dynastic control has stripped the country bare, leaving behind a broken nation on the brink of economic collapse. Sri Lanka is unable to buy essential goods from abroad and for the first time in its history it failed to make a payment on its foreign debt, a consequence of swingeing populist tax cuts at a time of economic instability—Tory leadership candidates beware.
An International Monetary Fund bailout is essential, but does the Minister agree that any financial assistance must go hand in hand with democratic and human rights reforms, in particular for the Tamil community which continues to fight for truth, justice and accountability as a result of the human rights abuses perpetrated at the end of the civil war by the outgoing Rajapaksa regime?
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. As I say, we have been monitoring this very fast-moving and fluid political, economic and security situation. As she did, we urge a peaceful and democratic transition in line with the constitution and the rule of law. The Minister with responsibility for south Asia has been thoroughly engaged with the team on the ground in the high commission. I stress that he visited Sri Lanka earlier this year and met a range of civil society groups specifically to discuss the human rights situation. At that time, he met Ministers, including the President and the Foreign Minister, and urged them to take steps to improve human rights, and to deliver justice and accountability following the conflict. I reassure the House that we are closely monitoring the situation on the ground, which is very fast moving and fluid.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I find it a pity that some people are seeking to use this urgent question to criticise the current Government in Sri Lanka. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) can chunter from a sedentary position, but the elephant in the room is not the governance of Sri Lanka; it is the decision in 2019 to become an organic country within 10 years. That has led to food shortages and overseas remittances not being returned. The problem in Sri Lanka is that there is no food for people to eat. The UK Government need to assist Sri Lanka and agencies to ensure that food, fuel and other supplies are provided. We need to come to a Commonwealth country in its time of great crisis, not make silly political statements.
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. As I say, we are monitoring the situation very closely. In answer to one of the points both he and the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made, economic support from the UK is forthcoming through multilateral institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. The UK is the joint fifth-largest shareholder in the IMF and is a major contributor to the UN and the World Bank.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the urgent question on this emerging situation, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who is a longstanding and consistent friend of Sri Lanka.
As we speak, Sri Lanka is convulsed by political and economic crisis. Months of mounting economic difficulties and political mismanagement have led to a chronic shortage of basic goods and medicines, and large numbers of people on the streets demanding systemic change to the political system. Reports now indicate that President Rajapaksa has fled to the Maldives in a military jet, rather than resigning and facing the consequences, leaving the country in political paralysis and the announcement of a state of emergency.
I sincerely hope that a new Government with popular support can be swiftly formed. From past evidence, we know that the Sri Lankan people have experienced extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses. The fear is that the chaos and the latest announcement may lead to increases in community tensions, reprisals or further examples of human rights abuses. It is a member of the Commonwealth family and that would be completely unacceptable. I am unimpressed by the Minister’s response to date and by the fact that, although this urgent question was tabled for her boss, the Foreign Secretary, we instead have a response from another Minister—a pattern that is emerging in Parliament this week. It is clear that the Sri Lankan people will need our help quickly—not only in the days and weeks ahead as they grapple with chronic shortages and political instability, but in the months and years beyond—to secure a brighter and more stable future.
I have two brief questions. First, the Minister will know that I wrote to her on 29 June asking for a response to the emerging situation. This is not new—it has been bubbling away for two or three weeks—and yet I have not had a response to my inquiry. Will she give the House the courtesy of a reply and confirm that, on her return to the office, she will have officers draft a response that reflects the updated situation overnight?
Secondly, will the Minister outline the more immediate support offered to Sri Lanka, the engagement with partners in the region, including India, and whether the Government will now redouble their efforts to bring to justice those implicated in human rights abuses in Sri Lanka? We have this unique opportunity not only to support an ally, a friend and a member of the Commonwealth during their time of need, but to help to bring peace, justice and a brighter and more sustainable future to the Sri Lankan people.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind Members—I have said this before—that if they go over time, I will cut them off. Please stick to the allocated time. We grant urgent questions on those grounds.
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box to answer this question. Frankly, I answer many questions on behalf of the Foreign Office, so it is not very unusual to find me at the Dispatch Box for an urgent question.
I am more than happy to respond to the hon. Lady’s letter after the debate. I will not go over many of the things that I have said before. I will say that there are a number of stories relating to the situation on the ground, and I do not want to speculate. The situation is fast-moving and fluid, and we are monitoring it very closely. The Minister responsible for South Asia, Lord Ahmad, has been working very closely on this matter and does raise human rights issues.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Clearly, the dire economic situation forced by ex-President Rajapaksa and his outfit lies at the heart of what is going on in Sri Lanka. Given Sri Lanka’s indebtedness to China and the prospect of cheap fuel from Russia, does the Minister agree that the risk is that Sri Lanka stands every chance of falling within the maw of malign jurisdictions? Will she therefore do everything in her power to ensure that the International Monetary Fund is engaged to try to sort this out, particularly given that part of the issue would appear to be uncosted, unfunded, populist and inflationary tax cuts from 2019 that I am sure the IMF will take a very severe view of?
Amanda Milling
I reassure my right hon. Friend that UK economic support is forthcoming through multilateral institutions such as the IMF.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the SNP spokesperson.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Sri Lanka is a wonderful place with wonderful people, and I am sure that all our hearts go out to them during this terrible crisis, which, as Members have said, has been a long time in the making. A concerted international effort is needed to get through the immediate humanitarian crisis. The UN humanitarian needs and priorities plan has called for $47.2 million in short-term emergency aid. I appreciate that the Minister might not give us a number today, but will she confirm that the UK will contribute to that?
The President has fled, but he cannot flee accountability. Does the Minister agree that the President and all his officials who are complicit in acts of humanitarian abuses will and must be held accountable, and will the UK contribute to those efforts?
On the wider point, this situation was triggered by economics, as we have heard, with inflation at 54% last month and likely to be 70% this month. That is a terrible cost of living crisis for ordinary Sri Lankans, and it was triggered in part by unmanageable debt. The UK is in an important position in the IMF and the World Bank. This does not just apply to Sri Lanka; I fear that other countries are having trouble with unmanageable debt. What talks has the Minister had on that?
Amanda Milling
On humanitarian support, I reassure the hon. Member that we remain very concerned about the impact of the economic and political situation on the humanitarian crisis. We are working with the United Nations and its agencies in co-ordinating their humanitarian needs and priorities plan.
On accountability, as Sri Lanka enters a new political settlement, the UK will maintain its advocacy of the importance of justice and accountability for alleged war crimes and human rights violations during the war. That remains crucial to building on peacebuilding efforts, supported through the United Nations Human Rights Council process, and for social cohesion.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this urgent question. I agree that this horrible, appalling situation for the people of Sri Lanka has been brought about by the corruption of the Rajapaksa Government, their populist, unfunded tax cuts, their sky-rocketing defence expenditure, their draconian police powers and their cronyism and corruption, the likes of which we have rarely seen. I therefore urge the Minister to work with international partners for a full economic and political solution to support the democrats in Sri Lanka. Can that start with an economic package, with the IMF and others, so that we can give immediate support, and can that be followed by a political package that includes an international arrest warrant for President Rajapaksa and his cronies? Can that also include a demand for political freedom and respect for the rights and human rights of everyone on the island of Sri Lanka, including the Tamil and Muslim minorities?
Amanda Milling
I reiterate that the political and economic challenges should be resolved through an inclusive and cross-party process. We encourage all sides to find a peaceful, democratic and inclusive approach, and we work with our international partners on this matter. I have set out the economic support that we have provided through multilateral institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the UN.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
There is a large diaspora of Sri Lankan people who live here and who are desperately worried about their family back in Sri Lanka. The Minister has made no mention of the Prime Minister’s involvement. At the end of this urgent question, will she ask the Prime Minister to pick up the phone to the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka and ask him to stop firing at innocent people?
Amanda Milling
I completely understand the point that the right hon. Lady is making about the fact that there is a diaspora here who are concerned about their families. I reassure the House that the Minister responsible for South Asia, Lord Ahmad, is in regular dialogue with the high commission and the team on the ground in order to keep an up-to-date view of the situation, which, after all, is incredibly fluid and fast-moving.
Sir Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
When David Cameron was Prime Minister, he visited Sri Lanka in 2013. After that, the UK, with Sri Lanka, jointly moved a resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council setting out a mechanism for resolving the legacy of the issues that we have heard about. Sri Lanka has largely ignored its obligations under that resolution since then, and it has not even paid lip service to them in the past three years. Will it be a requirement of the medium-term support that will be needed for Sri Lanka that it comes back into compliance with its obligations under the decisions of the UNHRC?
Amanda Milling
Through our leadership in the UN Human Rights Council process, we have been encouraging Sri Lanka to respect democratic and international human rights standards as it makes its political transition. In March this year, the UK Government and our core group of partners led an ambitious new resolution on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Thousands of Tamils in my constituency are deeply concerned. They look back to 2013, when the coalition Government supported the move to hold the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka; and they look back to the measures that the UK Government took, as part of the European Union, to reinstate the generalised scheme of preferences plus, and to give trade preferences back to Sri Lanka. The Opposition advised against it all at the time, saying that the Government in Sri Lanka were no more than a kleptocracy. That has now been proven. The Minister needs to outline the measures that she will take to support a new, strong, inclusive and democratic Government in that state.
Amanda Milling
I think I have been clear throughout that we encourage all sides to find that peaceful, democratic and inclusive approach to resolving the situation. I stress to the House that the Minister for South Asia has been doing exactly that. He has been calling for that approach, but also engaging on the ground with the high commission and through all his ministerial contacts.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you, and indeed the Minister, would agree that dismissing any woman’s urgent question in this House as “silly” is disrespectful to the subject matter in hand, because we all recognise how serious the situation is.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Member may chunter from a sedentary position, but the women are talking now. We are talking about human rights because many of us recognise that, as the United Nations has told us, potentially more than 100,000 Tamils were killed during the 26-year genocide. The Minister will know that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has been investigating the matter. Further to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) asked, there is due to be a report and further criticism after the resolution at the United Nations. Can the Minister tell us whether she has had any talks with the United Nations about whether the timetable will vary? When might our constituents finally see justice for the Tamil communities?
Amanda Milling
Given the situation on the ground, it is a very serious matter. We are seeing deeply concerning scenes, so I am more than happy to be at the Dispatch Box answering this question. As I have said throughout, we are concerned about the human rights environment in Sri Lanka. Our concerns are wide-ranging, from the harassment of civil society groups to the range of civilian functions being brought under military control, the increased anti-Muslim sentiment and the reversal of progress on post-conflict accountability and reconciliation. I reassure the House that we lead the way with the UNHRC process and that we encourage Sri Lanka to respect democratic and international human rights standards.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
As we have heard today, Sri Lanka is a Commonwealth country, and there are very deep community ties to many towns and cities across the UK; I pay tribute to the local Sri Lankan community in Berkshire. The Minister has committed to writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). In her response, will she set out, in some detail, what the UK will do to support the IMF process; the bilateral aid of any type that we can offer; and our action on potential human rights matters?
Amanda Milling
I will, of course, write to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) after this urgent question. What I would say is that we are well within the timeframe for responding to the letter itself.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The human rights abuses of the Sri Lankan police force have been well documented. It has been clear from their response to the widespread protests that their unacceptable treatment of people in Sri Lanka, particularly the Tamil community, and their draconian powers have been a key contributor to the current unrest. The UK Government have been funding police training in Sri Lanka, despite clear evidence of these abuses. Can the Minister confirm whether the police and security forces involved in the response to the protests have received funding from the UK Government? Will she commit to ending that funding as soon as possible?
Amanda Milling
The UK’s police training in Sri Lanka has focused on the role of women in the police service and on improving responses to sexual and gender-based violence. Police Scotland has confirmed that it will not seek to participate in any future programmes in Sri Lanka.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the UK Government must play a role in the peaceful transition to a democratically elected Government in Sri Lanka who are inclusive and who allow for the self-determination of all peoples on the island of Sri Lanka? Will the UK Government make representations to the effect that the new Sri Lankan Government must be formed with a new constitution that is pluralist and ensures long-term stability, prosperity and self-determination for all communities on the island? Crucially, once that Government have been formed, they must ratify the Rome statute so that accountability for the mass atrocities and the alleged genocide can finally be agreed.
Amanda Milling
As I have said a number of times, we encourage all sides to find a peaceful, democratic and inclusive approach. We urge that the transition be in line with the constitution and the rule of law.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It has been reported that doctors in Sri Lanka have had to resort to using social media to source critical medicine and equipment. Will the UK Government provide any support for the nation’s medical community to help ensure that Sri Lankans can access urgent medical treatment when it is needed?
Amanda Milling
I would like to reassure the hon. Lady that we are providing humanitarian support for those in Sri Lanka.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her response. What aid can the Government make available to those who rely on tourism for their income and who are now starving? That seems to be the story at the moment. What contact has been made to ascertain whether non-governmental organisations or churches can help? I know of many church groups in my constituency that have the capacity to distribute aid to those who are not involved in the unrest but who are watching their children starve because of what is happening on the streets of Sri Lanka.
Amanda Milling
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Minister for South Asia met a number of civil society groups and NGOs earlier in the year, when he visited Sri Lanka.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
What the Minister may not know is that Tory MP after Tory MP has taken trips funded by the Rajapaksa Government to this very troubled island. As a result, there has always been a striking lack of criticism of the Rajapaksa Government on human rights and governance. I do hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that the Foreign Office had absolutely no involvement at all in the escape of Mr Rajapaksa from Sri Lanka. Can she also reassure the House that if the people of Sri Lanka want him back to face trial for corruption and poor governance, Britain will play its role in helping to get him back from the Maldives?
Amanda Milling
I am really disappointed by the nature of that question. I am here at the Dispatch Box because what we want is a peaceful, democratic and inclusive approach; we talked earlier about people who are worried about their family in Sri Lanka. We have been calling for restraint and for refraining from violence, so I am just not going to accept that question.
Points of Order
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It relates to hon. Members visiting my constituency. Could you please advise me on how I should deal with a breach of protocol, in that I was informed by two hon. Members, the hon. Members for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), that they would be visiting my constituency within a few hours of their visits? I have given notice that I would be making this point of order today.
On 4 February, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills told me, on the day, that she would be visiting Walsall College. On 25 April, I was informed by text. On 1 May, I was informed on the day of her visit that the hon. Member would be in my constituency. On 6 November 2020, 1 January 2021, 11 April 2022 and 1 July 2022, the hon. Member for Walsall North informed me that he would be visiting my constituency on the day in question. Both hon. Members are former Whips and should know the rules.
I should be grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you could confirm that according to the protocol set out in “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons”, advance notice is required of visits to the constituency of another Member. May I also ask you to make a statement to confirm the rule that “advance notice” is not notice given on the day itself?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order, and also for notifying the Members concerned that she intended to raise this matter. The most recent edition of the “courtesies” booklet to which she referred states that if a Member intends to visit the constituency of another Member,
“All reasonable efforts should be taken to notify the other Member”,
although that obviously does not apply to a purely private visit. Not to take such action is considered very discourteous. Although the booklet does not specify a minimum notice period, I agree that receiving notice on the day of a visit does not reflect the intention of the guidance. I think we all know that it is highly unlikely that a visit would be organised on the day, so these visits are very likely to have been arranged beforehand.
I trust the Members concerned, in this instance, to resolve the issue without my assistance, but I am happy to clarify the general point. I would expect all Members to make efforts to respect not just the letter of the guidance but its spirit, and to give notice at least in advance of the day of the visit itself. I hope that this will be passed back through the relevant channels, in all parts of the House, to ensure that it is made very clear to right hon. and hon. Members. I think we will leave it at that.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary was due to meet the Home Affairs Committee this morning—we arranged this in April—for an evidence session on, among other things, the new Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, problems at the Passport Office, small boat crossings in the channel and the Government’s Rwanda policy, and the lack of progress in prosecuting and convicting those who commit rape and other sexual violence against women and girls. Shortly before 5 pm yesterday, the Home Secretary wrote to me to say that she was withdrawing from the evidence session. That is tantamount to providing no notice at all, and it deprives the Committee of the chance to scrutinise the conduct of her Department before the summer recess. We have requested her presence next Wednesday, but as yet have received no response.
The Home Secretary told us that she could not come because of changes in her ministerial team and other “wider unprecedented changes” that had occurred since she had agreed to give evidence. I think that that is a very weak excuse to avoid scrutiny of the Home Office at this time. It was only ever the Home Secretary and the permanent secretary who were to appear before the Committee. In fact, the Home Secretary issued a statement last week in which she said that she had not resigned because the role of Home Secretary demanded that the holder of the office should be
“focused on the business of government and our national security.”
What steps can a Committee of this House take, Madam Deputy Speaker, when a Minister refuses to be scrutinised, and demonstrates such discourtesy to this House?
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Further to that excellent point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will, I am sure, agree that Select Committees play a crucial role in this place in holding the Government to account, and our ability to do so depends on those Committees. We are seeing chaos in the Passport Office, a broken asylum system and an unworkable Rwanda plan. Crime is up, prosecutions are down, and confidence in the police at a record low. Can you please advise us, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what can be done to ensure that the Home Secretary does indeed attend the Select Committee next Wednesday?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, for giving notice of her point of order. I am also grateful to the shadow Home Office Minister.
Mr Speaker has said repeatedly that Select Committee work is important, and that Ministers should do their best to facilitate it through timely appearances at evidence sessions. I share—as, I am sure, does Mr Speaker—the right hon. Lady’s frustration that her Committee’s evidence session has been cancelled at such short notice. I do not know the reasons that the Home Secretary has provided for the cancellation, so I will refrain from saying more now, other than that I hope, and I am sure Mr Speaker would hope, that the Home Secretary will very quickly provide an alternative date that is acceptable to the Committee, and that, again, I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will feed these points back through the relevant channels.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, the Government are at present in caretaker mode pending the election of a new Prime Minister. Is it your view that this caretaker mode extends to the Government’s interaction with Parliament? There are several pieces of potentially problematic—
Madam Deputy Speaker
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go back a bit? I was a little distracted.
Jesse Norman
I am so sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I apologise for my colleagues. Given that the Government are in caretaker mode, may I ask your advice on whether that extends to their interaction with Parliament? A series of potentially contentious pieces of legislation could be laid in the next few days, and I suggest that this may fall outside the remit of strictly attending to business in terms of the Government’s relationships with the House. I seek your clarification and guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have in mind particularly the broadcasting or media Bill that covers the potential privatisation of Channel 4, which is a matter of great interest and some political controversy across the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I gather that a similar point of order was made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
The scheduling of Government business is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Government. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might like to raise this point during business questions tomorrow, which would provide a forum in which he could question the Leader of the House about the points that he has made about what is happening to Government business at the moment.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate on Report of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill on 13 June, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a series of charges about Jesus College Cambridge, which is in my constituency. I have informed the right hon. Member of my intention to raise this point of order.
The College is rightly concerned about the reputational damage that is done when Members of this House make such accusations, particularly when there is little opportunity for those being criticised to defend themselves. It is particularly galling, in that the college had written to the right hon. Member more than a year ago to correct previous misrepresentations. The college insists that intellectual independence is always safeguarded, and points out that the financial contributions in question had in fact been promoted and supported by the then Conservative Government. It is very happy to meet any Member who has concerns, to ensure that these often complex historical situations are properly understood. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how such misrepresentations may be prevented in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order and also for confirming that he told the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that he intended to raise the issue. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Members’ contributions. Also, freedom of speech is essential to our effective functioning and I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that it is important that Members are able to set out their views, even if those views are questioned or opposed. I appreciate that he was keen to put on record his views and the response of the college, and he has obviously done that.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During questions to the Prime Minister the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) inadvertently misled the House over the decision-making process to proceed with redeveloping west Hertfordshire hospitals at St Albans, Hemel Hempstead and Watford General. I have notified the right hon. Member by email and in person of this point of order. Unfortunately, in an earlier point of order he repeated the claim that the trust had not considered all sites when reaching its decision, implying that that was the wrong thing to do.
The right hon. Member might not be aware that the judicial review in October 2020, brought by campaigners who share his view, found that the trust had acted properly and legally when it concluded that developing one of the greenfield sites that he favours would be too risky and take far too long to bring to fruition. As such, it was quite proper that the trust did not consider those risky sites. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the most expedient way for him to correct the record on this important point, and on how we as a House can press the Government urgently to release funds to our hospital trusts where buildings are literally crumbling down?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. She is in effect continuing a discussion that took place during Prime Minister’s questions. As I just said in response to another point of order, the Chair is not responsible for the comments made by hon. or right hon. Members. There are plenty of ways in which she can put her point of view on record, as she just has, and she can consult the Table Office about those. I do not want to continue a debate where there are different views, which is not appropriate for a point of order.
Madam Deputy Speaker
If the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead wishes to make a further point of order, I must go to him first as he has been referred to, but I am anxious that we do not spend the whole afternoon debating different views about what was said earlier.
Sir Mike Penning
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) for informing me that she was going to contradict the comments that I made at Prime Minister’s questions. I was exposing the contradictions that are going on in west Hertfordshire. My constituents, who I am responsible for looking after, do not want a tower block built in Watford for £1.2 billion. We want a new hospital on a greenfield site, and that is what we will continue to campaign for.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As I feared, we are continuing this debate, and I am anxious to move on to the important business before the House.
Sir Bill Wiggin
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would you be kind enough to pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker, who wisely and rightly curtailed the debate on special forces during Prime Minister’s Question Time? Those people are the bravest, most wonderful constituents I could ever hope to represent, and the attack on them and on Sir Mark Carleton-Smith by the BBC was without evidence, so curtailing that debate was very welcome.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but as Mr Speaker made clear, we must be very careful about making references to the matter at this point, so I will leave it there.
Fashion Supply Chain (Code and Adjudicator)
Wednesday 13th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Fashion Supply Chain (Code and Adjudicator) Bill 2022-23 View all Fashion Supply Chain (Code and Adjudicator) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a Code of Practice to be followed by retailers of fashion clothing, footwear and accessories in their relationships with their suppliers; to set up an Adjudicator with the role of enforcing that Code of Practice and encouraging compliance with it; and for connected purposes.
The covid-19 pandemic saw major disruption within the retail sector. As shops shut, retailers cancelled orders from suppliers, refused to pay for goods already in production or in process, delayed payments by long periods and demanded reductions in price for clothes that had already been shipped. Meanwhile, issues of worker exploitation and covid-unsafe working environments made their way into the headlines. In June 2020, workers in Leicester garment factories were found to have been paid as little as £3 an hour and were alleged to have been trafficked, to have been forced to go to work despite testing positive for covid-19 and to have been involved in furlough fraud.
The revelations about working conditions were not confined to the UK: 2020 saw millions of workers—largely women—made destitute in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam as suppliers were forced to lay off workers and were unable to pay living wages. Indeed, the garment sector has been identified by the United Nations International Labour Organisation as one of the hardest hit by covid’s disruption of trade. It estimates that 86 million garment workers worldwide are now in extreme hardship and unable to pay their rent, feed their families or send their children to school.
These problems are not new, but they are connected. They illustrate much wider problems in the garment production system. For decades, UK retailers have imposed purchasing practices on their suppliers that have at times amounted to illegal breaches of contract and can be abusive. The volatility facing suppliers as a result of these practices, and the need to meet their fixed costs, have led to the problem being passed down to workers in the form of wage reductions and mass unemployment. This problem was reported on in 2019 by the Environmental Audit Committee, which identified a
“race to the bottom culture”
in the fashion industry that
“creates an environment for precarious employment.”
The covid-19 pandemic shed fresh light on the power imbalance between buyers, suppliers and workers in the ready-made garment chain that drives these unfair practices. For example, in December 2021, retailers were still paying the same price for garments that they had been paying in March 2020, despite costs associated with the rising prices of inputs and covid-19 mitigation. These practices amount to an example of gross market failure and poor contract enforcement, which has become the mechanism by which a desire for cheap and flexible supply translates to poor working conditions and insecure employment. Many contracts do not have clauses enabling such practices, but supplier dependency on their consumers has created a climate of fear that has prevented suppliers from taking retailers to court.
So far, engagement with this issue by the Government has amounted to affirmation of their commitment to review issues of non-compliance with labour rights legislation. This demonstrates a misunderstanding of the relationship between abusive purchasing practices and labour law violations. Enforcement of labour laws will not prevent the conditions that drive their evasion. When suppliers feel that they cannot meet the demands of retailers without violating statutory minimums, their poor treatment of workers will be driven underground. Furthermore, the failure of retailers to make long-term commitments to purchase from suppliers precludes the possibility of establishing better working conditions in the future. There is an upshot to this predicament. Although the UK Government may be limited in their ability to intervene in the enforcement of worker protections overseas, introducing a fashion watchdog to regulate the purchasing practices of domestic retailers would reduce supplier incentives to evade labour laws both here in the UK and in supplier countries, creating a better foundation for establishing good working conditions across the globe.
Sadly, UK retailers are considered to be among the worst in the world according to analysis by Bangladeshi suppliers. According to evidence submitted by the charity Traidcraft Exchange to the Environmental Audit Committee, by June 2020 more than 80 UK retailers had cancelled orders worth more than £750 million owed to suppliers in Bangladesh alone. The decisions of individual companies have a significant impact. For example, as of June 2020, Primark had cancelled more than £98 million-worth of orders that had previously been placed with more than 100 Bangladeshi suppliers, impacting hundreds of thousands of workers. I am glad to say that Primark later committed to pay for outstanding orders.
We also saw in Traidcraft Exchange’s evidence that, in the worst cases, suppliers received an email cancelling an order with no possibility of a follow-up or resolution. In this manner Peacocks, part of the Edinburgh Woollen Mill Group, sent emails advising its suppliers that products already landed in the UK would not be paid for, and cancelling more than $4 million-worth of orders from Bangladeshi suppliers. One supplier wrote to their trade association:
“They are holding the goods at the destination port to pressure us to give huge discount. These unethical buyers don’t care of our people starving and struggling…we are communicating with them every day and request them to release the goods, but they never reply.”
And workers have been struggling and starving.
In Bangladesh, where the garment trade produces 85% of export earnings and employs 4 million workers, an estimated 50% of factory owners and managers say they have been subjected to one or more abusive purchasing practices. During March and April 2020, at least 25% of workers in Bangladesh lost their job.
A recent survey of female garment workers in Cambodia—where 1 million people are employed in the sector—by the University of Nottingham and Royal Holloway found that 85% had been suspended from work by October 2020 and that average take-home pay had fallen by 20%. This disruption drove the problem of food insecurity and exacerbated an existing crisis of over-indebtedness among garment workers.
The victims of these practices are not only workers but small and sustainable businesses that are unable to compete in such an unfair environment. Paragraph 135 of the EAC’s report says,
“We heard concerns about the extra costs and barriers that the UK’s sustainable fashion businesses face. Innovators are faced with competition from businesses who are focused on reducing costs and maximising profits regardless of the environmental or social costs.”
To end these abusive purchasing practices and regulate the relationship between retailers and suppliers, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy should set out a timetable for establishing a garment trade adjudicator. This fashion watchdog would prevent fashion brands from cancelling orders without compensation or making last-minute changes, thereby levelling the playing field for fashion retailers and suppliers, and creating an environment in which suppliers are not compelled to evade labour law enforcement.
This proposal should be modelled on the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which was established in 2013. The evidence suggests that this adjudicator’s enforcement of a fair purchasing code has drastically reduced the prevalence of abusive purchasing practices that were once widespread in the sector. In the annual supplier survey conducted to assess the effectiveness of this regulator, 79% of suppliers experienced a breach of the statutory fair purchasing code in 2014, reducing to 29% of suppliers in 2021.
The Government need to consult on what is included in the statutory code. It should include the principle of fair dealing to enable suppliers to act with certainty, and it should replicate the characteristics of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. These measures are necessary to break the climate of fear that has thus far prevented suppliers from challenging retailers.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Liz Twist, Peter Aldous, Sir Stephen Timms, Mr Barry Sheerman, Mrs Pauline Latham, Kate Green, Catherine McKinnell, Daisy Cooper and Mary Kelly Foy present the Bill.
Liz Twist accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 141).
Northern Ireland Protocol Bill
Wednesday 13th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 View all Northern Ireland Protocol Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 July 2022 - (13 Jul 2022)
17:15 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:30 - divided: - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 308 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:44 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 308 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:55 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 229 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:19 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 212 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(za) comes into effect only in accordance with section 26(2A) to (2D);”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 2 to clause 26, which would require parliamentary approval for bringing into force any provisions of this Act.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 26, page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(za) requires Ministers of the Crown to set out a legal justification for altering the effect of the Northern Ireland Protocol in domestic law”
This is a paving amendment for NC8.
Amendment 31, page 1, line 4, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
Amendment 32, page 1, line 14, leave out from “Protocol” to end of line 15.
Amendment 5, page 1, line 15, at end insert—
“(e) provides powers to Ministers of the Crown that may be exercised only after good faith negotiations with the EU (through the mechanisms provided for in the Northern Ireland Protocol) have been exhausted and only with the approval of both Houses of Parliament and, where relevant, the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This amendment would give primacy to a negotiated outcome between the UK and the EU and reflect the consent required by both Houses of Parliament and, where relevant, the Northern Ireland Assembly for powers conferred by the Act to be exercised.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 25, in clause 2, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
“(A1) This section is subject to section (Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly).”
This paving amendment is linked to NC7.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Amendment 6, in clause 15, page 8, line 47, at end insert—
“(1A) In this section “necessary” means the existence of a situation of grave and imminent peril that relates to one or more of the permitted purposes.”
This amendment defines the standard against which a Minister can exercise powers conferred by clause 15.
Amendment 14, page 8, line 47, at end insert—
“(1A) In this section “unpermitted consequence” means an outcome that would constitute a risk to or detrimental on—
(a) Strand Two of the Belfast Agreement including the North-South Ministerial Council, cooperation and action under the Council or consultation and agreements in all its formats, areas of cooperation and agreed implementation bodies;
(b) Strand Three of the Belfast Agreement, the British-Irish Council and cooperation, common policies or common actions on matters of mutual interest for relevant administrations including on issues, and in ways, referenced in that section of the Agreement;
(c) the single electricity market;
(d) Northern Ireland‘s access to the EU Single Market to the fullest extent permitted by the Protocol;
(e) continuing opportunities for institutions, economic operators and civic interests in Northern Ireland to access and participate in EU programmes and frameworks as permitted under and/or alongside the Protocol;
(f) Northern Ireland‘s access to trade deals between the EU and third countries to the fullest extent permitted by the Protocol;
(g) the productivity of businesses in Northern Ireland and the competitive marketability of goods produced there (through costs or complications associated with possible dual route regulatory compliances).”
This amendment provides that a Minister cannot exercise powers for the permitted purposes in Clause 15 in terms that could entail harmful impact on dimensions of the Good Friday Agreement and/or economic interests of Northern Ireland.
Amendment 27, page 8, line 47, at end insert—
“(1A) But subsection (1) is subject to section (Excluded provision: Parliamentary approval).”
This is a paving amendment for NC9.
Amendment 7, page 9, line 8, after “if” insert
“it does not cause one or more unpermitted consequence and if”.
Amendment 8, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
“(d) Article 18 (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland)”.
This amendment adds Article 18 (Democratic Consent in Northern Ireland) of the Northern Ireland Protocol to the list of articles that a Minister of the Crown cannot exercise powers conferred by subsection (2) to provide cease to have effect in the United Kingdom to any extent.
Amendment 9, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) until and unless the Minister has laid a report before both Houses of Parliament setting out the Minister of the Crown’s assessment of the necessity to exercise the power for, or in connection with, one or more of the permitted purposes and to state the one or more permitted purposes in question.”
This amendment places a reporting obligation on a Minister exercising powers conferred by section 15 to detail an assessment of why the regulations are necessary and to state the permitted purpose(s) relevant to that assessment.
Amendment 10, page 9, line 15, at end insert—
“(3A) A Minister of the Crown may not exercise the power conferred by subsection (2) before full consultation on proposed changes with, in particular—
(a) the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission,
(b) the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland,
(c) the Committee of representatives of the Human Rights Commission of Northern Ireland and Ireland, and
(d) persons whom the Minister considers appropriate as representatives of business, trade, economic interests and civic groups.”
Clause 15 stand part.
Amendment 40, in clause 16, page 9, line 19, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 16 stand part.
New clause 1—Maintaining levels of environmental protection—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown must, before exercising the powers conferred by this Act, make a statement to the effect that in the Minister of the Crown’s view the exercise of the powers would not to any extent have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by any existing environmental law.
(2) The Minister of the Crown must seek the views of the Office for Environmental Protection before making a statement under this section.
(3) Any statement under this section must be published in such manner as the Minister of the Crown considers appropriate
(4) The Minister of the Crown must lay a copy of any statement under this section before each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would ensure that the powers proposed to be conferred by this Bill could be exercised only if in the relevant Minister’s view this would not undermine existing levels of environmental protection.
New clause 2—Environmental principles—
“No regulations may be made under this Act unless—
(a) a policy statement on environmental principles has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly under paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 2 to the Environment Act 2021, and
(b) paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 to the Environment Act 2021 is in force.”
This new clause would prevent the exercise of any powers proposed to be granted by the Bill until the Department’s policy statement on environmental principles has been finalised and Departments and Ministers are under a statutory duty to have due regard to it.
New clause 3—Meaning of “environmental protection”—
“In this Act “environmental protection” means any of the following—
(a) protection of the natural environment from the effects of human activity;
(b) protection of people from the effects of human activity on the environment;
(c) maintenance, restoration or enhancement of the natural environment;
(d) monitoring, assessing, considering, advising or reporting on anything in paragraphs (a) to (c).”
New clause 7—Limitation of general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol: approval of Northern Ireland Assembly—
“Section 2 of this Act has no effect unless it has been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
This new clause would require the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly before this Act could be used to limit the general implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
New clause 8—Publication of legal advice—
“(1) The Prime Minister must lay before each House of Parliament a copy of the legal advice considered by the Government in respect to this Act which it received before the day of the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act.
(2) The Attorney General must lay before each House of Parliament the assessment made by Her Majesty’s Government of the doctrine of necessity in relation to the operation of the Northern Ireland Protocol prior to the First Reading in the House of Commons of the Bill for this Act.
(3) The Lord Chancellor must lay before each House of Parliament a report on to what extent the Bill for this Act was in accordance with Lord Chancellor‘s constitutional role in relation to the constitutional principle of the rule of law.”
This new clause requires the publication of the legal justification for the Bill for this Act.
New clause 9—Excluded provision: Parliamentary approval—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not make regulations that either bring into force any provision of this Act that makes any provision of the Protocol (or any related provision of the Withdrawal Agreement) excluded provision, or that make any such provision excluded provision, unless all three conditions in this section are met.
(2) The first condition in this section is that a Minister of the Crown has laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament setting out reasons—
(a) why, if no safeguard measures under Article 16 of the Protocol have been taken by the United Kingdom, the Minister of the Crown considers it appropriate to exclude a provision or provisions at that time rather than to do so only after the United Kingdom has taken such safeguard measures; and
(b) why and how, in the view of the Minister of the Crown, making the regulations is consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom.
(3) The second condition in this section is that the House of Commons has resolved, on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown, to take note of the statement under subsection (2).
(4) The third condition in this section is that a motion for the House of Lords to take note of that statement has been tabled in the House of Lords by a Minister of the Crown and—
(a) the House of Lords has debated the motion, or
(b) the House of Lords has not concluded a debate on the motion before the end of the period of five Lords sitting days beginning with the first Lords sitting day after the day on which the House of Commons passes the resolution mentioned in paragraph (a).”
This new clause would, except where the government had already adopted safeguard measures under Article 16, require Ministers to make a statement to the House as to why they thought it appropriate and lawful to treat provisions of the Northern Ireland Protocol or any related provision of the EU Withdrawal Agreement as excluded provisions; and to require a House of Commons vote, and a debate in the House of Lords, before those excluded provisions could be brought into force.
New clause 10—Condition prior to limitation of the Northern Ireland Protocol—
“(1) This section sets out the condition which must be satisfied before a provision of—
(a) the Northern Ireland Protocol, or
(b) any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement,
is excluded provision.
(2) The condition must be either—
(a) the agreement condition (see subsection (3)), or
(b) the Article 16 condition (see subsection (4)).
(3) The agreement condition is that the United Kingdom and the EU have agreed following negotiations that the provision is excluded provision.
(4) The Article 16 condition is that—
(a) the United Kingdom is unilaterally taking appropriate safeguard measures, in accordance with Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol,
(b) before taking those measures, the United Kingdom has followed the procedure set out in Annex 7 to the Protocol (which governs the taking of safeguard measures), and
(c) the safeguard measures being taken necessarily require that the provision is excluded provision.
(5) Where the condition is no longer satisfied, then the provision ceases to be excluded provision, and as a consequence any regulations made dealing with excluded provision lapse to the extent that they relate to provision which is no longer excluded provision.
(6) For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Act remain subject to section 7A(2) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, save where a provision of—
(a) the Northern Ireland Protocol, or
(b) any other part of the EU withdrawal agreement,
is excluded provision which has satisfied the requirements set out in this section.”
This new clause is intended to prevent Ministers from deviating from the international agreement that is the NI Protocol unless this has either been agreed to between the UK and the EU, or the UK have followed the procedure set out in Article 16 of the Protocol for unilaterally taking safeguard measures.
Sir Robert Neill
Amendments 1 and 2, the latter of which amends clause 26, relate to the commencement and operationalisation of the provisions in the Bill. I have drafted them in this way because of the nature of the Bill itself. We will come to amendment 2 on day three, but amendment 1 paves the way for it, so it may be convenient if I set out the thinking behind both amendments.
As was debated at some length on Second Reading—I will not repeat everything that was said—this is an unusual and rather exceptional Bill, and not necessarily in a good way. If fully brought into effect, the Bill would lead to the United Kingdom departing unilaterally from an international agreement and therefore breaking its obligations under both customary international law and the Vienna convention on the law of treaties, which is a grave and profound step for any Government to take.
I recognise that there are circumstances in which that step can be taken, and the Government asserted on Second Reading that the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol gives rise, or potentially gives rise, to those circumstances. The essence of it, though, depends on applying a factual evidence base to a legal test. The legal test in this case is essentially the international customary law convention of necessity, which is now enshrined in article 25 of the articles on state responsibility, which were adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 and are recognised by the UN General Assembly, by our Government and by the international community as an authoritative statement of the law. Article 25 sets out that necessity may be invoked if certain tests are met. The point of these amendments is to say that if the Government, or any Government, were to take that step, they should do so upon the most compelling grounds, so that the factual basis for their actions met the legal test. The reputational consequences, politically, internationally and legally, are very significant, so this should be done only when that is thoroughly tested and set before this House to be tested.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My hon. Friend is referring to certain tests of a reputational character, so I would be grateful if he would tell the Committee what those tests are right now.
Sir Robert Neill
I will be happy to talk about the essential tests of necessity, which are well recognised and well set out, as my hon. Friend knows. But the principle behind the amendment, which I will then go into the detail of, is precisely to say, “If you are invoking that doctrine, a most unusual thing to do, you ought to come to the House and set out the basis upon which you seek to do so.” The House would then have the chance to say whether or not we were prepared, on the basis of what the Government had put before us, to take the very exceptional step of putting ourselves in breach of a treaty obligation. That is the point.
Sir Robert Neill
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman first.
Sammy Wilson
On the question of necessity, does the hon. Gentleman accept, first, that we have dysfunctional government in Northern Ireland, and that the terms of the Belfast agreement have totally broken down and some have been removed? Secondly, does he accept that that has been brought about as a result not of actions by this Government, but by the protocol, the actions of the EU and the way in which it has insisted that it be applied? Thirdly, does he accept that the EU has not even tried to remedy this, because it has refused to negotiate, so necessity has been proved?
Sir Robert Neill
Let me return to that once I have set out the tests, because that is one issue that, with respect to the right hon. Gentleman—I do have much respect for him—the House ought to consider on the factual basis that is set before it. The first test is that departing from the treaty is the only means available to the state party
“to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril”.
I quote from the case law and the text of the convention. Let us just break that down. On “an essential interest”, it might be that the Government could, at some point, make a case to say that the disruption in Northern Ireland, be it economic, societal or political, gets to a stage where it could threaten an essential interest of the UK. I concede that, but I have not, as yet, seen the evidence to justify that.
Sir Robert Neill
Forgive me, but my hon. Friend asked me to set out the tests and I am doing so. The second test is the necessity to safeguard an essential interest against a “grave and imminent peril”. The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has helpfully provided a briefing, setting out that that imports something that very grave indeed—it is a high test—with a degree of urgency to the matter. A possible, contingent or proximate risk does not come within the test of being a “grave and imminent peril”, and that is a risk with the way in which the Bill is drafted at the moment. Again, evidence might be produced to show that it does apply, and the Government might be able to make their case—they ought to do so.
Sir Robert Neill
May I set out the tests, as I was asked to?
The Government need to show that this is also the only means whereby they can safeguard the interest in question. The difficulty they potentially have there is that article 13 of the protocol makes provision for a renegotiation, which most of us would think is the right route to solve these problems, and that in the event of emergency measures, which one might think might be closer to meeting the test of an “imminent peril”, we would then use the unilateral safeguarding provisions under article 16. It might be difficult to argue that necessity is met if we have not attempted and cannot demonstrate that we have attempted those routes first, before moving unilaterally to breaching the protocol.
Robin Millar
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point about necessity, and one that has exercised my mind. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal said that the Acts of Union had been “subjugated” by the protocol. Therefore, what gravity and what imperative does he attach to such an existential threat to the Union?
Sir Robert Neill
It does not avail us in relation to the international law test, and the difficulty with this Bill is that it is seeking to disapply parts of the protocol in domestic law, but in a way that breaches an international obligation. In any event, could it be said that all available means had been taken to rectify that potential difficulty? That comes back to my point that the Government—any Government—should have to come to the House and set that out.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I admire the elegant way in which my hon. Friend has set out the three tests. However, the Joint Committee has been working at this for a long time and it has failed to make progress. At what stage, and in what circumstances, does he envisage that we could proceed on the basis of the provision we are debating at the moment? It seems to me that we have exhausted the possibilities and we are in the position of having to do this now to defend the Good Friday agreement. So why on earth is it necessary to have an amendment that would put another hurdle in the way of Ministers’ trying to resolve this?
Sir Robert Neill
With respect, I do not think the amendment would put another hurdle in the way, because it would not prevent the Bill from proceeding and it would not prevent what I know my right hon. Friend wants to see, which is a negotiated settlement. By far the best thing, which everyone in this Committee wants, is for the protocol to be renegotiated. I concede at once that the protocol is not working properly or as it was intended. I also readily concede that part of that is due to a rather intransigent stance taken by the European Commission and its refusal, for example, to give greater flexibility to Vice-President Šefčovič in his negotiating mandate. This is not an issue where all the fault is on one side at all. The EU has not acted wisely or helpfully in these matters, but that is not the same as saying that the international law test is therefore automatically made out as of now.
Sir Robert Neill
I will give way to my hon. Friend, probably for the last time.
Sir William Cash
I think that would be fine at this stage. My hon. Friend refers to “grave and imminent peril”. Does he not agree that at the heart of this entire problem lies the issue of the democratic deficit? I will not go into it now, but I will explain later that I think this is about the manner in which legislation is pouring into Northern Ireland from every side, like a tsunami, as we said in our European Scrutiny Committee report; we talked about starting with a small number of cars and turning into a motorway. The bottom line is that that is a grave and imminent peril, because of the constant and perpetual legislation, week in, week out, with no time or opportunity for people in Northern Ireland to say anything at any time.
Sir Robert Neill
The difficulty that my hon. Friend has is that that is an assertion. I am not sure that, as yet, we have had set out to the House the evidence base that the Government say they have and are working on. I referred the Foreign Secretary to that point on Second Reading, asking when we would see the evidence base that will set out the Government’s case and their reasoning.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend will recall that the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) raised the issue of the necessity standard applying in a context where a state has not contributed to that state of necessity. Does he feel that that provision has been activated or in some sense triggered by the present situation?
Sir Robert Neill
That is, of course, the fourth limb of the five-limb tests—that an essential interest of the EU member states should not be imperilled. I have to say that I do not think an essential interest is imperilled by this Bill, because it is clear that the risk of leakage into the EU single market has been minimal, even with the way the protocol is operating—or partially operating—now. That is probably the strongest ground that the Government have. But there is then the argument as to whether the party that invokes the doctrine of necessity has in some way contributed to the situation. I think that is more finely balanced, in fairness. I have seen the briefing from the Bingham Centre that suggests that that test is not met either. I am more prepared to give the Government some slack in that regard, but we need the evidence for that as well. After all, at the end of the day, the Government agreed the protocol—not long ago, in 2020—and did so on the basis of intending to operate it in good faith. That, of course, is a rather important reputation that this country has. My right hon. Friend is right to flag up those stages, but even before we get to them, I am not at all sure that we yet have the evidence before the House to justify the provision.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the knowledge and experience that he brings to the House, which we all very much appreciate. Does he agree with me, and probably others on the Opposition Benches, that Northern Ireland has been used as a bartering tool between the EU and the UK in trying to sort out some of the problems? Examples include whenever the vaccine was stopped for us and was then made available, all the tariffs, and regulations and red tape. All those things show that the process quite clearly is not working. Northern Ireland does not want to be a bartering tool between the UK and the EU; we want to be part of the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman understand why these issues are so important to us? I think he does, but I would like to hear his opinion.
Sir Robert Neill
I do understand that, which is why I have made it clear from the beginning that I am as much in favour of changes to the protocol as anyone else. Of course, the protocol had provisions written into it to enable those changes to take place, and that is what we would all want to see.
Let us be blunt: there will be a change of Prime Minister soon, and a change of personnel under those circumstances may—I hope it does—make negotiations easier. There has been a degree of strain in relations with the EU and the heads of some major Governments in the European Union. I very much hope that one consequence of what has happened is that it may be easier to rebuild and repair relationships and trust, and that could lead to a negotiated change, which would mean that this legislation was never necessary. Nobody would be more delighted than I—or, I suspect, anyone else in this House, including those on the Treasury Bench—if that were to be the case, but if the Bill is taken forward, we need proper safeguards to ensure proper parliamentary and democratic oversight of the way it is taken into force.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Of course, Henry VIII only had six wives; this Bill has 19 delegated powers within 26 clauses. Does he agree that if we set a precedent that such legislation could be written here, it may be tempting for some Ministers to expand that precedent to other forms of legislation, so it is important that we confine whenever delegated powers are used—not just in this legislation, but to ensure that we uphold the primacy of this Chamber?
Sir Robert Neill
The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Those of us who have served as Ministers know that, frankly, all Governments use Henry VIII powers. We all tend to criticise them when we are in opposition and use them a bit when we are in government, if the truth be known. But the reality is that there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together, as far as I can see. The powers are almost Shakespearean or Wagnerian in their scope and breadth. That is the problem, and it is why we need some greater hold on how they are used.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) raised another important point. Very wide Henry VIII powers have been criticised by the Hansard Society and in the other place—and for good reason, because part of the whole objective of what we have done is recent years has been to restore parliamentary sovereignty. The danger is that that becomes restoring power to the Executive, rather than to Parliament. I say to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, we all know that Governments come and go, and once we set a precedent that gives sweeping powers to a Government with whom we may happen to agree, inevitably—as night follows day—there will be a day when a Government with whom we do not agree come in and use those powers in a way to which we might wish to object; it is better not to set too wide a precedent, anyway.
There is another difficulty with the powers. Clause 15 gives Ministers powers to add to excluded provisions. Not only is that extremely wide, but the clause refers to excluded provisions for “a permitted purpose”, without any further definition. In other respects, there is a test where the Minister may take any such measures in relation to the protocol as the Minister “considers appropriate”. That is an extraordinarily low test. Essentially, it lacks any kind of objectivity; it is a purely subjective test. Giving Ministers delegated powers to act in a purely subjective manner without requiring them to demonstrate the evidential basis on which they exercise those powers is a dangerous and difficult precedent to set.
In fairness, this Bill could not have been foreseen, but therefore could not be put in my party’s manifesto for the general election. It will be interesting to see—I know Ministers are well aware of this point—precisely what view the other place, which is anxious to examine the extent of delegated powers, takes on the matter. It might therefore be in the Government’s interest to progress the Bill to think about ways in which we can get a better balance, and ensure that there is a proper and proportionate hold on the powers.
I have covered the essence of what I needed to say. It comes down to whether the Government have a case—without going into the rest of the legal argument, I concede that they might be able to make that case—and whether that case might have grounds in law. I would say to my clients in the old days, “Just because it’s lawful doesn’t mean it’s a wise thing to do; just because you’ve got a case that you might argue, it might not necessarily be a good idea for you to go and argue it.” Sometimes litigation is best avoided and sometimes sweeping legislation is best avoided, if it is possible to find a better route.
It seems to me that if need be, it would not be unreasonable for the Government to come back to the House and make their case in relation to the specific items where they seek to disapply an international treaty. If they have a good enough case, the House will support them and they can get on with it; it can be done quickly and need not cause undue delay. That would at least ensure that we have acted within a reasonable and proportionate legal framework. At the same time, we could demonstrate that we are seeking, in good faith, to renegotiate. If we cannot do that, I suggest it would be prudent at the very least to invoke the article 16 safeguard provisions, either before or perhaps in parallel with those matters; we could show again that we have acted in good faith to do all that we could within the framework that exists, which is one of the important parts of a necessity test.
I hope that the Government will take on board those arguments, because they are pretty fundamental to the Bill itself and would not obstruct the objectives of the Bill—that is, getting the protocol changed or getting devolved government working in Northern Ireland, both of which we wish to see—but would enable them in a proportionate and constitutionally sound manner.
Several hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just a gentle reminder that quite a few hon. and right hon. Members are wishing to catch my eye. I cannot impose a time limit because we are in Committee stage, but Members may like to bear that in mind.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). We have become good friends since both serving together on the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and I hold him in the highest of respect.
On behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is in his place, for the work that he has done in bringing the Bill to this stage, and for the work that he did during his tenure as Secretary of State. He developed a good understanding of the difficulties in Northern Ireland with the protocol and the other issues. I know that it is his desire to move Northern Ireland to the next stage of the peace process to move towards reconciliation, but he recognised that there was a need to deal with these fundamental issues before we could get to that point. I thank him for the work that he has done in that regard. On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I extend our grateful appreciation.
I also welcome the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), to his place. I got to know him well when he was a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office and we look forward to working with him in the weeks ahead on the issues that confront us at this time.
I want to respond to the points that have been made in relation to amendment 1 and related amendments, to deal with the question of necessity in particular and the immediacy of the risk that has given rise to the Government introducing this legislation. I understand the points that have been made cogently here. Therefore, it is important, representing one element of the political community in Northern Ireland, to outline why we believe the Bill is necessary. We counsel against impeding the ability of the Government to press forward with this legislation.
On the risk, I echo the comments made by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar). For us as Unionists, there is a risk to the Union in relation to how the protocol is being applied in Northern Ireland. Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland have stated that the protocol subjugates article 6 of the Act of Union. That article confers on Northern Ireland citizens the right to trade freely within their own country. It states that there shall be no barrier to trade between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. No one could reasonably argue that the protocol does not put in place barriers to trade. It most certainly does and I hear that every day from my constituents, whether they are consumers or businesses, and the difficulties that they are facing in trading with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Those difficulties have led to political instability in Northern Ireland. They have had an economic impact in Northern Ireland and I would argue strongly that there is the potential for that to lead to societal problems. We on these Benches have worked hard to ensure that those problems have not arisen. When people have taken to the streets and engaged in violence, we have worked in local communities to prevent a repetition of that. That has been the case across the community. It does not mean, though, that there are not strong feelings, particularly within the Unionist community, about what this protocol means not only for trade, which is important, but for their identity and for their place in the Union. As we have seen over the years in Northern Ireland, when people feel that their identity is threatened, when they feel that their place in the United Kingdom is being undermined, that can lead to societal problems.
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has rightly argued that, from his perspective, he is looking to see the immediacy of the risk, but I say to him that it is there, it is very real and I ask him to take on trust from my contacts within the Unionist community that it is bubbling beneath the surface and we have worked hard to try to ensure that that does not emerge.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The right hon. Member has stated that the Union is at risk because of the protocol. I know that he is no big supporter of the Good Friday agreement, but does he not accept that very clearly written into that agreement is the principle of consent? That basically means that, no matter how much I want it, we cannot change the constitutional position of Northern Ireland until the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic of Ireland vote for it.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I will come to the Good Friday agreement in my remarks, but I simply say to the hon. Member that there is a difference of view as to how we interpret what is required in terms of consent. Lord Trimble, as one of the key negotiators of the Belfast agreement, has stated very clearly that the principle of consent does not just apply to the final question as to whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. The term “constitutional status” extends to these circumstances, where Northern Ireland’s constitutional relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom has been changed by virtue of the subjugation of the Acts of Union.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman knows with what affection I regard him, his party and Northern Ireland, having had the privilege of being Advocate General for Northern Ireland. What he is saying is a very good case for triggering article 16, which was the entire purpose of the inclusion of article 16 in the protocol. It is not necessarily a good reason, however, for changing the entire basis of the treaty, including writing out the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and so on. How do we get from a position where we have societal impacts, with which I am perfectly willing to agree, to a position where we virtually rewrite the terms of a treaty that we solemnly signed only two and a half years ago?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I have great respect for the right hon. and learned Member, and I know of his affection for Northern Ireland. I think back to those very difficult and challenging days when this House was dealing with the pre-departure discussions about the laws that would have to be put in place around the treaty to leave the European Union. I thank him for the time that he took to understand the situation in regard to Northern Ireland.
I would say two things in response to the point that the right hon. and learned Member has, understandably, made. First, the Command Paper published by the UK Government one year ago last July set out the basis on which they believed that the conditions had been met for article 16 to be triggered. We have been very patient. We have waited and waited, and we allowed time for the negotiations with the European Union to go forward in the hope that the EU would show more flexibility. I do not doubt the integrity of Maroš Šefčovič as the lead negotiator, but the difficulty is that his negotiating remit is so constrained that his ability to deliver the change that is required to meet the need—to resolve the difficulties created by the protocol—is so limited that in the absence of a change of his remit, I do not think those negotiations will get anywhere.
Article 16 and the triggering thereof is a temporary measure; it is not a permanent solution. What I need, what Northern Ireland needs and, especially, what business in Northern Ireland needs is certainty. That is why we believe that the Government are right to bring forward proposals for a longer-term solution, and not just to go for the temporary fix—the sticking plaster—of article 16. That will create more uncertainty rather than giving us certainty, and it is certainty that we are looking for. That is why I think that what the Government have done is right in the circumstances.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I think my right hon. Friend responded fairly to the former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who has been a good friend to Northern Ireland over many years and knows our opposition not only to this protocol from the start, but to preceding arrangements that were proposed. Yet here we stand, with exactly the problems that we foresaw—the problems experienced by businesses, communities and consumers throughout Northern Ireland and the impact to our political arrangements—and still we hear every objection and reason why Government should not move.
Many people who now ask whether article 16 should be triggered were aghast at the notion it should be triggered a year ago. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is shaking his head, and I do not include him in that number. But at every stage, when Government have accepted, heard and acknowledged the crisis and the difficulty we have had with political and economic instability within our Province, there has been a good reason not to act, and still we remain without a solution. Does my right hon. Friend agree that now is the time to get on and provide the solution, not for us, but for everyone in Northern Ireland?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, and that brings me to the heart of the issue for us—the threat to the Belfast agreement posed by the current situation.
Colum Eastwood
On the point about consent—we did get slightly distracted—I totally and absolutely disagree with the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Trimble on how they say consent works. It is not an elastic principle; it is about one thing, the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. If it is elastic, however, does it apply to Brexit, since that was a constitutional rupture for the people of Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland voted against it? If it applies to the protocol, why does it not apply to Brexit?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Brexit did not change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. The protocol did that. The referendum on Brexit was a United Kingdom-wide referendum. The hon. Gentleman and I lead parties that have the word “Democratic” in their names; I accepted the democratic decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, and I have fought ever since for the basis of that departure to ensure that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom is respected.
That is at the heart of article 1 of the Belfast agreement. All parties to that agreement, including the Irish Government, accepted that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the Irish Government changed articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution to reflect the principle of consent and the reality that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. When I voted for Brexit, I certainly never voted to change the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, and that is not something the people of Northern Ireland have been asked to do.
Sammy Wilson
Does my right hon. Friend accept that Brexit was all about the United Kingdom’s relationship with Europe, not about relationships within the United Kingdom, and therefore it did not fall within the scope of the Belfast agreement? In response to the claim that article 16 is the way forward, would he accept, given the nature of the damage the protocol has caused, that even if article 16 were triggered, it is quite clear that any article 16 measures would have to be restricted in their scope and duration? We do not need a sticking-plaster; the problems that have been revealed with the protocol require long-term change. It should be changed by legislation, not by some temporary measure such as article 16 would allow.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My right hon. Friend makes a strong point. To be clear, the greater issue for us as Unionists is our place within the United Kingdom and our ability to trade freely within that United Kingdom in accordance with our rights under the Acts of Union. That is fundamental to us as Unionists. I understand why the hon. Member for Foyle and, indeed, perhaps the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) will argue strongly that the protocol should be retained. I have heard their arguments for that, but let us be clear: the Belfast agreement respects the right of Unionists to adhere to their position and to support and uphold their position as part of the United Kingdom. It represents for us a fundamental change that that is now threatened and, unless that is corrected and resolved, it means that our confidence in the agreement itself and its ability to protect our place in the United Kingdom is fundamentally undermined.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I think we all agree on the principle of consent as set out in that agreement, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the one-sided approach taken by the Government and by his party is eroding support for the Union inside Northern Ireland and that, by contrast, finding a workable solution around the protocol would provide a soft landing, which might create a much longer perspective on the maintenance of the Union itself?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The hon. Gentleman started out this journey as someone whose party advocated that the protocol should be rigorously implemented. Now he has shifted to saying that it should be rigorously retained. He cannot say that the protocol is creating problems and then not come up with viable solutions to deal with that. I have heard his solutions, but they do not have cross-community support in Northern Ireland. What we are looking to do—I believe that what the Government have proposed is capable of achieving this—is to resolve the issue in a way that meets the needs of everyone.
The Government’s proposals meet the needs of the United Kingdom, so that the integrity of our Union and of our internal market is respected. They meet the needs of the European Union, in so far as it takes measures to protect the integrity of the EU single market, to ensure that goods at risk of entering the EU are dealt with properly by this country in a way that meets its requirements. The proposals enable the restoration of the political institutions in Northern Ireland so that the Belfast agreement can continue to be the basis upon which we move forward there.
I believe that what the Government are proposing is not one-sided, but reasonable, measured and fair. There is so much focus on how the Government are doing this that we have lost sight of what they propose to do. Any objective assessment of the Government’s proposals can only conclude that they are reasonable and fair in all the circumstances and that their overriding objective is to protect the very delicate progress that has been made in Northern Ireland under the Belfast agreement.
In relation to agreement, and this is important, we have heard much about the need to ensure that the UK maintains its honour and its international reputation. However, I remind Members that the Belfast agreement is itself an international agreement, and the protocol undermines that agreement. It is an agreement whose co-signatories are the Irish and UK Governments. There was an international agreement attached to the Belfast agreement that was co-signed by those two Governments, making it an international agreement of international standing—indeed, one that has been approved in many international bodies across the globe. Therefore the protocol, in undermining that agreement, is harming an international agreement, and that needs to be addressed.
The basis on which the political institutions were restored in Northern Ireland at the beginning of 2020, after a three-year period in which Sinn Féin left Northern Ireland without a functioning Government, was the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Again, that was an agreement concluded by and involving the British and Irish Governments. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who was instrumental in bringing about that agreement, is in his place this afternoon. I remind the Committee that New Decade, New Approach—the basis on which my party committed to re-enter, and did indeed re-enter, government in Northern Ireland—included a commitment from the Government that they would protect Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market. That commitment was fundamental to my party deciding to re-enter government on the basis of that agreement, but it has not yet been delivered. Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market has not been properly restored. It is damaged by the protocol. It is impeded by the protocol. That is why in February this year I reluctantly took the decision to withdraw the First Minister from the Executive on the basis that other elements of New Decade, New Approach were being delivered, but the most fundamental element for the Unionist community was not being delivered. On that basis, we fought an Assembly election. My party obtained a mandate for the position that it has taken, and that mandate remains intact.
Sir Robert Neill
I respect what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. He referred to the importance of an objective test. Does he agree that that may not be enough for proper parliamentary scrutiny, which we must have for the regulations, and that before the Bill completes its passage in this House, the Government ought to produce the evidence base that might support the ground that he asserts—that the necessity test is met? That might make it easier for many people to accept the provisions of the Bill, rather than giving a blank cheque, which is the concern, as I am sure he will understand. That might make the passage of the Bill through the other place easier, because at the moment enactment could be a long way off. If the situation in Northern Ireland is so grave, would we wait until enactment or some other measure?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Of course that is a matter for the Government, but I am all in favour of proper scrutiny of this Bill. That is why we welcome the fact that the Committee stage will take place over three days on the Floor of the House. I commend the Government for the way in which they have handled this. They are not running away from scrutiny. I invite the hon. Member to come to Northern Ireland, when he has time, and I will gladly introduce him to the businesses that are being harmed by the protocol. He can meet consumers who find real difficulties in purchasing goods from businesses in Great Britain. Indeed, some businesses in Great Britain—many of them, now in the hundreds—have decided no longer to trade with Northern Ireland, because it is all too difficult.
Sir William Cash
On Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman and I had an exchange on the democratic deficit. There is also the question of scrutiny. In terms of the political institutions and the voters of Northern Ireland, the situation is perfectly clear, as was indicated in the McAllister case where the judge used the word “subjugation”. The fact is that people—the voters—in Northern Ireland are being subjugated to the laws of the European Union in a manner that is inconsistent with our leaving the European Union. Does he not therefore agree that that democratic deficit is absolutely crystal clear and does not require evidence because it is so self-evident coram populo?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
That brings me to my final point, which is on the democratic deficit.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
But before addressing that I give way to the hon. Lady.
Stella Creasy
The right hon. Gentleman is talking about businesses and consumers who have been affected. Earlier on, his argument for this Bill was that it would somehow give the certainty that he says the protocol does not give to people. Can he, hand on heart, argue that he knows everything that will happen if the Government proceed with this legislation? Can he really tell his constituents that he can give them certainty in the chaos that we are talking about, which did not start with the protocol but started with Brexit? Where is his proof that this Bill provides certainty—the solution that he is missing—in comparison with what they know now? Better the devil!
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I am many things, but I am not a prophet, so I cannot say with certainty that this will happen or that will happen. But I can point to this: when the protocol, as part of the withdrawal agreement, was before this House, we warned then of the consequences of the protocol. We are not late to the table in recognising the real difficulties that the protocol would cause in Northern Ireland for businesses, consumers, and our place in the United Kingdom. I am certain that the proposals put forward by the Government in this Bill are reasonable, fair and proportionate, and will offer what business needs to continue trading within the United Kingdom and with the European Union. That is the kind of certainty that businesses are looking for.
Let me turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), for whom I have great respect. This is very important. When the Government, and indeed those who supported Brexit, argued very strongly the case for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, it was about taking back control—control of our borders, our money and our laws. Yet in the part of the United Kingdom that I have had the honour and privilege of representing in this House for 25 years now, this does not apply. As he said, many regulations applying to business in Northern Ireland, and how we trade with the rest of our own country, are now being made in Brussels without any democratic input whatsoever from anyone in Northern Ireland—not from me and my colleagues as Members of Parliament, or from Members of the Legislative Assembly at Stormont.
There is a democratic deficit that means that we are having laws imposed on us over which we have no say. That is not taking back control in our part of the United Kingdom. In terms of money, our rules on VAT and on state aid, for example, are determined not by this Government—not by this place—but by the European Union. We have no input into how our VAT rules are drawn up or into the rules on state aid, which apply to support for businesses in Northern Ireland We do not have complete control of our money in Northern Ireland and we are losing out because of those restrictions. It is therefore very important for us that we get this right. I believe, as I said, that what the Government have proposed is fair and reasonable, and will restore Northern Ireland’s place fully within the UK single market.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Obviously the loss of input in being at the top table is a feature of Brexit. It is a feature of all countries that are members of the EEA single market, but not of the EU. Norway, Iceland and others do not get to make those decisions. Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that he would prefer it if Northern Ireland were completely out of the single market? Being in the single market is the privilege that Northern Ireland has. It is helping its economy and it is supported by all business leaders. It was what Scotland asked for and was refused.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
We are not Norway; we are Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is not in the single market, and let us be clear about that. The protocol requires us to align our regulations on manufacturing of goods with those of the EU single market. We are out of the single market and we are out of the EU’s customs union, but we are required to abide by its rules. That is the position in which we find ourselves, and I say to the hon. Lady that the solution the Government are offering will enable businesses to continue trading with the European Union in a way that is helpful and beneficial for cross-border trade, for my farmers and for our agrifood processing industry. Things will still work for Northern Ireland, but the Bill will also ensure that we can trade freely with the rest of the United Kingdom, which we believe is fundamental to our rights as part of the Union.
In conclusion, we believe that this Bill has the potential to move us forward in resolving the problems created by the protocol. The regulations that will be put in place when this Bill is enacted are fundamentally important to delivering those solutions. The Bill will address the democratic deficit and mean that once again, all the United Kingdom has a say in how our money, our laws and our borders are controlled. Finally, it will enable us to restore political stability in Northern Ireland by seeing the political institutions back up and running again and protecting the Belfast agreement and its successor agreements, including St Andrews and New Decade, New Approach, which was the basis upon which we re-entered government. We will not re-enter government until we are clear and sure that what the Government are taking forward will deliver what we need for Northern Ireland.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)
I begin by thanking Members across the Chamber for their participation on Second Reading. I want to allow for thorough debate of the Bill in Committee, and to facilitate that, and because of the plethora of amendments and the number of people who wish to speak, I might not give way as much as I usually do. I want to facilitate the number of amendments and allow people to speak for themselves. I therefore want to make some good progress, because I am duty-bound to go through a large number of amendments in this opening speech.
As we have progressed to Committee—the House will know that the Government have generously allowed no fewer than 18 hours of debate time—it is necessary to reiterate some key points that go to the heart of why the Government have introduced this Bill. The Northern Ireland protocol, as the Committee knows, was agreed with the very best of intentions, but it is causing real problems, as has already been accepted across the House, for people and businesses in Northern Ireland, including trade disruption and diversion, significant costs and bureaucracy for traders. This legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. It will enable us to avoid a hard border, to protect the integrity of the United Kingdom and to safeguard the European Union single market.
Turning to the clauses under scrutiny today, clause 1 summarises the effect of the Bill and gives vital clarity on how it will function. The clause sets out three things: first, that the Bill provides clarity that the specific areas of the Northern Ireland protocol that are causing problems would no longer apply in domestic law; secondly, that it clarifies how other legislation, such as the Acts of Union, are affected by the Bill; and thirdly, that it provides vital clarity on the operation of the Bill and its position in relation to other domestic law.
Clause 2 underpins the essential functioning of the Bill by confirming that any part of the protocol or withdrawal agreement that has been excluded by the provisions of this Bill has no effect in domestic law. That is necessary and technical, but it is vital for the Bill to function, as without that provision, there may be a lack of clarity as to whether the existing protocol and EU law regime or the revised operation of the protocol has effect. Where this Bill or its powers do not exclude provision in the protocol or withdrawal agreement, that provision will continue to have domestic effect via the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as it does today.
Michael Ellis
I will give way in due course, if I may, because I will come on to the specific amendments, and it might be more prudent to give way at those points to the individual Members.
Clause 16 supports the functioning of the Bill by granting the power to make new arrangements in any cases where it becomes necessary to use the powers contained in clause 15. That means that new law can be made via regulations, if appropriate to do so, in relation to any element of the protocol or withdrawal agreement that has become excluded provision as provided for in the regulations made under clause 15. Clause 16 is vital to ensure the functioning of the Bill and prevent any gaps in the arrangements established underneath it. Without it, there is a risk of not being able to address properly any new issues arising from protocol provisions.
I thank Members for their contributions. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Bill goes through the appropriate scrutiny, with 18 hours set aside before the summer recess, while balancing the need for urgent action to ensure that protocol issues are rectified as soon as possible. Amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), amends clause 1 and paves the way for his amendment to clause 26, which we will debate next week and which reflects a desire for Parliament to approve in a vote the provisions in this Bill before they can be commenced. I am cognisant of the fact that it was not two years ago that he famously introduced a similar amendment to another Bill, of which the Government broadly accepted the substance. However, the situation is not the same as it was two years ago.
Now, we face an urgent and grave situation in Northern Ireland, not a hypothetical one. We know that, as it stands, the EU is not prepared to change the protocol to resolve the problems we face—we have tried that repeatedly—and that there is no prospect of seeing a power-sharing Government restored in Northern Ireland if we are unable to tackle those problems. It is a simple fact. We need to be able to move swiftly, using the powers in the Bill to deliver the changes we propose and enable the protocol to operate sustainably.
Sir Robert Neill
I understand what my right hon. and learned Friend is saying, and I am grateful to him. However, if there is a need to act urgently, it is likely to be many months before the Bill completes its parliamentary passage. With respect, that is a contradiction. He is actually making a compelling case for using the article 16 safeguarding procedure.
Michael Ellis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. “Urgent” does not necessarily mean “immediate”; it means, “As soon as we can reasonably and practically do it.” I think he knows that. I will come to article 16 in due course, but we are going as fast as we can given when the House is sitting.
Additional parliamentary procedures after Royal Assent would risk delays to the regime coming into force, and undermine the certainty and clarity that we are looking to provide through the Bill. That would risk undermining the aim, which we all share, of seeing an Executive back up and running and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, and risk real harm to businesses and citizens.
Michael Ellis
If I may, I will make some progress. The amendment is well-intentioned, but I hope the Committee will understand that our priority as a Government is to proceed in a way that best supports the functioning of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and its institutions, which in this case means giving certainty to the people of Northern Ireland that the regime we propose under the Bill will be in place as quickly as possible. That is why I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst to withdraw the amendment.
Jesse Norman
Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), is the concession by the Government that “urgent does not mean immediate” not a plain acknowledgement of the fact that necessity does not apply, because it means there is no grave and immediate peril, which is one of the tests for necessity?
Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend is conflating two issues. I will come to necessity in due course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst also mentioned article 16, and the reality is that it does not solve the problem at hand. It would only treat the symptoms without fixing the root cause of the problems. We need a comprehensive and durable solution to this urgent problem and certainty for the businesses and people of Northern Ireland.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
On durable solutions, does my right hon. Friend agree that the only durable solution is for the EU to listen to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) articulated about the needs of Unionism and for a British Prime Minister, in place from September, not to go moaning to their counterparts, as has happened over the past two years, but to grip the issue and solve it politically?
Michael Ellis
Of course, it takes two sides to discuss such matters and come to a solution. I think it has been accepted by all who have spoken so far that there has been some intransigence on the European Union’s side. That is the clear reality. For example, there have been more than 300 hours of discussions between the parties, over 26 meetings involving my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary or her predecessor Lord Frost, and 17 non-papers. I am not sure how much more could be done in terms of negotiation; it does need two sides.
I will move on, as I have several amendments to address and I do not want to interfere with Members’ right to speak in due course.
On amendment 26 and new clause 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), she is right to raise the important issue of this Bill’s relationship with the UK’s international legal obligations. However, the amendment is not necessary. The Government have already published a statement setting out their legal position that the Bill is consistent with the UK’s international obligations. In line with the practice of successive Governments over several years, it summarises our position but does not set out the full detail of our legal advice. That is not something that any Government of any shade can do, and it is quite rare to give such a memorandum.
The statement makes it clear that the strain that the arrangements under the protocol are placing on institutions in Northern Ireland, and more generally on socio-political conditions, means there is no other way of safeguarding the essential interests at stake other than the Bill we propose. There is clear evidence of a state of necessity to which the Government must respond. As in other areas, it would not be prudent for the Government to publish evidence or analysis underpinning every point of legal detail—the lawyers in this House will know that that would be extremely inappropriate—particularly in advance of specific cases arising in potential future litigation. I therefore urge the hon. Lady not to move her amendment.
Layla Moran
The Minister is arguing that future litigation is why we cannot see the full legal advice, but it is precisely because future litigation is quite likely that this House deserves to see the full legal advice.
Michael Ellis
It is long-standing convention for very good reason that legal advice is not published in full. We know that, famously, from the Labour Government a couple of decades ago, when there was an enormous controversy about that. It stands as a very good reason, as I have discussed. However, we have published a memorandum on the matter that goes some way towards answering the hon. Lady’s question.
I move on to amendments 31 and 32 and new clause 10, tabled by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The Bill is designed to bring swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. Those solutions are underpinned by the designation of elements of the protocol as “excluded provision”. Put simply, by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law, the Bill is able to introduce, with the necessary certainty, the changes that are needed in Northern Ireland.
These amendments, through the conditions they would impose, would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. The first condition in particular—that provision is excluded only if the EU and the UK agree to it—is obviously unworkable. Negotiations with the EU have so far been incapable of delivering the solutions that are needed, so to set that as a condition would clearly be dysfunctional. The second condition—that provision is excluded only if necessary as part of an article 16 safeguard—also fails to meet the needs of the situation. As I have said, article 16 has inherent limitations in its scope in that such safeguard measures could address some trade frictions, but not the broader identified impacts of the protocol.
In sum, the right hon. Gentleman’s amendments would unacceptably caveat the core operation of the Bill. In other words, they would be wrecking amendments preventing it from delivering the swift solutions in Northern Ireland that it is intended to provide, and that is why I ask him not to press them.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred earlier to the three bits of the protocol that the Bill specifically prevents from being excluded—namely, rights of individuals, the common travel area and other north-south co-operation—which he described as particularly sensitive. Could he explain to the Committee why he does not regard article 18 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which relates to democratic consent in Northern Ireland, as equally sensitive? Why is that not covered by the exclusion? As I read the Bill, the Government could, if they wanted to, change article 18. Is that correct?
Michael Ellis
I hope to come to the right hon. Member’s point more specifically in due course, if he will bear with me.
I want first to turn to amendment 5. We have always been serious about negotiations, and we remain so. The whole matter is sensitive and the whole issue is one that we remain serious about. Our preference remains to resolve the issues with the protocol through negotiations, and the Bill provides for this, so I welcome and endorse the sentiment underlying the amendment. It is clear, however, as I have said—I have to emphasise this, because it is not emphasised often enough in my view—that there have been over 300 hours of talks to date, in which the United Kingdom has shared 17 non-papers with our counterparts in pursuit of a solution.
Michael Ellis
I will not give way.
The European Union is not willing to entertain the changes that are necessary to fix the issues with the protocol, so the Government’s judgment is that, absent a change in stance from the European Union, we have to be realistic. Good faith negotiations to resolve the issues with the protocol have already been exhausted. As I say, there have been 26 separate meetings with the Foreign Secretary and Lord Frost.
Amendment 5 would require that this judgment be endorsed by both Houses of Parliament and, where relevant, the Northern Ireland Assembly, but this would not be appropriate.
Michael Ellis
I am not giving way, as I have indicated. I will give way in due course.
It has long been the position that the Northern Ireland protocol and negotiations regarding it are, like any other treaty, a matter for the Government, operating under the foreign affairs prerogative. The Executive must retain that prerogative for very good reasons. Because of the protocol, there is anyway no Northern Ireland Assembly currently sitting to provide the consent that this amendment would require. This Bill aims specifically to restore stability in Northern Ireland and a working Assembly—that is the very essence of it—so there is an essential flaw in the amendment’s logic in requiring the Assembly to approve the operation of the Bill. That is why I ask the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) not to press the amendment. Of course, the Government will continue to update Parliament and the Northern Ireland Executive, when they return, on the status of talks with the EU regarding the protocol, and to consult stakeholders in Northern Ireland on the operation of the Bill.
Michael Ellis
I am very conscious of the time and the number of amendments I have to get through, but I will give way again.
Julian Smith
Just on a point of clarification for the Committee, if the Northern Ireland Assembly is not up and running, the provisions in the Bill state that when the consent vote comes, the Assembly will be recalled and there will be a vote on that consent. I say that just so there is no lack of clarity for the Committee about the current provisions within the consent mechanism.
Michael Ellis
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point.
With your permission, Dame Eleanor, I will speak to amendment 25 and new clause 7 together, which are in the name of the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). The Bill is designed, as I have said, to bring swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. These solutions are underpinned by the designation of elements of the protocol as “excluded provision”. Put simply, it is by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law that the Bill is able to introduce, with the necessary certainty, the changes that are needed in Northern Ireland. By requiring the prior approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the amendments would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol, and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. That is unworkable. Because of the protocol, no Northern Ireland Assembly is currently sitting to pass the approving resolution that the amendment would require. The Bill as introduced aims specifically to restore stability in Northern Ireland, and a working Executive and Assembly. Therefore, in requiring the Assembly to approve the operation of the Bill, there is an essential flaw in the logic of the amendment.
As the hon. Member for North Down will be aware, the Sewel convention applies to this Bill, as it does to all Bills of this Parliament that intersect with devolved competence. I confirm that in the absence of functioning institutions, senior officials in the Foreign Office have already made contact with the head of the Northern Ireland civil service regarding legislative consent, and we hope to reach a positive solution as soon as the institutions are restored. By contrast, the amendment would allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to constrain the UK Parliament’s power to legislate, even if that legislation related to a reserved matter. That, of course, is wholly inappropriate under devolution arrangements. The Government will consult stakeholders in Northern Ireland, including Members of the Assembly, on the operation of the Bill during its passage and thereafter. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Stephen Farry
The Minister has mentioned the word “logic” on several occasions and linked the necessity of the Bill to the restoration of power sharing. Does he recognise that there is a real danger in setting a precedent of linking the two together? Have the Government considered a scenario in which Sinn Féin reacts to the Bill and, very regrettably and irresponsibly, withdraws from power sharing? Where does that leave us? Are we any better off? Are we not in a different form of crisis?
Michael Ellis
I will come on to the hon. Gentleman’s question—forgive me; I was distracted. Would he reiterate his point?
Stephen Farry
I will happily do so. I am talking about a situation in which the Government have linked the passage of the Bill to the restoration of power sharing in Northern Ireland. I am asking on a point of logic: if a dangerous precedent is set by that, how do the Government respond to a situation where, as a reaction to the passage of the Bill, Sinn Féin, very irresponsibly and regrettably, walks out from power sharing devolution and leaves us no better off overall?
Michael Ellis
My understanding is that Sinn Féin is willing to go back in and has not set preconditions. That is the actuality of the position, rather than the hypothesis raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Michael Ellis
Forgive me, but may I move on to the issue of necessity, since a number of Members have mentioned that and it may be relevant? On amendment 6, I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Foyle for the Bill to be clear about the powers that it confers to the Government. However, it is essential that the Bill confers necessary powers for the Government to deliver a durable solution to the serious difficulties that the current implementation of the protocol is causing. Those include, as we know, the undermining of the functioning of institutions established by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Amendment 6 confuses an international law concept—the doctrine of necessity, which is long established and well understood—and a domestic statutory one, which concerns the appropriate tests for Ministers exercising powers given to them by Parliament. It is essential that the Bill delivers clarity and certainty for the people of Northern Ireland, and amendment 6 would undermine that. I add the caveat that it is the responsibility of Government to deliver a durable solution to the issues the protocol is causing, in order to protect the Belfast agreement. Any unnecessary additional conditions to the exercise of the powers necessary to deliver that solution will only reduce the clarity and certainty of the Bill and what it does to provide for the people of Northern Ireland. That would undermine our ability to get the Executive back up and running, which is a desire I know we all share. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Amendments 7 and 14 were also tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle. The Bill will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. That avoids a hard border, protects the integrity of the UK and safeguards the European Union single market. I am therefore entirely sympathetic to the sentiment behind the amendments. The Government are motivated by the same concerns that underlie them. We are moving quickly with this Bill—as quickly as possible. That is our focus, because the situation is pressing.
The power in clause 15, which among other things would allow Ministers to reduce the amount of the protocol that is excluded, is designed to ensure that we are able to get the final detailed design of the regime right. Its use is subject to a necessity test against a defined set of permitted purposes. It is essential that that power can be used quickly if needed. Amendments 7 and 14 would pre-emptively prohibit certain uses of the power, but I submit to the Committee that the proper way to scrutinise its use is in this place. All regulations are subject to scrutiny, under either the negative or the affirmative procedure, so it is not as if anything would be set aside without that scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman’s amendments would also do nothing to resolve a potential clash between the permitted and the unpermitted—for example, a security and global market access intention—so they would risk tying the Government’s hands behind their back just when they would need to be most agile. For those reasons, I ask him to withdraw amendments 7 and 14.
Sir William Cash
I am listening with great interest to the series of amendments that my right hon. and learned Friend has been dealing with and asking Members to withdraw. Has he noticed that amendment 1 is neither chicken nor egg, and that there is no reference in it to any evidence test? I am slightly surprised that at the moment, we are not quite clear as to whether it is going to be suggested that that amendment be withdrawn.
Michael Ellis
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.
I will now turn to amendment 27 and new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The Bill is designed to provide swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. Those solutions are underpinned by the legal designation of elements of the protocol as excluded provision. Put simply, it is by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law that the Bill can introduce the changes that are needed in Northern Ireland with the necessary certainty. Through the conditions they would impose, the hon. Lady’s amendments would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol, and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. I would also argue that they are unnecessary, because the actions they require are already being taken in practice during the passage of the Bill. By voting on its passage, both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity to indicate their approval for the principle of excluding elements of the protocol.
The Government have already clearly set out in the statement of 13 June that we consider the legislation to be lawful in international law. We have also already been clear on why we are not using the article 16 safeguard mechanism: it has inherent limitations on its scope, in that such safeguard measures could address some trade frictions but not the broader identified impacts of the protocol. It is therefore unnecessary to oblige the Government to repeat those statements before exercising the powers conferred by the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendments.
Stella Creasy
The Minister has said that my amendments are not necessary. That is very welcome, because new clause 9 requires the Government not just to tell us that they believe they are acting within international obligations, but to set out how, so that the House has a chance to confirm that it is not in breach of those obligations. If that is not necessary, can the Minister set out for us how he believes the legislation is in line with international obligations—not that it is, but specifically how?
Michael Ellis
I commend to the hon. Lady the legal memorandum that was published by the Government. It is, I think, only the second time that a Government of the day has published such a legal document, and it is exceptionally useful. We cannot publish the full legal advice—no Government can do that.
I will now turn to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle. I certainly sympathise with the intention of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but I reassure him that it is also entirely unnecessary. The Government have no intention whatever to use the power in clause 15 to alter the operation of the domestic consent mechanism, which I think answers the point that was made earlier on the Opposition Benches.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Has the Minister ever heard the Opposition point out that the EU is breaking the protocol by diverting our trade and undermining the Good Friday agreement? Has he ever heard them asking to see the legal advice that the EU purports to use when it is so clearly violating the protocol?
Michael Ellis
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as usual. I have to say that I have never heard those requests.
Amendment 10, again tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle, relates to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland. They are, of course, important and well-respected institutions. They were established on the basis of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. They undertake important duties and any change to their remit should not happen arbitrarily. The Government engage regularly with the commissions and they have powers to provide advice to the Government on issues arising from article 2 of the protocol. The Government have engaged broadly on the issues created by the protocol with stakeholder groups across business and civic society in Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom and internationally. In fact, the engagement has been considerable. As the Committee will know, the Bill provides specific powers to establish a new regime in Northern Ireland which addresses the issues with the current operation of the protocol. We are consulting stakeholders on the detail of how the powers are to be used. We will give plenty of notice to those affected in due course. Therefore, amendment 10 would compel the Government to do what, in many cases, they already intend to do.
We are moving quickly with the Bill because the situation in Northern Ireland is pressing. The power in clause 15 that would, among other things, allow Ministers to reduce the amount of the protocol that is excluded is designed to ensure that we can get the final, detailed design of the regime right. Its use is subject to a necessity test against a defined set of permitted purposes. It is designed to provide stakeholders in Northern Ireland with certainty that the Government will deliver the solutions that we have outlined to the problems that the protocol is causing.
It is essential that the power can be used quickly if needed. Although, in normal cases, the Government will of course engage with stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland, there may be occasions when the urgency of a situation means that the Government need to act swiftly. This amendment risks tying the Government’s hands behind their back, and that is why I ask the hon. Member for Foyle not to press it.
Amendment 40 is in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham, who I do not think is in his place. This is the first of a number of amendments from him in the same vein, to which the Government have a single view. The amendment would replace the test of “appropriateness” in the use of the Bill’s delegated powers with one of “necessity”. Members should not confuse this with the international law doctrine of necessity, as the right hon. Member is doing.
The question covers well-trodden ground. Members may remember the extended debates on this topic during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The powers there are similar to those in this Bill, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 and the European Union (Future Relationship) Act 2020. I note that the House and their lordships in the other place ultimately accepted that the word “appropriateness” in this context was, in fact, appropriate.
The word “necessary”, which this amendment seeks to import, is a very strict legal test for a court to interpret. Where there are two or more choices available to Ministers as to what provision is appropriate to address the issues that the protocol has created, arguably neither one is strictly necessary, because there is an alternative. Ministers need to be able to exercise their discretion to choose the most appropriate course. That is why the word “appropriate” is the correct word.
There are clearly multiple choices in how to replace the elements of the protocol that no longer apply in our domestic law. The Government must propose that which would be the most appropriate choice. That is why we have chosen that word. I therefore ask the right hon. Member not to press his amendment.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the Minister comes to his next point, I draw to his attention that a great many people wish to speak in the debate. A lot of people have a right to do so because they are proposing amendments to which I would like to give them time to speak. The Minister has had the floor for 41 minutes. I hope that he might soon be able to draw his remarks to a close, possibly by addressing just the essential parts without the peripheral parts. In that way, there might be enough time, as we have only an hour and a half left of the debate.
Michael Ellis
I am in full agreement with you, Dame Eleanor, and I am coming rapidly to a conclusion with my points on new clauses 1, 2 and 3, which relate to the Government’s approach to environmental protection and principles as related to the Bill. They introduce new provisions to the Bill that require Ministers of the Crown to provide statements on the environmental impacts of any powers taken under the Bill prior to being able to exercise those.
I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Foyle to ensure that our high environmental standards are upheld across the United Kingdom. In the UK, we already have some of the highest standards of environmental protection in the world. We have no intention of weakening or lowering those standards. The Government are proudly committed to enshrining better environmental protections in law to demonstrate a firm commitment to the highest environmental standards, as we did in the Environment Act 2021.
The UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive are already held to account by the independent Office for Environmental Protection, which was created under the Act and has a statutory duty to monitor and report annually on progress on improving the environment in accordance with the UK Government’s environmental improvement plans. The OEP also monitors the implementation of, or any proposed changes to, environmental law, and may hold the Government and public authorities to account for serious failures to comply with it. In addition, the Act already creates a duty on Ministers to be guided by five internationally recognised environmental principles when making policy.
In that context, new clauses 1, 2 and 3 are not necessary, as their purpose is served by existing protections, both practical and legislative. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Foyle not to press the new clauses.
May I return very briefly to the consent mechanism, which operates on an international level? We are committed to the 2024 consent vote, which was a principal goal of the Government’s negotiation, as I alluded to a short time ago.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am grateful that you are in the Chair today, Dame Eleanor, and that I have the opportunity to speak in this debate. As the new Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), is in his place, may I start by welcoming him to the job? I hope that we will have the chance to have exchanges into the future. As I have already reassured him, when this divisive period—which includes the contents of this Bill—passes, I hope that there will be more opportunity to find common ground. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), was present a little earlier; that would have been a good opportunity to pass on my sincere gratitude for the way in which he dealt with me when he was in the Department.
Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill deal with the intention and the main powers. New clause 10, which I will be pushing to a vote, attempts to inject at least some respect for the rule of law into the Bill. The Opposition are also supporting the SDLP’s amendment 8.
The Bill tells us everything we need to know about the Tory party of today, because it represents an abdication of all responsibility—the responsibility to play by the rules, the responsibility to be honest about our actions and their consequences, the responsibility to honour our commitments made on behalf of our country. On Second Reading, the Foreign Secretary declared herself a patriot. Patriotism includes our flag, of course, but it is also about our values. To me, those values should unite all democratic politicians, irrespective of political party. They include respect for the rule of law and equality before it; respect for human rights and the institutions that defend them; and respect for commitments, foreign and domestic, voluntarily entered into and collectively applied.
It says a lot that simply describing those values sounds like a criticism of the Conservative party, the current Prime Minister and almost certainly the next. It is most certainly a criticism of the Bill, which not only breaks convention—the law—but betrays our values as a Parliament and as a country. The Bill exists because the Prime Minister was not honest about the full nature of the Brexit deal. That was followed by a manifesto that promised that his deal was “oven-ready” and vowed to the public that there would be no renegotiations of it.
It is easy for Ministers to dismiss my criticisms, because they are the words of an Opposition spokesman, so how about the words of one of their leadership contenders—of someone running to be their next leader and our Prime Minister? All the contenders have trashed the Tory record in office, so let us take just the most recent example. This morning, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said:
“The British people…are fed up with us not delivering, they are fed up with unfulfilled promises”.
She is right, and the Conservative manifesto promise not to renegotiate is presumably part of the problem that she describes.
Sir William Cash
Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is right for the voters of Northern Ireland to be subjugated to laws that are passed in the Council of Ministers behind closed doors, without even a transcript? How does he justify that? Does he not agree that that is a grave and imminent peril to the people of Northern Ireland?
Peter Kyle
The question that the hon. Gentleman is asking is three years too late. It should have been asked as the Government were negotiating, proposing and delivering the protocol in the first place. The debate here today is not about the nature of the protocol as signed into international law; it is about the way in which the Government have failed to negotiate their way forward, and seek to break the commitment that they made.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I am appealing to the hon. Member. He can use this opportunity to stand here and slag off the Government—a slagging off that they probably deserve—but that is not going to solve the problem. Can he confirm that he will support the clauses that will fix the problem?
Peter Kyle
I certainly do support the new clauses and the amendments that I am putting forward, which I believe will go some way towards fixing the problem, and of course I will, in the hon. Gentleman’s words, “slag off” the Government and the Prime Minister, because it was the Prime Minister who went to the people of Northern Ireland and promised that over his dead body would there be a border in the Irish sea, and then went home and delivered it. I will be critical of the Government who treated Northern Ireland in this manner. I accept that the Democratic Unionist party, and others in the Unionist community, opposed the protocol from the beginning, and they oppose it now. They have been consistent, while the Conservative party has not.
Peter Kyle
I certainly will not be giving way to someone who did not show the courtesy to be here for the whole debate.
Peter Kyle
No, I will not give way. If the right hon. Gentleman were really committed to this issue, he would not have walked in halfway through and started intervening on people. The time to be here was at the beginning, and then he should be here in time to make a speech.
Peter Kyle
I will give way, but then I will make some progress, because I am very keen to hear from other Members.
Dr Whitford
Is not the problem with this Bill that it will not give voice to people in Northern Ireland or their representatives? It puts all the control in the hands of a Government Minister here in Westminster.
Peter Kyle
As we have seen throughout the Government’s response to the challenges of Brexit, they have repatriated powers from the EU but have hoarded them, often not just for Whitehall but for themselves. These often end up being the powers of patronage that Ministers have wielded for their own benefit, and for the benefit of the political party that we see opposite us, rather than for the benefit of our entire country.
For 25 years, the balance between majority opinion and the power-sharing between both communities in Northern Ireland has been a delicate one, but, extraordinarily, this Bill fails on both. To gain the support of one community, they are in danger of losing another. On top of that, a majority of Assembly Members have signed a letter rejecting the Bill. The Bill might persuade some in the short term, but it will not get Northern Ireland back on track into the long term.
Peter Kyle
I will make some progress, because I know that many of the Members who are now seeking to intervene will be making speeches, and I look forward to those.
The legislation before us today flies in the face of our values as a country, and those that many of us used to associate with the Conservative party. It will break international law, and in so doing will damage our reputation with our closest allies; and for all that damage, we get so little benefit. The Bill will not move us forward one iota in addressing the long-term challenges facing the trading circumstances of Northern Ireland while respecting the unique circumstances that have delivered peace, stability and progress in the years since the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was signed.
The Government’s stated preference is still a negotiated solution. However, at the very beginning of the Bill, clause 1(a) states:
“This Act…provides that certain specified provision of the Northern Ireland Protocol does not have effect in the United Kingdom”.
Unilaterally changing an international agreement does not further negotiations. With months of falsehoods, sleaze and squalor, the Conservative party has brought the Government into disrepute. Now they are in danger of bringing our country into disrepute as well.
Even worse, Northern Ireland is again being used as a plaything in the Conservative leadership contest. The Foreign Secretary, who is supposed to be leading negotiations with the EU, is instead parading her inability to reach agreement with it as a key reason for people to vote for her. Multiple contenders have now said that they are willing to leave the European convention on human rights, which would be a straightforward and outright breach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement that they all claim to cherish.
Yesterday I read an extraordinary article in The Times, written by the current Attorney General. This Bill is legally contentious, and it is the Attorney General who provides the legal basis for it. Her advice is supposed to be impartial, yet she wrote:
“The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill needs to be changed so that it actually solves the problem. That means VAT, excise and medicines should be under UK law from day one—currently they are not. The bill’s ‘dual regulatory regime’ lets EU law flow into Northern Ireland in perpetuity. We need to sunset that and provide a mechanism for moving to Mutual Enforcement. Otherwise we’re giving Brussels a legislative blank cheque. These are all changes I’ve been fighting for while in government. Without them, the bill treats people living in Northern Ireland as second-class citizens.”
We have collective responsibility in this country: one Cabinet Minister speaks for all. Will the Government be taking forward the amendments that the Attorney General has suggested because she represents collective responsibility? Can publishing these views as part of a leadership pitch be reconciled with the duty to give impartial advice on this Bill? And can we trust the previous advice she has given, which seems contrary to so many expert views? These questions should all be answered before the Government proceed with this Bill.
This lamentable, unprecedented situation underscores the sheer irresponsibility of a caretaker Government proceeding with a Bill of this nature. It is contentious, it has become a political football in a surreal leadership contest and it breaks a manifesto pledge. Today marks one new low, even for this rule-breaking, convention-trashing Government.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. I want to refer him back to the point made by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) about the illogicality of the Government deciding that one party should go back into the Assembly. Does my hon. Friend agree that that might not stop in the future, and that another party could come to the UK government and say, “We will go back and we will want something from you.” What would the Government say then? Being bipartisan has been an important part of our history in this House, both in ignoring Northern Ireland since 1920 and then in trying to do something about it. Does my hon. Friend agree that the point about one side being adhered to was a useful one?
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her thoughtful contribution; I know that she cares deeply about these issues. Since I have been in this job I have striven, as I hope my friends in the DUP will acknowledge, to take them on their own terms when they express so strongly the existential challenge they face in the protocol. I have also tried to do so for other parties representing other communities in Northern Ireland. It is a shame that, to date, the Government have not striven so hard to take other parties on their own terms and engage with them right the way through. If they had done so, I simply do not believe we would be in the position we are in today.
This afternoon we will quite simply be voting on whether to uphold the rule of law. Expecting a Government to keep their legal obligations should not be partisan. Many Members on the Conservative Benches spoke powerfully on Second Reading about the weakness of this Bill. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister and former leader of the party, said the following:
“My answer to all those who question whether the Bill is legal under international law is that…it is not.”
She went on to say:
“As a patriot, I would not want to do anything to diminish this country in the eyes of the world. I have to say to the Government that this Bill is not in my view legal in international law, it will not achieve its aims and it will diminish the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world. I cannot support it.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 64.]
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said:
“The Bill risks economically harmful retaliation and runs the risk of shredding our reputation as a guardian of international law and the rules-based system. How in the name of heaven can we expect to speak to others with authority when we ourselves shun, at a moment’s notice, our legal obligations?”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 55.]
The right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) said that
“the Bill we are proposing to put through this House tonight will be a gross breach of international law if it is enacted and implemented.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2022; Vol. 717, c. 88.]
We also have the views of experts such as the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which said:
“The Bill is in clear breach of international law as it seeks to change unilaterally the domestic effect of an international agreement that the UK has signed up to, without legal justification.”
New clause 10 is intended to prevent the Government from breaking our legal obligations by requiring either of two conditions to have been met before they can use powers to start to exclude parts of the protocol.
Peter Kyle
No, I have given way once. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to catch the Deputy Speaker’s eye, and I look forward to his contribution.
New clause 10 would ensure that all legal avenues are pursued, which I hope is entirely in line with the intervention made by the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox). He sought to clarify this point with particular reference to article 16, which I will address momentarily. I am pleased that he is still in his place.
The condition must be either the agreement condition or the article 16 condition:
“The agreement condition is that the United Kingdom and the EU have agreed following negotiations that the provision is excluded provision.
The Article 16 condition is that the United Kingdom is unilaterally taking appropriate safeguard measures, in accordance with Article 16 of the Northern Ireland Protocol”.
New clause 10 does not wreck the Bill or prevent its provisions from ever being used; it simply ensures the Government stick to our legal obligations before taking action.
It is wrong to rely on the doctrine of necessity to justify this Bill, as the Government’s legal position does. For necessity to be applicable, the Bill would have to be the only way for the UK to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent threat. Uniquely, the Government’s position is that the protocol they designed and agreed is a grave and imminent threat. By their own admission, this Bill cannot be the only way to address the protocol because Ministers still say they are seeking a negotiated solution with the EU. It just does not make sense.
Labour has been clear all along that we want the EU to show more flexibility in the negotiations. The Government must think progress is possible, too, because they are still pursuing negotiations even at this point. The agreement condition of new clause 10 recognises that, as a legitimate starting point for improving an international settlement that we have signed up to, article 13.8 states that the UK and the EU can supersede the protocol, so long as any subsequent agreement indicates the parts that will be altered—in other words, if it is negotiated. The Government should be focusing all their energies on reaching an agreement instead of wasting time on this Bill, which will do more harm than good and is never likely to make it into statute anyway.
The article 16 condition is another route the Government could take if they were going to act within the law. Negotiation should be the top priority for addressing the protocol challenges but, if the point comes where negotiation is no longer viable, safeguard clauses already exist in the protocol itself. Let me be clear that necessity cannot be relied on if the safeguard clauses have not even been attempted by this Government.
Article 16 sets out what either party can do in circumstances where one party to the protocol feels it needs to take unilateral measures to prevent serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties, or diversions of trade, that are likely to persist. It would be in compliance with international law if the Government sought to use the safeguard clauses of the agreement they signed. Instead of following the process in that agreement, however, they are unilaterally scrapping the agreement altogether.
New clause 10 would ensure that the extraordinary powers in this Bill, which will otherwise breach the terms of the protocol, are exercised only in accordance with the UK’s international obligations. All Members who respect the rule of law should vote for it.
Time and again, Labour has called for the EU and the Government to get back around the negotiating table. There are large areas of common ground that have shown that successful negotiation is possible. Indeed, this is the only negotiation in history that is failing because all sides seem to agree. The way to unlock progress on the protocol is through negotiation and leadership, the very things that Britain used to be good at.
A Labour Government would get around the negotiating table, because “negotiation” is not a dirty word—it is just statecraft, diligence and graft. Statecraft and commitment are needed to deliver for our country, alongside a determination never to be blown off course by internal partisanship. As Churchill put it, we should “put country before party.” That is not a slogan but a principle, at least on this side of the Committee. Where this Government see challenges as an opportunity to have a row, Labour sees the imperative to rebuild. While this Government walk out of negotiations, Labour will be around the table, staying the course and delivering for our country. While this Government play politics with Northern Ireland’s fragile progress, a Labour Government would engage, respect and deliver.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
How would the hon. Gentleman propose to negotiate to permit the voters of Northern Ireland to have a say in the laws that are being made for them?
Peter Kyle
It was a Labour Government who delivered the framework for the Good Friday agreement in the first place. We respect devolution to Northern Ireland. The key thing is that, yes, Northern Ireland has been suffering the existential challenges posed by the protocol, but, fundamentally, Northern Ireland has been suffering from neglect. When the Executive collapsed, there was no visit from the Prime Minister for five months; there were no multi-party talks, in Downing Street or in Belfast; there was no attempt at getting people around the table; and not a single statement was made to this House about Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Secretary at the time, the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary. Just imagine for one second what would happen if the Welsh Senedd or the Scottish Parliament collapsed and this House of Commons went five months before there was any action whatsoever. The only time the Prime Minister visited Northern Ireland was once the Assembly failed to be assembled, after the elections. At that point, when the difficulties in Northern Ireland became so deeply entrenched, the Prime Minister finally went over there for one quick, fleeting, in-and-out visit. That is not good enough. We know that Northern Ireland—all of Northern Ireland—deserves the full attention of the UK Government. It also needs the attention and engagement of this House, where Northern Ireland parties can have their say regularly, on an ongoing basis, not just once a month at oral questions.
Sammy Wilson
Does the shadow Secretary of State accept that if the Prime Minister had set up residence in Northern Ireland and become a member of a political party there, he still would not have been able to resolve the issue that has just been raised with the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary: that this situation is a result not of the Good Friday agreement not working, but of the protocol where laws made in Europe cannot be debated and cannot be changed, and have to be implemented, under a threat of sanction from the European Court of Justice, in Northern Ireland? That is where the democratic deficit lies; it is not because the Government paid little attention to Northern Ireland, but because they gave us a protocol which imposes EU law and has created a democratic deficit. How would he deal with that?
Peter Kyle
I suggest that had the Prime Minister gone to live in Northern Ireland and gone to camp out there—bearing in mind that he is the person who went to Northern Ireland and promised that over his dead body would there be a border in the Irish sea, and bearing in mind what we now know he has been engaging in and the squalor with which he delivered the duties of his office, based on the resignation letters of members of his own Government—he is not the person who could ever have hoped to muster the statecraft to deliver the settlement that Northern Ireland needs.
Peter Kyle
I am going to finish now, so that we can hear directly from Conservative Members. We have always to remember that the Conservative party was the one that enabled, delivered and sustained that Prime Minister in office, and all the time that was done, the politics of Northern Ireland did not just fail to move forward—it sank. So this Bill, from that Government, who their leadership candidates are only too happy to support, is an affront to the UK’s values and to our international interests, at home and abroad. This Bill will not deliver the progress that is needed in Northern Ireland and it will only harm our interests abroad.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We had three hours for this debate. The first four speeches have taken more than two hours. We have about 55 minutes left and 10 people wish to speak. I do not have the power to put on a time limit, but you all have the power to act decently, and speak for four or five minutes and no longer. I hold you all to honour. You should take four to five minutes, otherwise you are preventing other people from speaking. I call Sir Geoffrey Cox.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I will be quick. I have listened with fascination to the contributions and speeches made this afternoon. If I thought that the Bill would produce a durable and permanent solution, I would support it, but I do not believe it will produce a durable and permanent solution. The fact is that we cannot impose on Northern Ireland, or on any other party to a treaty that we signed, unilaterally a political solution. A political solution has to be reached politically; it cannot be imposed by this House through legislation. The EU—like it or not—and the Irish Government are a party to these negotiations. Unless we are able to achieve assent to the arrangements that we propose, they will not last. It will have to be resolved ultimately by agreement. It is much the same as the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill—another attempt by the Government to impose a political solution on Northern Ireland, without first having reached the solution and then produced the legislation that works out and implements that solution. I do not believe that this legislation will produce a permanent solution.
We come to the question of necessity. I am not prepared to say that there is an impossibility that the basis of necessity could not justify the actions that the Government are taking. I have the gravest of misgivings about it, and the deepest of scepticism about whether or not it affords a proper legal basis as a matter of international law, but we have not seen the evidence. It is possible that the Government and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General have seen some evidence that we have not seen that could crystallise at least the plausible case that this action needs to be taken.
I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), but the fact of the matter is that even necessity is not a legal basis for a permanent solution. The doctrine of necessity in international law requires the measures that have been implemented as a necessity to answer the urgent and imminent peril to be removed as soon as the basis for taking action on the grounds of necessity has gone. Indeed, necessity does not even remove the breach; one is still in breach of the agreement. Necessity simply removes the wrongfulness, which further emphasises the fact that necessity cannot produce a permanent solution as a matter of international law. Only agreement—only the reaching of a political solution—can do so.
Nobody need tell me about the politically tone deaf intransigence of the European Union in negotiation. I recall vividly in my visits to Brussels in the early months of 2019, saying to Michel Barnier, “But do you not see, Michel, that this produces an anomalous situation? If a farmer in Northern Ireland wants to take up the issue of cattle tagging, to whom does he go? When the law is imposed by the European Union, the only place he can go is either to Brussels itself or to Dublin, and how will that feel for one whole section of the community of Northern Ireland?” I must tell the Committee that the European Union representatives reacted as if they had been stung by wasps. We have to understand that those at the European Union believe the protocol to be the very zenith of creative diplomacy. They cherish and prize it, as if it were their own child. But that does not mean that we do not need to engage in the patient effort—maybe it will take months, maybe years—gradually to make them see that this is an unsustainable situation.
What we should not do is reach immediately for a solution, over which there are the gravest doubts as to its efficacy as a matter of international law, over which there are the gravest doubts about the sincerity and good faith of the Government—for I take it that the Government have advanced their case on the basis of necessity sincerely. I assume that they must mean, and genuinely mean, that they genuinely believe that there is a respectable case on the basis of necessity. If they do, why should we not at least be told the evidence—the evidence! We can gist it, we can summarise it if it is security sensitive, but at least let this House acquit itself of the doubt that exists over its legal efficacy as a matter of international law. It is no light thing for this House to take a step—
Sir Geoffrey Cox
No, I will not give way. Too many need to speak.
It is no light matter for this House to take a step that is in contravention of its international obligations. The dignity of this nation rests upon its word being seen to be implemented once it is given. Therefore, I think it a small thing—a reasonable thing—that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has asked.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary talked about Members as patriots. I do not believe that there is a person in this House who is not a patriot, not a person in this House who does not believe—[Interruption.] There may be some exceptions on the Opposition Benches, but I certainly do not believe that of those on the Labour Benches. The fact is that I want to give credit and the benefit of the doubt to everybody, but patriotism can also be the belief that we should stand by our word and that we depart from it only if there is a proper legal basis for doing so.
There is plenty of precedent for the Attorney General coming to the House—I should know, I did it—to answer questions about the international law compatibility of a measure in this House. Indeed, it goes way back, I think, to either the Wilson Government or the Heath Government. Attorneys General would come to the House to answer questions on the compatibility of statutes with international law. I invite the Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), to invite the Attorney General to come and answer those questions, because, in my judgment, it is an obligation to the House. The Attorney General has a residual duty to advise the House on matters such as this.
I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I will not be able to support this Bill—that comes as no surprise—but I sympathise with the plight in which the Government find themselves. We should all be a lot better if we united in this House to besiege the European Union with requests so that it sees that it must effect real change in this protocol. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) what is his solution to the democratic deficit of which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has properly and accurately spoken.
These are really intransigent, intractable problems. It is no use sitting, as the hon. Member for Hove does, attacking those of us on the Government Benches for not having solutions if he just talks more and does not propose constructive, new replacement agreements that might fulfil the legitimate wish of the Unionist community to feel that they are not separated and segregated from the rest of the kingdom, while doing justice to the European Union’s desire to protect its single market.
Peter Kyle
New Zealand has been able to negotiate quite diligently and swiftly a veterinary agreement with the European Union. Turkey has been able to agree a customs arrangement with the EU. There has been no law breaking, no storming out of negotiations; representatives sat round the table and got it done. Why does he think that this Government have failed where other Governments have succeeded?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answers the question, I must say that his rhetoric is matchless, but his arithmetic is rubbish. He has held the Committee for 10 minutes with his matchless rhetoric, and I beg him to draw to a conclusion.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
Dame Eleanor, you rebuke me entirely justly. Let me see if I can answer the question. Yes, of course there are trade mitigations, and I had a sincere hope two and a half years ago that they would be resolved in the joint committee. They have not been resolved in the joint committee.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
I do not know, but it is no use the hon. Gentleman’s using the tactic of deflection to try to put me off my question to him. The democratic problem is what I put to him, and Labour has no answer to that problem. If the party is to be taken seriously, it needs concrete proposals that might work. On that note, Dame Eleanor, I will conclude.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I take this opportunity to welcome the new Secretary of State to his place; I look forward to working with him.
I rise to speak to amendments 29 and 30 on the Order Paper and to give notice to the Committee that I intend to put clause 15 to a vote, as it is the heart of the Bill. My party is opposed very much to the Bill in principle. In our view, the hard reality is that Brexit is not working for any part of the UK.
It was Brexit that created the need for a protocol, and we have been clear that within the ambit of that protocol there ought to be room for flexibility. It should be possible for a UK Government who are acting in good faith and are trusted to be able to negotiate constructively within the workings of that protocol to deliver better outcomes, which I think none of us would object to seeing.
We have seen that there is considerable overlap between the proposals of the UK Government and the European Union in terms of the opportunities presented by sanitary and phytosanitary checks and the labelling of goods to eliminate many of the checks currently causing so much difficulty and interrupting trading arrangements. However, introducing a Bill that will break international law and relies on the rather flimsy—at least in the context of the information we have—concept of necessity, is certainly not the way to go to build that trust.
The Bill will damage the UK’s standing in the world. Without a shadow of a doubt, it undermines the UK’s commitment to the rules-based international order. The Law Society of Scotland, which is not known as a revolutionary or radical organisation in such matters, has gone so far as to say that the UK Government should,
“as a matter of principle, comply with public international law and the rule of international law, pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be kept)”.
That should be honoured. It strikes me that even citing the legal doctrine of necessity is tantamount to an admission of a potential future illegality, since the defence is only relevant when international law is being broken. On a political level, there is tremendous difficulty for the Government in seeking to put this argument across. The agreement was freely entered into, on terms that they in many respects insisted upon, which was not only lauded, but which the UK Government actively curtailed the time and opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny in respect of. That takes a considerable amount of chutzpah.
Although we do not consider it unreasonable for the UK Government, in light of experience, to seek to renegotiate the terms on which our future trading relationship with Europe is based and how that impacts Northern Ireland, we do not believe the Bill will create the conditions where such a negotiation might progress or allow the Government to act within the letter and spirit of international law. It also brings the risk of consequences, a reaction and a potential harshening of the trade situation, which would simply make matters worse for everyone right across the United Kingdom.
Dr Whitford
Is my hon. Friend not concerned that, if this Bill were successful and therefore both the European Court of Justice and the rules of the single market were set aside, untold harm would be done to the economy of Northern Ireland?
Richard Thomson
Yes, I think untold additional harms could befall Northern Ireland—and not just Northern Ireland, but all parts of the UK. That is why it is important that the Government’s stated position of preferring negotiation is the one that they pursue wholeheartedly. I am very concerned at the suggestion that there has been no direct dialogue between Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union on this since February; I sincerely hope that is not true.
Time does not permit me to speak on further amendments, but I am particularly attracted to amendment 1 tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who seems to be rapidly becoming the critical friend that this Government perhaps do not deserve, and whose argument is very sound. We also fully support new clauses 7, 8 and 10.
The only way forward on this is negotiation, and the Bill will risk our ability to take that forward. I urge the Minister to accept the amendments that have been tabled in good faith but fundamentally to put the Bill on ice until the Government are back in a stable position, and then proceed on the basis of that reorganised mandate to achieve the negotiated settlement that each of us desperately needs.
Sir William Cash
Section 38 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 includes the word “notwithstanding”. In relation to section 38(2)(b), the use of that word applies to direct effect and direct applicability. I have some experience over the past 38 years of dealing with a lot of these treaties. We have had to implement every one of them as they have gone through, much to my regret—Maastricht and so forth. If there is the necessity, to use that expression, to have to pass legislation in order to implement a treaty into domestic law, I see no reason at all why we should not introduce legislation when that treaty does not work, as in this case, to disapply it. It cuts both ways.
There is a lot of huffing and puffing over this international law business. I was shadow Attorney General during the time of the Iraq war, and I saw things going on with the then Prime Minister, now Sir Tony Blair, implementing arrangements and bringing forward the Attorney General’s opinions. In fact, it was I, on the Opposition Front Bench, who instigated the necessity for him to bring forward his truncated opinion, which was done in order to assuage Labour Back Benchers.
I do not get too worried about the idea of disavowing treaties where they necessarily have to be disavowed in the sovereign national interest of a country. There is a lot of pretty rank huffing and puffing going on about how solemn and sacred all this is. If a treaty does not do something that it is in the interests of the voters and is seen to be doing damage, it requires review. The Bill will do a great deal of good in mitigating the damage. It does not rip up the protocol; it amends it in a sensible manner.
I do not need to repeat my point about the democratic deficit. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) for acknowledging that this point needs to be made. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) made the same point himself. He and I have had long discussions about all this. It is unanswerable, perfectly clear and self-evident. It is coram populo. It has nothing to do with an evidence base—the amendment does not even refer to one; it talks about parliamentary approval for a Bill. It is neither chicken nor egg, nor are there any feathers on the chicken. For practical purposes, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the amendment is not worth pursuing, but I leave it to him to make his own decision.
When I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) attack this Bill, I was reminded, because I have been watching these matters as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee for a very long time, that the Northern Ireland protocol had its origins in her Administration. Let us not think for a moment that the protocol was an invention of the Prime Minister; it was conceived of over a long time. The pass was sold during the previous Administration. That is the point I needed to make.
I have heard the condemnations from the former Prime Minister, which I find to be completely unjustified in the circumstances. I was privy to the negotiations going on when Lord David Frost and Oliver Lewis were involved. I know a little about the background, and I suspect my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) knows a great deal more than me. I can tell the Committee that the whole thing was conceived in the previous Administration. Let us not put up too much—or at all—with criticism made of this Government, or as it proceeds, a new Administration with a new Prime Minister reasonably shortly, on the basis that they are responsible for the protocol, when it was the previous Administration in the first place.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I rise to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), in which we hope to address some of the issues around consent, protection of the Good Friday agreement, environmental protection and the economy of Northern Ireland, because those are the stated aims of the Bill. While the Social Democratic and Labour party believes that the Bill is damaging, we are in the business of finding and providing solutions, and that is what we have tried to do throughout this process. Our amendments offer a constructive way forward that is negotiated, is compatible with international law, is genuinely square with the Good Friday agreement and is in the interests of the people and the economy of Northern Ireland. Anyone who shares those aims should have no issues with the amendments.
The Minister in fact made the case for a number of our amendments by indicating that the Government have no intention of doing some of the things that we are trying to guard against. I respectfully advise him that taking assurances from this Government, who pinball about on this issue and pinball about on their legal obligations, would be, to quote the SDLP founder Paddy O’Hanlon, like asking Atilla the Hun to mind your horse. We will press ahead with our amendments to try to get some of those commitments in the Bill.
The irony will not be lost on people that in Committee of the whole House, considering a Bill that is supposed to be about stability and consent in Northern Ireland, no amendments will be entertained from elected Members for Northern Ireland. Once again, in Committee of the whole House, Members of Northern Ireland are scrambling to barrel through their points in the scraps of minutes at the end of the debate.
The recent focus on the distortion of the principle of consent in Northern Ireland has been a bit of a political earworm since supporters of the Bill picked it up a few years ago, but it was not always so. Until the plans for a very hard form of Brexit finally collided with reality, Brexit was being presented as a consent-free adventure. My party and others, in this House, in Stormont and through the courts, attempted to insert mechanisms to give a voice to the people of Northern Ireland. They were dismissed by some champions of the Bill, who were adamant that there could be, should be and needed to be no role for people in Northern Ireland and insisted that the Good Friday agreement was irrelevant to these procedures.
The SDLP is content to acknowledge the frustrations of some people, but it is annoying that some of the arguments about consent are “Now you see them, now you don’t”. People are left with the view that the consent of certain parts and certain voters are all that a party is concerned about.
The result of our efforts on consent and the belated acknowledgement of that by others in this House was the insertion of article 18 into the protocol, so it is bizarre that the Bill seeks essentially to override the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. Under our amendments, once the bulls are allowed into the china shop—as they would be with the extravagant powers that Ministers are being granted in this Bill—the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland would be protected. That would be further enhanced by our amendment 14, which would provide that a Minister cannot harm either the Good Friday agreement or the economic interests of Northern Ireland. Again, that should not pose a problem to anybody who seeks to protect those issues.
In a similar vein, amendment 10 would provide for consultation with human rights groups, business groups and other civic voices before powers are exercised. The Minister made some comments about the sociopolitical impacts and damage in Northern Ireland, and I ask him to clarify that, because bringing in those groups would in fact ensure much more consent and consensus in Northern Ireland.
In addition to consent and protecting the agreements, supporters of the Bill suggest that they seek a negotiated outcome, and we are told that the EU is engaging insufficiently. Our amendment 5 would include in the Bill the requirement that the powers can be used only after good-faith, documented negotiations that are endorsed by this House and by Stormont. It would be useful for us to see exactly what is being discussed—not just that people have tabled the same paper 17 times—and to be allowed to see past the spin to see which parties to the negotiation are in fact moving their position.
With our amendments, we are offering Members the chance to make the protection of the Good Friday agreement, in all its parts, a real and reliable standard, not a vague and variable part-time application. We offer a way to uphold international law and abide by the treaty while using the flexibilities and room for adjustment within the treaty. Instead of the destructive abandonment of the rule of the law in the Government’s clauses, we are outlining a pathway of constructive adjustment, applying both the structures of the protocol and the ethos of the Good Friday agreement.
Jesse Norman
It has been a splendid debate, and it is my happy privilege to stand as the thorn between two legal roses in my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the acuity of whose interventions has been noted by the House, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), the former Attorney General, with his soaring rhetoric and legal genius.
I will be brief. Everyone in this House recognises, I am sure, that it is vital to make the Northern Ireland protocol work better; that the EU, as described and discussed today, has been intransigent and could do with more direct input from our friends and allied member states, France, Germany, Holland and the rest; and that we need an improved and supported political settlement and situation in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, however, for reasons contemplated and discussed today, and which I will briefly summarise, this Bill is not the answer.
It has been properly pointed out that the doctrine of necessity does not apply in anything like the way the Government describe it. I am not a lawyer, but even I can see that when the Minister concedes at the Dispatch Box that immediacy is not at stake and is not implied by the conception of urgency that the Government wish to deploy. In breaching international law, for the reasons that my right hon. and learned Friend the former Attorney General set out, the Bill breaks the general principle that promises must be kept. However, that is itself an unwritten principle of the British constitution, so this Bill is also a contravention of our constitution. Of course, it appears to breach article 5 of the withdrawal agreement, in which both the UK and EU state that they will faithfully enact the measures to fulfil their obligations arising from the new agreement. Finally, as has been pointed out, the wide powers contemplated under clause 4 are themselves are in clear conflict with the rule of law in the ministerial discretion that they confer.
In principle, this Bill is extremely unwise to say the least, but it is also, just in pragmatic terms, misguided and likely to be counterproductive. As my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, there is no long-term solution to be reached by a unilateral attempt to impose one side’s will on a shared international treaty. Of course, there is no reason to think that this will change the EU’s behaviour in relation of Northern Ireland. Why should it? The EU’s concern is that the UK has been untrustworthy, and far from allaying that concern, the Bill actively reinforces it. If the EU made a concession in response—if by chance it struck a new agreement with the UK on the basis of the pressure supposedly conferred by this legislation—why should it believe that the UK would then abide by such an agreement? That whole rationale would already have been destroyed. Of course, for reasons already discussed today, this is merely the beginning of the potential trouble involved.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) properly talked about the integrity of the United Kingdom, and he was absolutely right to flag that up. However, another kind of integrity is at stake here: the integrity of our overall British patriotic desire to project ourselves as a nation with a historic willingness to lead in matters of reputation and international law. That integrity is being put at risk by this piece of legislation.
I am not going to support amendment 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, not because it is not a perfectly fine piece of drafting, but because this Bill is unamendably bad, in my judgment. I very much hope that this House will not see it through, and that if it does, the Bill will be rejected on Second Reading by the other Chamber.
Layla Moran
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and I completely agree with him. I and the Liberal Democrats intend to vote against this Bill when it eventually comes to its Third Reading. I will speak today particularly to new clause 8 and its paving amendment 26.
First, however, I want to put on record my huge disappointment that the Bill is in Committee today because, since Second Reading, we have had a lame duck Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary who cancelled her meeting with G20 leaders in Bali, where she should have been, and instead came back to start her leadership campaign. This Bill is an incredibly controversial move, and it would have been right and proper for it to have gone away for a while—under the definition of “urgent” that the Minister put forward, that would have seemed to make sense—and then come back when it is clear what direction the Government really want to take. Make no mistake, this Bill is going to affect our standing on the world stage.
My amendments relate to the release of the legal advice. It is absolutely right and proper that the Conservative leadership election has turned our eyes to honesty, integrity and, in particular, trust following what has happened with the current Prime Minister, and that is what my amendments do. They ask the Government, “What have you got to hide?” If there is nothing to hide, they should publish the full legal advice and trust this House to scrutinise it properly.
I urge Government Members to look carefully at what the Attorney General has said since giving her advice on this Bill, because she is also running to be leader of the Conservative party, and she has suggested pulling out of the European Court of Human Rights. As we know, the Court underpins the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Attorney General does not seem to understand how that correlates with the Good Friday agreement, yet we are relying on her legal advice. I would suggest that that is nothing we can rely on. We understand from newspapers that the Government shopped around for legal advice, and reportedly they even spoke to a former adviser of President Trump. However, if they have nothing to hide, they should publish the advice.
In the Minister’s response to my question earlier, he said the Government may well go to litigation over this and may well be taken to court over the definitions in relation to the doctrine of necessity. As a reason for advice not to be published, he said:
“We know that, famously, from the Labour Government a couple of decades ago, when there was an enormous controversy about that.”
That suggests that we should not see the legal advice because of what happened following the release of the advice on the Iraq war, but we know from the inquiry that that is nonsensical because the Government in that case did have something to hide and were found out later. If this Government want to get the trust of Parliament and do not want to have egg on their face in the international courts, they should release the advice. I urge them to support amendment 26, which I hope—by your leave, Dame Eleanor—we can push to a vote later.
Stella Creasy
We are now nearly three hours into the debate and we have not named what the actual problem is. The honest truth is that the problems did not start with the protocol; the problem is Brexit and the necessity of the protocol. For the avoidance of doubt, to acknowledge that Brexit is the problem is not to say that we do not need to change the protocol, it is not to call for us to rejoin the European Union and it is not to call for a second referendum. It is to recognise that selective democratic deafness when trying to discuss what we need to do will continue to damage all our opportunities unless we recognise that there is not a protocol solution that is as perfect as the previous trading arrangements we had.
The risk is that this Bill will make a bad situation worse, like someone having a bad tattoo and taking a blowtorch to it to try to get rid of it. The Government are like the drunk at a party spilling red wine everywhere and then deciding that throwing white wine after it is the solution. That is what this Bill is, which is why Members need to stop saying, like Homer Simpson, that Brexit is a “crisotunity” and recognise that problems are coming from the opportunities they are looking for. There are problems for civil servants who have to go through 2,500 pieces of legislation, and problems for our constituents, especially if the Bill goes through and we have a trade war with Europe. That will hit everybody—not just those in Northern Ireland, but people in my constituency. There are problems caused by the fact that the EU has already launched legal action and could “restrict co-operation”, and problems for the 33% of businesses that have already given up trading with the European Union, including those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson)—I am sorry he is not in his place to talk about these things. [Interruption.] I apologise; he has moved and I could not see him.
We knew these problems were going to happen, yet the Government have done nothing other than introduce this Bill to make things better; they look only to provoke and to make things worse. We talked about oven-ready deals, yet the Foreign Secretary says that the problems were baked in. Frankly, Mary Berry would see the Bill as having a soggy bottom because it is so rubbish.
The report by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law states clearly that the Bill is in breach of international law, and that is why I tabled new clause 7. I hope the Minister will recognise that simply repeating again and again, as the legal memorandum does, that the Government believe that the Bill meets the test of necessity under international obligations, without explaining how, is not tort, it is just a tautology. We cannot say something is necessary and not say why it is necessary, or whether the conditions might change—I agree absolutely with the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on those matters. We know there are things we could do to make that clear, and at least to take back control—after all, the Government said that Brexit was about democracy, but it is turning out to be about Downing Street instead.
New clause 10 would ensure that the Government act within international law. New clause 7 is about evidence that we are acting within international law, and about explaining to our constituents why it would be necessary to take such extreme measures. As the Hansard Society tells us, the Bill is breathtaking in the additional powers it takes and the exercise of those excessive powers, with 19 delegated powers under 26 clauses—I have never seen anything like it in this place in the past 12 years. Those powers are based on ideas that Ministers consider “appropriate”, just as they consider what is “necessary”. As we have seen today, however, they cannot really define what “urgent” means. Most people would recognise that “urgent” probably means “immediate”, rather than “sometime in the future.” Considering that any provision can be made by an Act of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) recognised, if we allow that with the Bill, we could see it for other Bills—literally taking back control from these Benches and sending it to the road opposite.
Finally, there is no way that the Bill supports the Good Friday agreement, which, in and of itself, is an international agreement. We want to stand and challenge President Putin as he rips up the rule of law, yet we say that there are rules of law that we think no longer apply to us. How can we say that we will also guarantee the protections of the Good Friday agreement? How can we give the constituents of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley the certainty they want, and that we recognise they should have, to be able to go about their business and have peace and prosperity, if we act as if the rule of law does not matter or can be bent to shape the will of a particular political movement?
The Bill is about the Government needing Europe to be a bogeyman, and as we have seen from the leadership contest, there are bogeymen aplenty. In reality, this can do only harm. We must recognise that the problem does not start with the protocol. The problem starts with Brexit, and how we negotiate a trade agreement and deal with the problems that arise from leaving the single market and customs union. Our constituents in every part of the United Kingdom deserve that honesty. New clause 7 is about Governments being honest, and just as new clause 10 should not have needed to be tabled, nor should new clause 7, but it did need to be tabled under current circumstances. The people who rely on this place to make reasonable regulations, to admit their problems, as though they were 12-step problems, and to make amends, need and deserve nothing less.
Ian Paisley
Why is the Bill necessary? That is what the Committee has just been asked. That is the question. Well, the preamble to the protocol states clearly that its objective is to uphold the Belfast agreement. Why is its objective to uphold the Belfast agreement? Because the Belfast agreement creates something called power sharing. Power sharing has clearly broken down. Some people may not like the reasons for that, but it has broken down, therefore the Bill is necessary. It is as plain and obvious as that—perhaps we have to say it slower for some people to pick up on the reality that power sharing has broken down, and therefore the Bill is necessary. Do not take my word for it: last week in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, two international lawyers gave us expert evidence. I think there is only one international lawyer in the Chamber today, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who has stated his position. I respect those opinions, but I do not think there has been any other international law expert or practitioner in the Chamber. I can therefore only quote from experts who have given the Committee their expert opinion through the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Hilary Benn
We clearly have a problem, the absence of the Assembly and the Executive, and the cause is the operation of the protocol. I have said many times to European colleagues I have spoken to that the Commission needs to move in the negotiations. But one of the consequences is that we now have an absolutely terrible relationship with our biggest, nearest and most important trading partners. That is one reason why this is an extremely unwise Bill.
The honest answer to some of the questions that have been put in the debate is that there is not an easy answer because of the contradictions inherent in Brexit, the point my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made so eloquently a moment ago, although one of the consequences is that Northern Ireland, alone in the United Kingdom, has access to the single market of the European Union as well as to the market of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The reason for me why the Bill is so egregious is that the Government have chosen to pursue it when they have a means of taking the problem to the European Union in the form of article 16. One wonders what the negotiations were like when article 16 was drafted. “What if we have a disagreement about the way the protocol works? Let’s set up a mechanism for dealing with it.” Yet the Government have refused to use it. When I asked the Foreign Secretary why, she said she was a patriot and a democrat. Those are two very worthy things to be, but that is not a reason for abrogating a treaty you have negotiated and signed. It is a long time since I said this to the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), but I agree completely with the argument he made as to why this is not something the Government should do. It is damaging our relationship and I do not think it will solve the problem.
The Bill is very clever. It is very well drafted and it is a unilateral switch that allows Ministers to turn stuff on and off. That is what it does. Clause 15, which has been part of this debate, contains, in the words of the seventh report of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulated Reform Committee
“a power of the sort we rarely see—a power that in essence allows Ministers to rip up and rewrite an Act of Parliament.”
The Government claim that is necessary because things may come along that they want then to exclude, but there is a point of principle here. If Ministers decide that an Act of Parliament is not working in the way in which it was intended, they should come back to Parliament and Parliament should look at it, rather than Ministers saying, “In that eventuality, I want to take powers to do it by delegated legislation.”
Clause 15(1) lists a series of purposes for which the powers can be used. With no irony, one of the purposes—I could not believe it when I read it—is:
“securing compliance with, or giving effect to, any international obligation or agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party”.
The Government have tried to be virtuous in writing that in, but they then say that there is one exception to that, which is the EU withdrawal agreement and the protocol.
On article 18 of the withdrawal agreement itself, I note the commitment the Minister gave from the Dispatch Box. I urge him, for the avoidance of all doubt, to write that into the three specific exceptions. He has done it for the rights of citizens and the other two, and I advise the Government to put it in there for the avoidance of all doubt.
Along with many Members, I voted against the Bill on Second Reading. I think that it is beyond repair, as has been said, but that does not mean that we should not vote for things that will make it slightly less egregious. That is why I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and new clause 10, which was advocated for so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), who speaks for the Opposition on Northern Ireland matters.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Today in my constituency, more than 100,000 people will gather in the small, rural village of Scarva for what is the largest parade of the year and what many believe to be the biggest one-day festival in the whole of Europe. It is a fantastic day of colour, music, pageantry and tradition—a celebration of civil and religious liberty for all. I am very sorry to miss it, but I know that those gathered there will be very supportive of what I am in this place to say about the Bill and the protocol. They would want me to reiterate that the Irish sea border must go.
It has been encouraging in recent days to hear some of those who have declared that they are standing to be our next Prime Minister state that they are committed to the Bill. Furthermore, it is welcome to hear from the new Secretary of State—I wish him well in his post—that his priority is to see a Northern Ireland Executive restored. Indeed, we share that priority.
The pathway to the restoration of a fully functioning Assembly and Executive at Stormont is through the Bill, the removal of the sea border and a return to the consensus politics that has been the trademark of our political progress to date. I therefore feel compelled to draw attention to a number of amendments in the names of—but not exclusively—the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry), for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood). Amendments 3 to 5 and new clause 7, which move to restrict the operation of the Bill unless it is approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly, make no mention of cross-community consent, meaning that they are clearly majoritarian in outlook.
The Committee understands that, in Northern Ireland, when one community feel ignored or marginalised or that their views are downtrodden, it brings tension and instability. It is a matter of deep regret that the parties who, for years, have preached consensus and consent now appear to want to tell Unionists that their views do not matter. “We shall overcome” has become “We shall overrule”.
The consequences of such an approach will be vast and extremely damaging. I cannot be clearer on the consequences: Stormont will not come back; community relations will further deteriorate; and the progress made on the basis of consensus will be ruined. No one with a shred of political leadership or responsibility would want that. That is why the amendments that prerequisite approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly must be rejected.
In the time remaining, I turn to the amendments that suggest that EU approval ought to be secured prior to the Government acting or the article 16 provisions being followed. Are those who have tabled such amendments aware that we have reached this point because such agreement has not been possible? The EU position is crystal clear—no renegotiation—yet Members of this House, who are elected to serve the interests of this country and its people, are handing a veto to the EU.
This Government were elected on the back of wanting to “take back control”. Any Government that would accept such amendments would be doing the reverse. It is disappointing, but the amendment paper can be seen for what it is: a wreckers’ charter—to wreck not only the Bill, but our political process in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government to reject the amendments.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Dame Eleanor, for the opportunity to speak for all of a minute or thereabouts.
The Bill is not perfect in any way, but it is the Bill before us. We have to support it, because it makes us as British as England, Scotland and Wales, which at the moment we are not. I am very mindful that Northern Ireland has been the football that everybody has kicked about, so it is important for us to see a Bill coming forward that gives us a chance to make a change. All my local businesses, or 99.9% of them, say that they are disadvantaged by what is in place. The fishing fraternity in Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel says the same thing about tariffs, bureaucracy and red tape, and so does the farming community.
Many hon. Members have said today, mischievously, that this is about Brexit. For us, it is about being British. I want to be as British as every Member on either side of the Committee who wants to be British, but it is more important for me to see a Bill coming forward that will make that happen. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to agree to go forward and support us in Northern Ireland, because this is the way to do it.
Sir Robert Neill
This has been a most useful debate. I will not press my amendment 1 to a vote tonight, because amendment 2, which is scheduled for debate on the third day of Committee proceedings, will permit the Committee to revisit the topics if matters develop.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 26, in page 1, line 3, at end insert—
“(za) requires Ministers of the Crown to set out a legal justification for altering the effect of the Northern Ireland Protocol in domestic law”.—(Layla Moran.)
This is a paving amendment for NC8.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Farry
I beg to move amendment 24, page 3, line 3, leave out subsections (1) to (3).
This amendment removes the designation of Article 5(1) to (4) and Annex 2 of the Northern Ireland Protocol relating to movement of goods and customs, as excluded provision.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 34, in clause 5, page 4, line 14, leave out “the Minister considers appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 5 stand part.
Amendment 35, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, leave out “they consider appropriate” and insert “is necessary”.
This amendment changes the threshold for giving a Minister power to make regulations under this Clause. The threshold is amended to make it objective rather than subjective.
Clause 6 stand part.
Amendment 15, in clause 24, page 13, line 16, leave out from “to” to the end of line 22 and insert
“House of Commons draft affirmative procedure”.
This probing amendment would apply “House of Commons draft affirmative” procedure in place of regulations on tax or customs matters being subject to annulment.
Amendment 16, page 13, line 27, leave out from “procedure” to the end of line 32.
This probing amendment would prevent Henry VIII powers (amending Acts of Parliament by regulations) being made on tax or customs matters using the “made affirmative” procedure.
Amendment 17, page 13, line 34, leave out “draft affirmative procedure” and insert
“super-affirmative procedure (see section (Super-affirmative resolution procedure: general provisions))”.
This probing amendment would replace draft affirmative procedure on tax and customs matters with super-affirmative procedure (see NC5).
Amendment 18, page 13, line 36, leave out subsections (7) to (9).
This amendment is a probing amendment removing the “made affirmative” procedure on tax or customs matters.
Clause 24 stand part.
New clause 4—UK-EU Joint Committee: reduction of sanitary and phytosanitary checks—
“A Minister of the Crown may not exercise any powers conferred by this Act until a Minister of the Crown has sought an agreement at the UK-EU Joint Committee on reducing sanitary and phytosanitary checks and laid a report setting out the details of those discussions before each House of Parliament and provided a copy of that report to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
New clause 5—Super-affirmative resolution procedure: tax or customs matters—
“(1) For the purposes of this Act the “super-affirmative resolution procedure” in relation to the making of regulations subject to the super-affirmative resolution procedure is as follows.
(2) The Treasury or HMRC must have regard to—
(a) any representations,
(b) any resolution of the House of Commons, and
(c) any recommendations of a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations, made during the 60-day period with regard to the draft regulations.
(3) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Treasury or HMRC wish to make regulations in the terms of the draft, the Treasury or HMRC must lay before the House of Commons a statement—
(a) stating whether any representations were made under subsection (2)(a); and
(b) if any representations were so made, giving details of them.
(4) The Treasury or HMRC may after the laying of such a statement make regulations in the terms of the draft if the regulations are approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(5) However, a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations may, at any time after the laying of a statement under subsection (3) and before the draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (4), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft regulations.
(6) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (5) in relation to draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the draft regulations in that House under subsection (4) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(7) If, after the expiry of the 60-day period, the Treasury or HMRC wish to make regulations order consisting of a version of the draft regulations with material changes, the Treasury or HMRC must lay before the House of Commons—
(a) revised draft regulations; and
(b) a statement giving details of—
(i) any representations made under subsection (2)(a); and
(ii) the revisions proposed.
(8) The Treasury or HMRC may after laying revised draft regulations and a statement under subsection (7) make regulations in the terms of the revised draft regulations if the revised draft regulations are approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(9) However, a committee of the House charged with reporting on the revised draft regulations may, at any time after the revised draft regulations are laid under subsection (7) and before the revised draft regulations are approved by that House under subsection (8), recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations.
(10) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of the House of Commons under subsection (9) in relation to revised draft regulations, no proceedings may be taken in relation to the revised draft regulations in that House under subsection (8) unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.
(11) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (8) regulations are made in the terms of draft regulations if the regulations contain no material changes to the provisions of the draft regulations.
(12) In this section the “60-day period” means the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the draft regulations were laid before the House of Commons under section 24 of this Act.”
This new clause sets out the House of Commons super-affirmative procedure for tax and customs matters.
Stephen Farry
Amendment 24 would remove from clause 4 the measures that strip out the heart of the protocol, namely article 5, which relates to the management of the customs union and single market as they pertain to Northern Ireland, making it an excluded provision under domestic law. That, of course, would be a unilateral breach of the protocol, rather than working through negotiations to find durable solutions. The effect of that unilateral action would be to undermine Northern Ireland’s current unfettered access to both the single market and customs union for goods.
Fundamentally, there is no escaping the Brexit trilemma. When the Government decided to leave both the single market and the customs union, that required some form of interface to be put in place somewhere between the UK and the European Union’s economic zones, and that interface must be managed and mitigated as far as possible. The protocol offers relative opportunities for Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain, and they should be preserved and maximised. However, the protocol also poses challenges that need to be minimised.
The solutions must be mutually agreed, sustainable and legal. Northern Ireland businesses need certainty, and the only way through the process is negotiation. As someone who is at least a pragmatist or a realist on the protocol and who was a strong opponent of Brexit, I firmly believe that the European Union needs to be as flexible as possible, and that much more can be done in that regard—it is important that I put that on the record. At the same time, we must be brutally honest that the Government have been disingenuous in their approach to the negotiations over the past 12 months. Engagement has been extremely limited and, at times, counterproductive.
The Bill itself makes the prospect for negotiations even harder. Indeed, the passage of the Bill will probably make negotiations almost impossible. The European Union has been clear that it is tantamount to asking for negotiations with a metaphorical gun sitting on the table. By contrast, the key ingredients for progress are trust and partnership, but unilateral action undermines trust. Trust is central in two respects—first, to securing solutions in the first place; and, secondly, to ensuring their ongoing operation.
I want to highlight two particular solutions that are out there. A lot of Members have talked about them and, indeed, there has been a lot of commentary outside this Chamber as well. The first relates to red and green channels. On the surface, I think there is a lot of common ground between me and others from Northern Ireland, the Government and the European Union on something generally speaking along those lines. There is of course a major difference in the approach by which we get from A to B and reach such a conclusion, and I think that is the fundamental difference of opinion in relation to the Bill.
While Ministers keep saying that there is broad-based support for at least some aspects of the Bill, I am firmly opposed to achieving those through unilateral action, because that is not actually a genuine solution. We have to recognise that there may be some differences over the details of what this may look like in practice, and we need to be open, frank and honest about those. A green lane may not necessarily mean a fully open door; there may still need to be some degree of a risk-based approach to how that is managed. However, I think the essential concept remains that processed or final goods destined to remain in Northern Ireland should not be treated as something posing a risk to the EU single market or customs union.
The second aspect I want to focus on is a UK-EU veterinary agreement. It may be that we do end up with something that is very bespoke for the Irish sea interface, but I think we should focus on what should be the first preference, which is a UK-wide solution. The UK retains very high standards for agrifood, and they are de facto aligned with those of the European Union, but because the legal regimes do not align, we end up with barriers—frankly, needless barriers. That makes it much more difficult than it need be to manage movements across the Irish sea, but it also poses huge issues for the entire UK economy. In particular, the agrifood sector exports to the European Union—indeed, the European Union is by far the main export market for UK agrifood producers —and we are seeing a major shortfall in agrifood exports as a consequence of Brexit and the absence of a veterinary agreement.
People talk about what I suppose are the two polar opposite approaches to a veterinary agreement: first, there is the Swiss model, which is based on dynamic alignment; and, secondly, we have the New Zealand model, which is based on mutual recognition. The nature of New Zealand’s trade with the European Union, given the geography and a more limited range of products, will be different from that of the UK, which has its own requirements. Frankly, however, it is absurd that New Zealand has easier access to Northern Ireland for agrifood than the UK.
The Government face a choice between continuing to pursue the hardest of hard Brexits, especially on agrifood, when it makes no sense to diverge whatsoever, and being pragmatic and considering some form of veterinary agreement. That veterinary agreement may well end up being unique. It will be a UK-EU solution: it will not be the Swiss model or the New Zealand model, but something else. A veterinary agreement has the potential to reduce agrifood checks across the Irish sea by as much as 80%, and that would go a massive way to addressing the heart of the issue. Parallel movements could also address the pets issue, which has been a source of contention for many pet owners across these islands.
Tony Lloyd
On the veterinary agreement, an EU that has negotiated—in good faith, one assumes—with New Zealand and Switzerland, would negotiate in good faith with the United Kingdom. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is a real one, but for many years, both the agrifood business and farmers have worked to the same common standards in the UK and the EU. We have not diverged so far, so could that not be part of rebuilding the trust that he spoke about?
Stephen Farry
Absolutely. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. He has been a strong advocate for a common-sense approach to agrifood movements, as have many Opposition Members as well as some Conservative Members. The Government keep telling us that there is no intention of diverging or lowering agrifood standards, so there is no benefit whatsoever to holding out against the logical solution of a veterinary agreement.
Hilary Benn
I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely about the need for a veterinary agreement. Is one advantage of an EU-UK veterinary agreement that it would deal with the objections that were raised earlier by some colleagues from Northern Ireland about Northern Ireland being a rule taker for things that it had not agreed? If an agreement is for the whole UK, and Parliament agrees to it, does it not remove that objection?
Stephen Farry
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our first preference in all these matters should be a UK-wide solution, and only when that is not available, for whatever reason, should we consider something more bespoke for Northern Ireland. We are discussing the protocol, and I reiterate that this issue is very much in the interests of the entire UK agrifood sector, which is an export sector. Many Members talk with great pride about different industries in their constituencies, and all of those are struggling as a consequence of the impact of Brexit. I am labouring the issue of red and green channels, and the veterinary agreement, to point out that solutions are out there and that the measures in clause 4 and elsewhere in the Bill are not necessary. Solutions are there if people have the creativity and willingness to go out and grasp them, especially when that is fundamentally in the interests of us in the UK, as well as being of benefit to the European Union.
Reference was made previously to the Acts of Union, and I wish to clarify a couple of points in that regard as the situation changes over time. The Acts of Union of 1800 were between Great Britain and Ireland, and we are now talking about Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that is one change we have seen via the Government of Ireland Act 1920, and the more recent Good Friday agreement, the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and the principle of consent, which is the bedrock of that. That is just a precursor, and while I agree fundamentally with the point just made—that our preference should be for a UK-wide approach and solution to some of these issues where possible—we must recognise none the less that Northern Ireland has always, from its inception, done things differently from the rest of the UK in economic matters.
Northern Ireland has always had devolved powers, right from its foundation, and on matters such as employment law or other issues it has had the right to diverge. Further to that, although I am not encouraging checks down the Irish sea, for various reasons throughout our history, including in wartime and other times of stress, there have been checks on certain movements across the Irish sea, including agrifood movements. Indeed, it is accepted practice that farm equipment is inspected. Ireland only really works as a single unit in terms of animal health, and before a lot of the controversy emerged around the protocol, that was an accepted fact for people from all backgrounds in Northern Ireland, as it was the most pragmatic way of doing things. In the same way, the single electricity market on the island has not been a source of debate, although it is a reality that Northern Ireland energy issues are distinct from those in Great Britain, and happen primarily on an all-Ireland basis.
To conclude, I will stress a couple of points. First, if the will is there, the means exist to resolve these issues without going down the route of unilateral action. Under the protocol, there is scope to progress a lot of those issues, including within the current negotiating mandate for the European Commission from the European Council. The question of medicines was progressed without a change in mandate, and the European Union went ahead and legislated for change. Secondly, issues can be addressed through supplemental agreements to the trade and co-operation agreement—the veterinary agreement probably fits that category best. A specialist committee has been set up for that purpose, so a vehicle exists to progress similar issues. While the UK Government have put forward their Command Paper, the European Union put forward its own proposals in October last year, and updated proposals last month.
If clause 4 remains as currently drafted, including the excluded provision, there will be a series of consequences—indeed, there will be consequences from the Bill itself—both for the UK and, in particular, for Northern Ireland. Those will include the undermining of the rules-based international system; setting a very bad precedent by breaching international law; and the risk of a very damaging set of EU retaliations, right through to a full-on trade war. Sadly, we are already seeing the consequences for UK academics and researchers who have been excluded from Horizon Europe. Research has been a real success story for the UK, so the costs are already clear in that regard—costs that are being paid for something that is not necessary, is unworkable, and is counterproductive.
For Northern Ireland, the effects of clause 4 will be as follows: it will undermine our access to the single market and the customs union. It will create more and more uncertainty for businesses as to the legal regime under which they are operating. It will pose dilemmas to members of the Northern Ireland Executive about how they conduct their duties. Finally—I say this with a degree of trepidation—it will beg the question of how and where the interface between the UK economic zone and the European Union economic zone will be managed. The answer to that question may well pose even greater challenges and difficulties.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to follow the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry); I agree with some of what he said, if not, perhaps, some of his conclusions. I think that, of all the contents of the Bill, the Government are on the strongest ground when it comes to the clauses we are now debating, and that the EU could have found a way of agreeing with the UK Government how to fix this problem. In the protocol, it was agreed that Northern Ireland was in the UK customs territory, and only goods that were at risk of going into the single market needed to be inspected as they crossed the Irish sea. We ended up with the EU seemingly interpreting everything as possibly being at risk of going into the single market, which produced a ridiculous level of tests that would never be acceptable to the Unionist community of Northern Ireland and are doing the economic damage and causing the tensions we have seen.
It should be obvious and acceptable to both sides that it has been agreed that Northern Ireland will have a foot in both camps: a foot in the EU single market and the EU customs zone, and a foot in the UK single market and the UK customs zone. The only way to make that work is to accept that there is a porous border, where there is no way of exercising the usual level of control that the EU would insist on at its other single market borders around Europe. The key questions for everyone to focus on are these: what goods are we really worried about? What goods have a real risk of crossing that border without being checked—without having the customs declarations and the duty paid, or the various other checks that are required? Finally, how do we put in place measures that can mitigate that risk, and make people on both sides of the border happy that nothing is crossing that border that poses a real threat to the integrity of either market?
To be fair, the UK Government have been extraordinarily generous, not just at the Irish border but at the Dover-Calais border, by not introducing the checks we could have introduced and which we would expect to see at a normal border, because we largely trust goods that are in free circulation in the EU, even if they are not absolutely consistent with UK regulations, either now or in future, or perhaps there is a theoretical customs issue, even though we have a zero-tariff, zero-quota deal, and there may be some duty payable because of rules of origin. We have been extraordinarily relaxed in accepting that those risks are much lower than the risks of trying to impose the burden of huge amounts of checks.
Until we get the EU into the mindset of accepting the same position in relation to goods circulating in Northern Ireland, there is no solution, because at some point there will have to be a border with checks and processes somewhere. We know it cannot be on the island of Ireland. We accepted that trying to make the EU put the border between the European mainland and the island of Ireland would be a horrible situation that the Republic of Ireland could never accept and effectively mean that it had left the single market by mistake, which the Irish Government would never entertain. It always looked to most people that there was the prospect of a compromise by doing something down the Irish sea, where goods spend several hours on a ship allowing for inspections and for declarations to be made, but that it had to be done sensitively and only on the things that were really at risk, otherwise we would end up with the problem we have now, where the Unionist community will not accept it and there is too big a dividing line between the UK mainland and Northern Ireland.
I support what the Government are trying to do and some kind of red and green channel is the right solution. I think the problem we have is that we have extraordinarily little detail about how it will work and how we satisfy the EU that the data we think we can collect and give it is sufficient to get it in a place where it will not have some horrible overreaction. We have not managed to reach an agreement. In fact, I understand it will not even look at our database and the data we could share to see if it is enough to get it there.
We have what looks like a theoretically attractive solution that is the right end position, but we have no idea how to make it work on the ground. We are going from a position where it looked like the EU was going to accept trusted trader exemptions, where everything must be checked and declared unless we have pre-agreed that certain traders are trusted and therefore we can exempt them from it, almost to a position where, if I read red and green right, everything is exempt unless either the trader self-declares that he will go into the single market, or we presumably do some risk-based inspection and spot something that should have been in the red channel in the green channel. It is a stretch to think we will get the EU happy with that without its having serious trust in our internal identification processes.
Then there is the difficult scenario of what happens when somebody changes their mind: goods go into Northern Ireland to be sold in a Northern Ireland store, and then they get low on stock in the Republic of Ireland and decide they want to move them into the Republic. The goods will not have been checked and they will not have done the customs declarations. What will the process be? Where do they go to get the goods checked so that they can legally move them across the border? Or do they just move them, nobody ever checks it, it is all fine and that is that? Again, I would be surprised if we get the EU happy about that. We are going from a position where goods are in free circulation on the island of Ireland, to a position where goods may not be in free circulation on the island of Ireland. How do we fix that?
I urge the Government, as the Bill progresses, to publish the processes for exactly how that will work, and how we can have an effective international border and make the red and green lanes work, so that we can show we are really trying to identify the goods most at risk of cheating or abusing the rules to try to get around them. If we can do that, there is scope to negotiate with the EU and get to the end point that we will inevitably have to get to. Unless the EU wants no border at all or a border on the island of Ireland, it will have to make the system work. That has been apparent for the couple of years since we knew this was coming, but we need to have in place trust between the EU and the UK Administrations, and we need to have the working arrangements and trust between the Irish and the UK authorities in Northern Ireland, so they can work together, trust each other to do joint inspections and share information on a real-time basis—all those common working practices that we have not managed to get to, due to the tensions on both sides, and where we need to get to.
The question we have to ask is: does proceeding with the Bill help us to get towards negotiating a compromised, pragmatic end position or does it make that harder? Fundamentally, I suppose the Government’s answer will be, “We have tried to get the EU somewhere sensible on this matter for the past year or more and we have not managed it. So we will put in place these arrangements and the EU will have a choice: either come and work with us and get to the stage where you are happy with the processes that we have in place and the data we can share with you, or it is just tough—accept what we will offer you.” I sincerely hope, before we do this on a unilateral basis, that at least in this area, where it looks like a compromise should be achieved, we manage to put in place something that both sides are happy with.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Peter Kyle
I am grateful to be called, Dame Rosie. We are examining clauses 4 to 6 and 24. It is hard to approach the Bill on a line-by-line or even a clause-by-clause basis, because so much of it relies on unspecified regulations that the Minister can make in future. In the words of Parliament’s Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Bill is
“a skeleton bill that confers on Ministers a licence to legislate in the widest possible terms. The Bill unilaterally departs from the Northern Ireland Protocol and enables Ministers to depart from the Protocol even further. The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations.”
Clauses 4 to 6 are supposed to be the legal basis for the Government’s proposed green and red lanes for goods destined for Northern Ireland and the EU. The clauses unilaterally scrap the relevant parts of the protocol that deal with goods, movement and customs. The green and red lane proposals represent a solution that the EU should consider and, indeed, on which everyone seems to agree. Goods going from Britain to Northern Ireland that are staying in Northern Ireland should not face the same checks and paperwork as goods going into the single market. However, unilateral domestic legislation will not bring the green and red lanes into fruition, because in order to work, the proposals rely on sharing data and providing safeguards with the EU. It is inappropriate to place them in the Bill when they should be the focus of ongoing negotiations.
It is hard to understand how the Government’s proposals for green and red lanes and the EU’s proposals for express lanes cannot be reconciled. First, let us consider the Government’s proposal. They are proposing goods destined for Northern Ireland from Britain be exempt from checks and paperwork. The safeguard that the Government offer the EU is that traders will have to be registered with a trusted trader scheme and commercial data will be shared with the EU to monitor the risk of abuse. Let us now consider the EU’s proposal. It is proposing an express lane. That would reduce checks on goods staying in Northern Ireland based on a trusted trader scheme and commercial data sharing. If the prolonged uncertainty for Northern Ireland were not so damaging, the situation would be laughable.
It should not be impossible to negotiate a solution that is acceptable to both sides. The Labour party has long called for a bespoke veterinary agreement that would make the negotiations even simpler. We support amendment 24 because it would stop this unhelpful unilateral action in an area where there is a clear landing zone for a negotiated agreement. Businesses in Northern Ireland want certainty, but the Bill says practically nothing about what will replace the parts of the Northern Ireland protocol that will be excluded.
Clause 5 gives Ministers the power to make any provision that they consider appropriate in connection with any provision of the Northern Ireland protocol to which clause 4 relates. Traders and businesses will be watching this debate and wondering what on earth the details of the Government’s proposals actually mean in practice. Once again, it appears that the Government are not trying to be constructive, but are obstructing the path to a solution on the protocol. Trying to unilaterally force red and green lanes instead of finding an agreement on them is the best example of this. Negotiations are necessary and are still an option, so we simply cannot support that.
Richard Thomson
I rise to speak to amendments 15 to 18 and new clause 5. I will just have a quick canter through them, because they are quite technical.
Amendment 15 would apply House of Commons draft affirmative procedure in place of regulations on tax or customs matters being subject to annulment. Amendment 16 would prevent Henry VIII powers from being made on tax or customs matters using the made affirmative procedure. Amendment 17 would introduce the super-affirmative procedure set out in SNP new clause 5. Amendment 18 would remove the made affirmative procedure for tax and customs matters.
The SNP is proposing the super-affirmative procedure on what we regard as a point of principle: the Bill gives Ministers far, far, far too much power. Notwithstanding any of the unlawfulness inherent in it, it simply gives Ministers far too much power to act without reference back to elected Members. We think that that needs to be remedied, so under new clause 5, the super-affirmative procedure would ensure that the Treasury and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
“must have regard to…any representations…any resolution of the House of Commons, and…any recommendations of a committee of the House of Commons charged with reporting on the draft regulations”
and must give details of any representations made. The new clause would ensure that approval for the draft regulations is given by Members of this House, rather than by Ministers. There are some important issues at stake.
I turn to the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s seventh report of this Session. I have to say that the Committee’s publications are very worthy, although they are not exactly on my bedtime reading list every night. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), would agree; his highlighter pen has clearly been over exactly the same sections of the report as mine. What it says early on bears repetition:
“The Northern Ireland Protocol Bill…confers on Ministers a licence to legislate in the widest possible terms…The Bill represents as stark a transfer of power from Parliament to the Executive as we have seen throughout the Brexit process. The Bill is unprecedented in its cavalier treatment of Parliament, the EU and the Government’s international obligations.”
Quite apart from the unlawful nature of what is being proposed, it seems undesirable, if not improper, to vest quite so much power in the hands of Ministers.
I will keep my remarks brief, but I will just briefly touch on Opposition amendments 34 and 35, which appear to have a similar ethos to ours: they would remove Ministers’ ability to act on a subjective rather than objective basis. I also commend new clause 4 and amendment 24; the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) spoke very eloquently about the benefits that could come from taking a UK-wide approach once again on these matters.
I have certainly been doing my bit, in every forum to which I have had access, to make the case for putting a sanitary and phytosanitary deal in place. Not only would that solve many of the problems inherent in the protocol, but it would make things much better for my constituents in the north-east of Scotland, the seed potato growers and those who are involved in the food and drink industry more generally. It seems such a pragmatic thing to do that it beggars belief that we have come so far down the road of the Government saying that they wish to negotiate without anything like it being concluded. It seems to me that Ministers would be knocking on an open door if they went to Brussels with it.
Sammy Wilson
The DUP has not tabled any amendments to the Bill. We do have some reservations, especially about the regulations that Ministers may introduce to give effect to measures set out in the Bill. Nevertheless, we want the Bill to go through the House intact.
Having listened to the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry), I could have understood it if his amendment had come from the Labour party. After all, we know that the Labour party really wanted to remain in the EU and would love to get back in the EU; it is pushing to keep Northern Ireland as close as possible to the EU so that it could eventually be a foot in the door for the rest of the United Kingdom. I could also have understood it if it had been a Liberal Democrat amendment. The hon. Member’s amendment, which would be similar in effect to new clause 4, tears at the very heart of the problem. Rather than addressing the problem of the protocol, it seeks to ensure that that problem remains.
The protocol has caused two issues in Northern Ireland. The first is the democratic deficit. As a result of the protocol, Northern Ireland is subject to a list of EU measures which—in annex 2 of the protocol—goes on for 82 pages. Those 82 pages do not contain the details of the law; they are merely a list of the EU laws, directives and regulations that apply to Northern Ireland. Moreover, not only the historic regulations themselves but any changes in those regulations apply, and there will be no opportunity for politicians in Northern Ireland to have any say on them. They will have no opportunity to amend them; they will not even have any say in whether they are enacted, no matter how damaging they may be to the Northern Ireland economy. That is what causes the democratic deficit, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down is intended to ensure that that situation remains.
In our earlier debate, we talked about the need for consent and the need for accountability. In fact, in his own speech the hon. Gentleman talked about how terrible it would be for Ministers to take on the powers in the Bill, because that would take away the right of this Parliament to make any decisions and have any say. Yet he was quite happy to move an amendment that would remove the powers in the Bill to ensure that that list of EU regulations—82 pages of them—should no longer apply to Northern Ireland unless it is deemed necessary. He is quite happy for the Bill to be amended to leave those in place. We have elected an Assembly in Stormont. I know that people complain about the fact that it is not sitting, and of course it is not sitting because of the protocol; but even if it were up and running, it could not do anything to deal with the problems caused by the protocol, because it does not have a say on them.
That is the first problem, and stemming from it is the second: the range of issues contained in article 5, which the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for North Down seeks to keep in place. What is article 5 all about? It is all about the fact that laws in Northern Ireland are different from, and will become more different from, laws in the rest of the United Kingdom. Goods coming to Northern Ireland from Great Britain will have to be subject to checks either if they are made in Great Britain under different rules and regulations, or if they come from third countries into Great Britain and then into Northern Ireland, and maybe go into the Republic. If passed, the amendment would leave unaddressed both the issue of the democratic deficit and the problem of EU checks, with all the impact that that has on businesses in Northern Ireland.
It has been claimed—we have heard much about this today—that what we should be doing, instead of acting unilaterally, is negotiating. Why do the Government not negotiate on all the things that they wish to do in the Bill? Why, for example, do we not secure a veterinary agreement with the EU? Well, we have been trying to do that. Indeed, Lord Frost told the House of Lords last year:
“On the question of a SPS or veterinary agreement, we proposed in the TCA negotiations last year that there could be an equivalence arrangement between us and the EU. Unfortunately, the EU was not open to that. We continue to be open to such an equivalence arrangement, if the EU is interested in it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2021; Vol. 811, c. 970.]
The EU has not shown any interest.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
My right hon. Friend is talking about misinterpretations of the protocol. There are those who repeatedly say that the protocol provides two-way trading access into the UK market and then into the Irish Republic and the EU market. Does he agree that it is not the protocol that provides that? What should provide it is, first, our membership of the United Kingdom and, secondly, our physical geographical position on the island of Ireland, with a 300-mile land border that nobody could seal to provide a hard border to prevent open access?
Sammy Wilson
That is the whole point, of course, which is one of the reasons why the border is placed down the Irish sea.
A second point that has been made is that these changes in the Bill will have detrimental effects on Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland and that we will not be able to have access to the EU single market. Well, given the fact that the biggest market for Northern Ireland by far is the GB market, I would much prefer that we ensured that our access and the flow of goods between GB and Northern Ireland was maintained, rather than the flow of goods between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. But those things are not mutually exclusive anyway, because the Irish Republic relies on that trade as well.
Our farmers are an example. The Irish cheese industry—and industries involving many other dairy products—could not exist without a supply of milk from Northern Ireland. The idea that, as a result of this Bill, the EU and the Irish Government are going to say, “Let’s have a trade war with the UK” is just fantasy. They sell more goods into the UK than we sell into the EU. Are they going to harm their own manufacturers? There is an interdependency for some of those industries between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic. Are they going to hurt that? Of course not. The idea that there will be some detriment as a result of these measures is one of those claims that cannot be proven, and logically one would believe that this would not happen.
The last point that has been made is that, if we put this Bill through, we will lose what flexibility there might be. That was another argument made in favour of these amendments. We are told that we have to have these amendments; otherwise, the EU will get angry and not negotiate with us. We are also told that the EU would be prepared to show some flexibility if there was a willingness to co-operate. As has already been pointed out, we have tried to co-operate with the EU for ages and it has not happened. As far as flexibility is concerned, there is no sign of that, even when it comes to the minutiae of dealing with the protocol. Companies in Northern Ireland that do not have stores in the Irish Republic are still subject to the same checks.
Only last week, headlines in the Belfast Telegraph indicated that a haulage company had to send back a lorryload of goods because there were vegetarian pizzas on that lorry. I never thought that vegetarian pizzas would be subject to SPS checks, but I was wrong. Milk is used to make the pizza bases, so there has to be a certificate, which has to be signed off by a vet to say that the milk is okay.
When a Spanish vet signed off the certificate, instead of writing an i as we would write it, he wrote the i as the Spanish would write it, which is apparently upside down and looks a bit like a v. When the lorry arrived in the port of Larne, the EU inspector looked at the certificate and said there was something suspect, not with the pizzas but with the form. The i was the wrong shape, so the pizzas and the rest of the load were sent back, and for what purpose? So the vet could make the i an English i, instead of a Spanish i. There are examples of this every day.
Anyone who tells me that the EU is flexible, and that this Bill will make it less flexible, ought to look at the evidence, which shows that the Bill is necessary because the problems have been apparent for two years now. There is a democratic deficit, and there are daily problems for people in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), the leader of my party, quoted the Consumer Council saying that 60% of consumers in Northern Ireland now cannot buy goods from GB.
The Bill is necessary, which is why we support it and want to see it pass intact. If it does, we believe it will be the first step towards dealing with the problems caused by the ill-thought-out protocol.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to hear his words of wisdom and his facts.
I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, and it is a pleasure to see him here. I know he has a deep interest in Northern Ireland. We very much look forward to working with him.
I am pleased to see so many Members take part and take an interest in Committee. The people of the Province are incredibly anxious that last week’s Government changes do not affect the passage of this essential Bill.
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) moved amendment 24 for the best reasons, but it reminds me of “Hotel California”:
“You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.”
The Alliance party would have us in this forever, but we are not going to be. This time we are leaving. We are checking out and we will not be staying.
I am concerned about where we are. My party has problems with the protocol when it comes to exports and imports. Agriculture is critical to my Strangford constituency. There are some 3,500 jobs in the sector, never mind the farmers who feed into the process. Lakeland Dairies has two factories in Northern Ireland and two factories in southern Ireland. It employs people north and south, and its milk and milk powder regularly travel across the border without doing anyone any harm. It boasts the highest standards in Northern Ireland and the highest standards in the Republic, too. I am pleased the Minister is here to put the Government’s case tonight.
My concern is that Northern Ireland will, again, be used as a battering tool, which cannot be allowed to happen. I know most Members of this House, and I make it my business to be friendly to everyone. In all honesty, I look upon everyone in this House as a friend. Some are exceptional friends, but I count you all as my friends. I always seek to be supportive when I agree, and I also try to be respectful when I cannot agree. Tonight, there are some on this side of the Chamber I cannot agree with and many on the other side of the Chamber I can fully support on this occasion.
For many, the temptation exists to beat the remainer drum. Some people on this side of Chamber do that, as they cannot accept the referendum result. They cannot accept the fact that the decision was made. I see the EU as an organisation with an insatiable thirst. It is like a giant sponge. It keeps on soaking all the goodness out of all the countries. It was soaking it out of us for a number of years, and the people of this country took a decision for that not to happen.
Northern Ireland is battered and bruised from the game of political football that has taken place with us as a ball at everyone’s feet. I wish to outline some things in relation to the strikes we have had, but first I want to come at this from the point of view of my constituency, where some 99.9% of businesses are clear: they see the problems with the deal made after Brexit and the border down the Irish sea as disadvantaging them greatly. That has increased the cost of their products by at least 25% and it has reduced the number of products they are able to access. It has stopped 200 businesses being able to carry out business with businesses in my constituency in this last period. This is all down to EU intransigence and bloody-mindedness. We have the highest standards in our agricultural produce and we want to ensure that that continues.
Tension in Northern Ireland over the past year and a half has been at its highest. It has been very obvious and visual in my constituency, and across Northern Ireland. I believe that this Bill, which has won the votes so far and I hope will win them later tonight and next week, has reduced the tension. Across Northern Ireland, we can see that people see a way out of this. Again, I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister, the Government and the Prime Minister for all that.
I want to talk about some of the strikes that I referred to. I do not mean strikes as in people not working; I mean strikes that people have tried to make, be it like a bat hitting a ball or a ball hitting a bat. It was stated that there would be no Irish sea border, but there clearly is one. That is why this Bill is so important. Checks on products in the Irish sea does not affect the Good Friday agreement, but checks on land borders would. Thousands of people attending rallies has proven the threat felt by one community, the Unionist community, the one that we represent. I also represent many people who do not necessarily vote Unionist, but they have also been restricted by the problems with the Northern Ireland protocol and the border down the sea prevents them from having the lifestyle and access to products that they once had. The Unionist community feel under threat, and it is not acceptable to ignore that and behave as if all is rosy in a garden filled with kindling wood and matches.
It is stated that the checks are just an extra bit of paperwork, but for my constituents they are lot more than that. Businesses are thousands of forms behind, and mainland businesses have stopped trading in Northern Ireland due to the hassle, meaning that suppliers ordering from China, India and any other nations are paying substantially more for the same products than Members in this Chamber. The prices that my constituents and those across Northern Ireland are paying are at least 25% higher in Northern Ireland than in any other large-scale supermarket. So for us in Northern Ireland the Bill is critical and vital, and it has to go through as it is, untouched.
I want to ask the Minister about those who have been involved in the bureaucracy, red tape and paperwork—the thousands of pages of paperwork for one item. Whenever the Bill progresses and is successful here, can those who have outstanding paperwork still to be processed disregard that? It is also stated that filling out a form to buy something should not make someone less British. That one still sticks in my throat. I look forward to seeing how people in North Dorset, for example, feel when they fill out a customs form to bring home their shopping from London. I know that is a bit absurd but it perhaps illustrates how we feel in Northern Ireland at this moment in time. The fact that someone is treating you as a third country does make you less British. That is very simple, very true and very much ignored by people who are in positions to know better.
The last period of time has been about not just the attitude to where Northern Ireland is as regards the border down the Irish sea, but the attitude of international delegations that have come and called us “planters”—they called us many things, probably worse names, but that comment was from people in the States who fundraised actively for IRA-Sinn Féin to plant bombs—along with a veiled threat from a President who refers to us as “Brits” in a derogatory manner, and we all know who that is: Sleepy Joe. That was another difficult direction to navigate, yet Unionists are expected to say nothing about the Good Friday agreement.
I am very proud of being British, and I take it as a great slight when the President of the United States or anyone else thinks that British is less. I am proud to be British. I am proud to have served in uniform for Queen and country. I am proud of the blood that runs through my bones and body, which is as British as that of anybody in this Chamber. Others may not be as British as me, of course, but they have a right not be as British.
Colum Eastwood
Maybe I misheard the hon. Gentleman, but I think he referred to Congressman Richie Neal, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee in the United States—somebody who would be very important in the discussion around a trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. I just want to clear up this point, because it is important to get it on the record: was the hon. Gentleman stating that Congressman Neal was raising money for people to be bombed in Ireland? That sounded very much like what he said, and it is absolutely outrageous if that is what he said. Richie Neal has been a very strong advocate for and supporter of the peace process in Capitol Hill.
Jim Shannon
If I had known the hon. Gentleman was going to say that, I would not have let him intervene. I never said that. [Interruption.] No, I did not say that. I said that international delegations come and call us “planters”, and then I referred to others who fundraised actively for IRA-Sinn Féin to plant bombs. That is those who are supporters of Sinn Féin in America; they fundraise to raise a great deal of money.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Could we please just focus on the amendments? We do not want a wider debate.
Jim Shannon
The debate was not widened by me; it was widened by somebody else.
Let me be clear: I voted against that agreement, but I listened to its proponents tell us that it protected Unionism. One of those proponents—David Trimble, who sits in the other place—well understands the issue and has outlined how the Northern Ireland protocol has adversely impacted the Good Friday agreement, but we are asked to sit in silence when our economy, our buying power and our very identity is decimated by the protocol.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) had the opportunity to visit my constituency and understands the importance of fishing there. The Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation and the Irish Fish Producers Organisation are clear that the Bill will do away with the tariffs and red tape. How can it be right for a fishing boat to leave Portavogie, Ardglass or Kilkeel, get out of the harbour and get 2 miles off the shore, and pay a tariff on anything it brings back? The Bill will stop that. For those in Portavogie in my constituency of Strangford, and for those in Ardglass, Kilkeel and other places, I look forward to the days whenever we can grow our fishing sector, and create more jobs, opportunities and prosperity.
As the House discusses this legislation to begin the process to rectify the gross betrayal of Northern Ireland to get Brexit done, I ask Members please to remember the truths of where we are. I understand that there are those who did not want the referendum result. I understand that some want to remain tied to the EU. I understand the threats that are coming from Europe and latterly from the US. But the question is easy: are we a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If so, the protocol must go. The Bill does not satisfy all that I want to see, but it does begin the journey. I am asking the Committee to travel with us, not against us: to call time on the kicking we have gotten as a political football between the EU and the UK. The EU has not negotiated common sense after 300 hours of discussions; it was never going to, or it would have happened already.
The reason we are here today is the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which was put forward by the Government and which my party fully supports. We need to make the changes. It is time to legislate this common sense to allow us all to move on together. The quicker that happens, the better. The people of Strangford want it and I want it, being British. I think all the people of Northern Ireland here are British, but even those who are not want it as well.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
I wish to begin by thanking all Members who took part in the debate on Second Reading as well as in the debate in Committee that preceded this one. As we progress to the second day of the Committee stage, I want to reiterate some of the key points that go to the heart of why the Government have introduced this Bill.
The Northern Ireland protocol was agreed with the best of intentions. However, as the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) has passionately set out, reinforced by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), unfortunately it is causing real tensions and problems for the businesses and people of Northern Ireland, including trade disruption and diversion, costs and bureaucracy. This legislation will fix the practical problems that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. It will enable us to avoid a hard border, protect the integrity of the UK and safeguard the EU single market.
Let me address the clauses in turn. The Government’s intention is to introduce a new and different regime, including a green lane for goods remaining in the UK and a red lane for those destined for the EU. Clause 4 will allow the UK Government to implement such a regime for goods remaining in the UK and entering Northern Ireland. The clause, therefore, disapplies in domestic law certain EU law requirements and, with clauses 5 and 6, provides the powers for Government to remove many of the burdens currently placed on businesses by the extensive customs and regulatory processes that are required under the existing Northern Ireland protocol.
Clause 4 also defines “qualifying movements” that will be able to enter our proposed green lane. The subsections remove current burdensome processes for prescribed qualifying movements of UK or non-EU destined goods, and there is a power to define UK or non-EU destined goods. Clause 4 is central to our intention to rationalise the processes for goods moving into Northern Ireland. We have been clear that we do not believe it is appropriate to continue to require full customs and regulatory processes when goods are not even destined for the EU. This clause is part of what will allow us to put in place a more sensible and proportionate regime.
Our green lane and red lane proposals will form the basis of that regime. Engagement with businesses on the detail of the regime is already under way. We know that it is important that we listen carefully. It is the powers in clauses 4, 5 and 6 that will allow us to put it in place.
Hilary Benn
In respect of supermarket deliveries to Northern Ireland, it is really dead simple: those supermarkets sell only in Northern Ireland, so they would, of course, be appropriate for the green lane. But given the very large number of other businesses that send goods across to Northern Ireland, how do the Government propose to identify those businesses that are sending goods that are destined for the Republic and those that are sending them into Northern Ireland where they may be processed and then moved on to the Republic of Ireland? How will that work in practice?
Lucy Frazer
Obviously, this is a matter that the Government have been considering very carefully. There are goods, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that will obviously be going to Northern Ireland. Businesses will also know that there is a significant category of goods that will not, and then there are the goods that may not be certain at all. That is something that the Government will be discussing with businesses during the consultation over the summer period, and it will be set out how those goods are dealt with. The hon. Member for Strangford asked us about reducing paperwork, and I can say that, of course, that is the intention of the future regime.
Clause 5 ensures that a Minister of the Crown has the power to make regulations in relation to any provisions to which clause 4 relates, with the exception of customs matters, which are dealt with in clause 6. Clause 5 is essential in enabling a Minister of the Crown to deliver the UK’s proposals for a new green and red lane regime. Taking a power to provide for the regime is required, and the precise detail of the regime will be guided by consultation with stakeholders.
Clause 6 ensures that the Treasury or Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs can make regulations in respect of customs matters. It will ensure that, once this Bill gains Royal Assent, the Departments can put in place the arrangements needed to operate a coherent customs regime.
Clause 24 sets out the Parliamentary procedure to be followed in respect of the exercise of regulation-making powers related to tax and customs matters in this Bill. The clause provides that regulations making provision in relation to tax and customs matters are to be made by statutory instrument. Regulations would be subject to the affirmative or negative procedure, depending on their effect. These statutory instruments would come before the House of Commons only in line with the exercise of Commons financial privilege, usually given to tax matters.
Before I turn to the amendments, I will touch on a number of points that have been made by hon. Members across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) rightly said that the Government have been very generous and practical in our approach to border checks, not only in relation to Northern Ireland, but more broadly. He is also right to say that we have tried to negotiate a way forward with the EU. We have spent 18 months doing that. We have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the trader support service, we have spent 300 hours in negotiations and we have shared 17 non-papers. Unfortunately, the EU has not come to an arrangement with us, and that is why I stand at this Dispatch Box today.
I dispute what the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) says, that it is clear that the two positions can be reconciled. It is clear that they cannot. We have tried to do that, but we have not succeeded. The Foreign Secretary invited Vice-President Šefčovič to the Joint Committee when we announced this legislation. However, the EU proposals do not go forwards; they go backwards. Under the EU’s suggestions, sending a parcel will involve completing a form with more than 50 data fields. A grandmother who wants to send a gift to her daughter in Belfast will need to complete a customs declaration and a pet owner will have to pay £280 for a certificate to take their pet. I welcome the support for this Bill from the right hon. Member for East Antrim and the hon. Member for Strangford.
Dealing now with the amendments, I will first respond to amendment 24, tabled by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry). I appreciate the intention of his amendment. However, it would be contrary to one of the core purposes of the Bill, which is to disapply in domestic law those parts of the Northern Ireland protocol that require goods remaining in the UK or not destined for the EU to complete burdensome processes.
The amendment would also mean that the “at risk” test would be left in place, which would mean that some businesses moving goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland would still be required to pay customs duty even when those goods remained in the UK. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government’s intention is to put in place a different regime, one that is more proportionate and would remove the unnecessary burdens on business created by the protocol. I hope he will therefore withdraw his amendment.
On the points the hon. Gentleman made about the vet agreement, the UK remains open to a negotiated solution. We have put forward a number of practical solutions to resolve outstanding issues on SPS, but the UK has also been clear that we will not commit to dynamic alignment, which would compromise our sovereignty.
I turn now to amendments 34 and 35 in the name of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) . The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), addressed this issue briefly in the previous debate, so I will not labour the point. Replacing the requirement for a Minister to consider that regulations are “appropriate” in the use of the Bill’s delegated powers with a test of necessity risks our ability to put in place the right solutions to the problems the protocol is causing. In these clauses, that would potentially circumscribe the ability to design a green lane that will preserve the unity of the UK internal market. I expect the right hon. Gentleman will not agree with me, but I ask him to withdraw his amendments.
Amendments 15 to 18 and new clause 5, tabled by the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), would remove the Government’s proposed parliamentary procedures for statutory instruments under the Bill relating to tax and customs matters. The amendments attempt, in some cases, to replace them with a new, so-called super-affirmative procedure. In other cases, the amendments attempt to limit them to the draft affirmative procedure, removing the possibility of the made affirmative procedure in cases of urgency.
The drafting of these amendments is defective, making it unclear precisely what procedure is intended to apply to different categories of regulations. However, I will address the principle behind them. As Members will know, true super-affirmative procedures for statutory instruments are vanishingly rare. The normal affirmative and negative procedures for SIs provide effective scrutiny for the House. The hon. Member’s proposed procedure is long, requiring months of consultation on draft SIs, and procedurally complex, but ultimately does little more than envisage a Committee of the House making recommendations and preventing an SI coming into force pending a vote by this House. The amendments would require the Treasury or HMRC to make statements about any representation they have received on the draft recommendations.
I hope I can reassure the hon. Member that the Government intend to consult on the policy—indeed, work is under way—and the usual tools of parliamentary scrutiny will allow him to seek answers about this from me and my ministerial colleagues. His amendments would simply slow down solving the problems facing the people of Northern Ireland and create a muddling precedent on perfectly effective parliamentary procedures. I therefore urge him to withdraw his amendments.
New clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), would prevent the exercising of powers in this Bill until an agreement has been sought on reducing sanitary and phytosanitary checks in the EU-UK Joint Committee—the joint decision-making forum overseeing implementation of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. In many ways, I agree with the spirit of what the new clause seeks to achieve, but where we differ is that I recognise that we have already exhausted this option. The Government have engaged extensively with the EU on reducing the burden of sanitary and phytosanitary checks both through the Joint Committee and through official-level channels. As I mentioned, we have had over 300 hours of ministerial and official discussions and spent a significant amount of money. Nevertheless, we were still prepared to get round the table with the EU, and we held further talks through the autumn to the turn of the year.
However, as we set out in the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 17 May, the EU has simply shown insufficient flexibility. Although the EU published proposals in a non-paper on SPS in October 2021 that claims that checks carried out on SPS goods moving from GB to NI will be reduced by 80%, our own analysis and business feedback shows that this would not be the case in practice, and that a large volume of SPS goods staying in Northern Ireland will still face documentary, identity and physical checks. I understand why the new clause has been tabled, but regrettably we have had to conclude that the solutions put forward by the EU are not sufficient. It is for the EU to come back to the negotiating table or for the UK Government to get on with the job. I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
The Bill provides a comprehensive and durable solution to the existing problems with the Northern Ireland protocol. As I said, the protocol was agreed with absolutely the best of intentions, but it is creating real problems on the ground for people and businesses in Northern Ireland. It is creating trade disruption and diversion, and increasing costs and bureaucracy for traders. The Bill will fix those practical problems. It will enable us to avoid a hard border and it will safeguard the EU single market. I therefore recommend that the clauses in this group stand part of the Bill.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
NHS Pensions and Staffing
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS hospital doctor, although I am not personally affected by the issues I am about to raise.
I think we would all agree that following the pandemic, the NHS is facing unprecedented challenges in delivering patient care. The current demands on the system are too high to be met by the existing workforce and resources alone, and while the Government rightly seek to increase the NHS workforce by training more doctors, nurses and other frontline clinical staff, it is equally vital that we retain the existing workforce. Simply put, losing senior and experienced staff at this time would be an unmitigated disaster for the NHS and the patients it serves.
One of the biggest threats to the retention of the most senior and experienced NHS staff is the punitive and unfair interplay between long-standing Government pension taxation policies and the NHS pension scheme. Those policies, and the punitive financial penalties that result from them, will cause many senior NHS workers to take drastic steps such as reducing hours, leaving leadership roles or taking early retirement. These pension penalties will result in senior and long-serving NHS workers aged 59 or 60 potentially losing over £100,000 from their pension pot if they delay retirement by one year, rather than retiring this year. That is resulting in senior and experienced NHS workers being advised by actuaries and accountants to reduce their working hours in order to avoid being hit by huge pension tax bills that will see them working for little pay, or in some cases no pay at all.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Obviously, I too was a doctor until recent years.
This is an issue for all four health services across the UK, and is taking away people with the knowledge, skills and experience to not just look after patients but teach. Is the underlying problem not that when this policy was introduced in 2015, the talk was about preventing tax avoidance? It is not possible to play games with a final salary scheme. It was never open to doctors to play games with their pension, and therefore it is simply the wrong policy for the wrong group of people.
Dr Poulter
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. There were some further unintended consequences of the Finance Act 2004, which I will come to in a moment, but doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals cannot chose the rate at which they contribute to their pensions—they have to contribute at a fixed rate. There is no choice, so unintentionally, we find ourselves in a situation where senior healthcare professionals are facing punitive, eye-watering annual charges on their pensions worth tens of thousands of pounds. That cannot be right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on all he does in his position as a doctor, and on securing this debate on a really important issue that affects many of my constituents and those of many other Democratic Unionist party Members. During April this year, 8,902 pension awards were made, compared with 6,932 in April 2021—a year-on-year increase of 28%. Does the hon. Member agree that that is indicative of an increase in staff who simply cannot take the long hours, the lack of support and the soul-destroying pressure that our NHS is fast becoming renowned for, and that it is critical that changes are made urgently to keep staff in place rather than have them bolt through the door at the first possible opportunity? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Dr Poulter
Will the hon. Lady first allow me to reply to the previous intervention?
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on making those points; he is absolutely right to make them, and I am grateful to all his DUP colleagues who have turned out this evening to support the debate. It is very much appreciated, because as he rightly highlighted, this issue affects all healthcare professionals in all parts of the United Kingdom. We need to see changes to the punitive pension regime.
I will give way just one more time for now, if Members will forgive me, because I know that a lot of people want to speak in the debate.
Dame Nia Griffith
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate, and I implore the Minister to listen, because although health is devolved to the four nations, retention is a central issue that we are all affected by. I will let the hon. Member get on with his speech.
Dr Poulter
I thank the hon. Lady for her support, and she is absolutely right to highlight that this issue affects all of the United Kingdom.
This year in particular, due to certain factors related to inflation, we are facing a real challenge that is created by the pension penalties that exist under the current legislation. That needs to be looked at urgently, or we will see a reduction in the NHS workforce at the very time we can least afford it, while we are tackling the covid crisis.
“Scheme pays”, which is effectively a loan against a pension, is often suggested by the Government as a way for doctors to pay their pension tax bills. However, it attracts an interest rate of CPI plus 2.4%. So in the current climate, with inflation being at over 9%, “scheme pays” is prohibitively expensive and can result in a significant reduction in the total value of the pension, particularly for younger NHS workers in their 30s and 40s. Many doctors and nurses are left with little option but to pay the tax from their post-tax income instead, take out bank loans or, in some cases, increase the size of their mortgages. As I shall explain later, due to rising inflation, senior workers are being billed thousands of pounds in tax for pseudo growth in their pensions which never materialises as inflation continues to rise.
What is the impact on the NHS? The NHS is at a care and staffing precipice. GP workforce numbers are falling, while hospital consultant numbers are not increasing rapidly enough to keep up with demand. Many staff are also feeling burned out and demoralised due to workload and rising instances of abuse. In addition, the secondary care backlog in our hospitals for both urgent and elective operations, as well as for cancer care, is at an unprecedented level, with 6.48 million people currently waiting for treatment. Return referrals to GPs have also seen an 87% increase and a care backlog for general practice, with 401,115 patients waiting for treatment as of November 2021. Those circumstances, coupled with low levels of hospital beds, mean that staff and patients alike are feeling the impact.
We can all agree that the NHS needs more staff. England would need the equivalent of an additional 46,300 full-time doctors simply to put the NHS on an equivalent standard to today’s OECD EU average of 3.7 doctors per 1,000 people. However, as of March 2022, over 100,000 posts in secondary care are vacant, more than 8,000 of which are medical posts. The NHS needs to keep the staff it has simply to keep the current level of service running. In the year between June 2021 and May 2022, the NHS lost 323 GP partners and 462 salaried and locum GPs. That means the number of fully qualified GPs decreased by a net 785 full-time equivalent GPs in just under one year.
That trend is exacerbated by the fact that despite there being 1,737 fewer fully qualified GPs today than there were in 2015, each practice has on average over 2,000 more patients than in 2015. So, there are fewer GPs but each with more patients to care for, and many more patients now have complex care needs to manage.
Pension rules are making it financially unviable for some senior doctors and nurses to either stay in the NHS or work the number of hours they would like to. By tackling the NHS pension crisis through amending the Finance Act 2004 and introducing a tax unregistered scheme for those senior NHS workers, we could help to keep those much-needed doctors and other frontline clinical staff in the NHS for longer, and we would be supporting patients to get the care they need. Without those changes to the pension rules, more staff will leave and the care backlog together with waiting times are likely to continue to rise.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I congratulate him on securing the debate and on making that key point on the retention of staff. When a similar problem happened with the judiciary, the Government brought in a tax unregistered scheme which, critically, breaks the link between working more hours and the additional tax bill, as well as ensuring that the right amount of tax is paid. Does he think that the UK Government should consider that?
Dr Poulter
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right, and that is one of the recommendations I will make in my concluding comments to the Minister.
It is useful and important to use an example of a particular workforce group. I will focus primarily on the pension crisis faced by doctors by means of an example of the way the pension rules need to be changed. How many doctors could the NHS lose as a result of the current pension rules? There is not an exact figure, but British Medical Association modelling suggests it could be anything from 10% upwards by the end of 2022. We already know that the average retirement age has fallen from 61 in 2007-08 to 59 in 2018-19. There has also been a fourfold increase in the number of voluntary early retirements since 2008, with 30% of consultant retirements and 54.7% of GP retirements in 2020 being voluntary early retirement.
A survey of 800 GPs in Pulse last month found 47% said they intend to retire at or before 60. Respondents gave a number of reasons why they wanted to retire, with problems around pensions being listed as a significant reason. A survey by the Royal College of Physicians last year revealed that more than a quarter of senior consultant physicians expect to retire within three years. A survey by the Royal College of Surgeons showed that 68% of consultant surgeons were actively considering early retirement because of the pension arrangements, and 71% of consultant surgeons were considering reducing their non-clinical commitments, including educational and managerial roles—that relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)—which has worrying implications for the future training of surgeons.
A British Medical Association survey of more than 8,000 doctors revealed that 72% said that freezing the lifetime allowance would make them more likely to retire early; 61% of respondents said that they would be more likely to work fewer hours; and 41% would be more likely to give up additional roles and responsibilities. At the time of the BMA survey, CPI was only at 0.4%. It is now at 9.1%, and in real terms that is the rate by which the lifetime allowance is reducing each year. The BMA believes, with some credibility, that if it were to rerun the survey now, the results would show a significant increase in doctors intending to retire due to the impact of inflation on NHS pension policies. There can be no doubt that senior NHS workers are looking to leave the NHS in significant numbers, and a significant contributing factor to that—alongside burnout and workload—is the punitive pension taxation policies that they face.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate and on all the work that he has done so far on this issue; my constituents who have raised this issue with me are incredibly grateful for that work. As he said, the BMA figure shows that roughly 10% of medics would be affected and would potentially leave the NHS. More than 100 of my constituents have been in touch with me over this issue. If we apply the 10% to just the ones who have reached out to me, we will lose at least 10 experienced medics at NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. This really significant issue needs to be noticed and action needs to be taken, but not like the action that was taken with the taper, which did not affect enough doctors. We need to see this action from the Minister.
Dr Poulter
I agree with the hon. Lady, who, like all Members who have intervened, is strongly advocating for her constituents and for healthcare workers throughout the country. I have been written to by doctors in Scotland in advance of the debate and I know how serious this issue is. I thank all the Scottish National party Members who have come to this debate for their support in raising this issue, which is important for those working in Scotland.
Turning to the technical information—this issue is very technical—why is this happening? The pensions annual allowance allows for the value of a pension to increase by up to £40,000 without incurring penalties. That is completely unsuited to defined-benefit schemes such as that in the NHS, and it should be scrapped in defined-benefit schemes. That view has been supported by Treasury advisers and by the Office of Tax Simplification. However, the Government did not agree with the recommendations and instead only raised the annual earnings taper thresholds to £200,000 and £240,000. Pensions experts were clear at the time, and have been ever since, that although this approach mitigates some of the issues around the taper, it is not an effective solution to issues with the annual allowance, as the unfair interactions between pension taxation and the NHS pension scheme regulations remain. Crucially, it does nothing to affect the punitive effects of the general annual allowance, which is set at £40,000, nor the lifetime allowance, which is set at just over £1 million.
Not only has the rise in taper thresholds not fixed the problem, but the situation has reached a further crisis point due to the combination of levels of stress and burnout across the NHS, the freezing of the lifetime allowance in 2021 and, most significantly, the rapid rise in inflation and the CPI. That is compounded by a flaw in the Finance Act 2004 such that its provisions no longer operate as originally intended—that is, measuring pension growth above inflation. So the situation has reached a crisis point.
To address the long-standing issues of the interaction of pension taxation policies with the NHS pension scheme, it would be sensible to introduce a tax unregistered scheme similar to that made available to the judiciary—as the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) outlined—who face similar recruitment and retention problems to those we are beginning to face in the NHS.
It is worth asking why the CPI rise has turned the crisis in retention and recruitment into a disaster for the NHS, particularly this year. There are three major impacts of CPI inflation. First, the Department of Health and Social Care has suggested that, even though CPI is likely to hit 10% by September 2022, the likely pay award for hospital doctors nearing retirement age with final salary schemes will be 2% or 3%. This unprecedented gap between the level of inflation and the likely pay award risks significantly devaluing the pension of members aged 59 or above if they delay retirement by even a single year. There are no late retirement factors in the 1995 pension scheme—the scheme that the vast majority of staff approaching the age of 60 are in. That means that, for every year spent working beyond the age of 60, the level of annual pension that could have been received if they had retired at 60 will effectively be lost.
A doctor may be well over £100,000 worse off if they retire at 61 rather than at 60. That cannot be right; it is a perverse reward for years of dedicated service to patients. The consequence of the current pension rules will be to push more experienced doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals to take early retirement at the very time when they are most needed to reduce the covid backlog.
The second pressing issue is that two different measures of inflation are used in the NHS pension scheme. That has a particular impact on those who are on a career average revalued earnings scheme; as GPs are wholly within a CARE scheme, it has the biggest impact on this group of doctors. The current rules use a different CPI value for the opening value: it is based on the CPI rate in September last year, whereas the revaluation of earnings that is built into the NHS pension scheme is based on the CPI rate in September this year. When inflation is stable, last year’s CPI rate and this year’s are similar, so that does not usually present a major problem. However, when inflation changes rapidly, as is happening now, it becomes a very significant problem for many GPs.
For example, CPI in September 2022 is likely to be approximately 10%. Under the scheme rules, the pension will be revalued by inflation plus 1.5% and will therefore increase by approximately 11.5%. However, the opening value of the pension will increase by only 3.1%, which is the September 2021 CPI figure. Therefore, even though the annual allowance is only supposed to test pension growth above inflation, the discrepancy caused by those two different measures of inflation will result in a purely inflationary growth being tested against the annual allowance. For many people, that will use a significant proportion of the available annual allowance, and in some cases it will exceed it entirely, resulting in an additional tax charge simply as a result of inflation. A GP from Scotland who wrote to me before this debate told me that it would result in her receiving a tax bill of about £19,000.
The impact is compounded by the fact that the opposite scenario will occur next year if, as predicted, inflation returns to more normal levels. Although workers in the NHS will receive only one NHS pension, following the public sector pension reforms, many NHS staff are in the 1995, 2008 and 2015 pension schemes. Under the Finance Act, those schemes are all considered separately, so even though one scheme may have negative growth, it is not offset against positive growth in other schemes. For example, if a member had £20,000 negative growth in the 1995 or 2008 scheme and £60,000 positive growth in the 2015 scheme, even though their combined pension growth was £40,000 and within the standard annual allowance, the 1995 or 2008 scheme growth is considered to be zero. Instead, the member is taxed on the £20,000 excess in the 2015 scheme.
In addition, the negative growth in the 1995 or 2008 schemes cannot be carried forward or backward to offset previous positive growth in these years. That effectively means that GPs in particular will face additional annual allowance tax bills of tens of thousands of pounds this year for pseudo growth, the majority of which will be lost next year but with no refund or reduction in the extra tax paid this year. That cannot be right; it will push many GPs into early retirement. This year, a typical GP with median partner earnings of £115,000 will receive an annual allowance charge of more than £32,000 as a result of this flaw in the Finance Act, which incorrectly measures pension growth above inflation.
Thirdly, the current high levels of inflation have exacerbated the impact of the decision to freeze the lifetime allowance.
Let me very briefly offer the Minister some possible solutions. First, we need to address the issue of CPI and rising inflation and amend the Finance Act. As I have outlined, only growth above inflation should be tested against the annual allowance. In this rapidly moving inflationary environment, section 235 of the Finance Act does not do so; two different values are used. Simply amending section 235 to ensure that the opening value is aligned with this year’s CPI—not last year’s—so that the inflationary uplift of benefits is tested in the same year will ensure that only “growth" above inflation would be subject to testing against the annual allowance, as was clearly originally intended by the spirit rather than the letter of the legislation. At the same time, it is imperative to amend section 234 of the Finance Act 2004 to recognise years of negative growth and allow them to be carried backwards or forwards to measure real growth over a longer period.
Secondly, in the year 2022-23, we should allow the NHS in all four nations to replicate the 2019-20 compensation scheme to protect clinicians from pension growth so that they are freed up to work at maximum capacity in the NHS. This is not a “tax perk” for one group, but rather recognises that the annual allowance charges are largely based on non-existent pseudogrowth.
Thirdly, to solve the wider and long-term issues facing senior and experienced NHS staff, we should move to a non-tax-registered scheme. It is clear that in the long term, the solution to this problem is a scheme of that kind for those impacted by pension taxation in the NHS. When faced with similar recruitment and retention problems with the judiciary because of these punitive pension taxes, the UK Government introduced a non-tax-registered scheme which immediately addressed the issue, and resulted in the appointment of more judges. That is a fundamentally fair system. It ensures that the correct amount of tax is paid on pension growth, and as no tax relief is provided on employee pension contributions, there is no requirement to subject scheme members to either the annual or the lifetime allowance.
Senior and experienced NHS workers are not asking for special treatment. They are, however, asking for a fair system: a system that does not penalise them for working more shifts, taking on leadership roles, or staying in the NHS after the age of 60. It cannot be right, at a time when the NHS is desperate to retain its workforce—particularly the senior workforce who are so crucial in training new doctors, nurses and other frontline staff or workers, and advising on the most complex cases—that senior clinicians will actively lose money from their pensions for working for longer, or face huge tax bills on pension growth that they will never see materialise.
If the Government are serious about valuing NHS staff, if the Government are serious about helping healthcare staff to meet the covid care backlog, and if the Government are serious about meeting the needs of patients, they must act now to reform NHS pension rules.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Minister, and welcome him to his new role.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Richard Fuller)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Let me begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) for securing the debate and for the points that he has raised. I also note the contributions of the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) and for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan), who made, forcefully, the point that this is an issue that affects all parts of the United Kingdom.
Because these issues are complex and my hon. Friend rightly set them out in full in order to put them on the record, I am rather short of time, so, if I may, I will move rather quickly in responding to some of my hon. Friend’s recommendations. Let me add that I shall be happy to follow this up with other Members who have spoken if they want to raise specific constituency points.
I think that everyone present has noted the pressures on our NHS. Indeed, before taking on my new role, I spent a considerable amount of the last six months with my own GPs. I know that the issues relating to pressures on GPs are complex, including the overall questions of compensation and burnout, and my hon. Friend rightly mentioned the issue of abuse of NHS staff, which has occurred to a shameful degree over the last six months and which no member of our health service should ever have to deal with.
However, my hon. Friend focused on the issue of pension tax and the NHS, and made three specific recommendations. The first concerned the differential use of CPI figures, and he was right to raise that issue, because it is the spike in inflation that has laid bare some of the problems in the way in which calculations are made. The issue relates to the disparity between the CPI figure used for uprating the opening value of a member's benefits and the CPI figure used to assess revaluation in public service schemes. This effect is particularly notable in the NHS pension scheme, where accrued benefits are adjusted upwards each year by CPI plus 1.5%—which, to be fair, makes it one of the most generous pension schemes available.
I understand that this difference in figures will lessen the headroom that scheme members have in their annual allowance calculation. That may cause more members to exceed the annual allowance, and cause those who already routinely exceed it to exceed it by more, with the result that some may receive annual allowance tax charges. The British Medical Association has asked the Government to amend the Finance Act 2004, so that the CPI figures used in uprating the opening value and the figure used for revaluation in public service schemes are the same. However, there are some further issues that must be considered in this discussion, which my hon. Friend may not have mentioned.
First, the Government have a duty to balance support for all pension savers across the United Kingdom. The use of September CPI to measure inflation in the year before the tax year is a well-established feature that is used across the tax system. Any changes would impact all pension savers, not just NHS staff.
The current approach provides certainty to individuals at the start of the tax year about what their opening pension value will be for annual allowance purposes. I appreciate that, for those with a defined benefit pension alone, this certainty may not be seen as much of an advantage. However, for others across the country who may have some defined benefit accrual but are now saving into a far less generous defined contribution scheme, this certainty allows them to plan their finances and pension contributions for the coming year.
Richard Fuller
I really cannot; I have only two and a bit minutes left.
Secondly, there is a perception that the use of different CPI figures will disproportionately hit senior NHS staff. This is said to be because the revaluation of accrued rights in the 1995 and 2008 sections of the NHS pension scheme will lead to a large pension input amount for clinicians, while the annual allowance calculation will use a lower CPI figure when calculating their opening value. This is the so-called pseudogrowth that my hon. Friend mentioned. I am afraid that this point ignores the fact that, for most NHS employees in the 1995 and 2008 sections of the NHS pension scheme, their accrued benefits remain linked to their final salary, which means that they do not have their benefits revalued each year.
Thirdly, I have heard concerns over so-called negative accrual that cannot be used to offset positive accrual in later years. This point conflates actual pension accrual that benefits pension savers with notional accrual used for the purposes of the annual allowance calculation. It is a fact that defined benefit schemes are more difficult to compare against the annual allowance than defined contribution schemes. In a given year, where individuals accrue rights to future annual pension payments, it is necessary to calculate a comparable figure for their savings to test against the annual allowance to ensure fairness between those in defined contribution and defined benefit schemes. On this point, my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have raised an important issue this evening, and I will go away and consider it further.
In response to my hon. Friend’s second recommendation, I know that the BMA and others have said that the action taken at Budget 2020 on the tapered annual allowance was not enough. However, the cost of this intervention was £2.2 billion over five years, and it was targeted at the very highest earners in society. It will be hard to justify focusing more Government support on them, especially in the current climate. This includes replicating the temporary scheme used in the 2019-20 tax year.
My hon. Friend’s third recommendation for an unregistered scheme was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr. I understand the comparison that senior clinicians draw with the position of the judicial pension scheme 2022, which is unregistered for tax purposes. However, I believe that a distinction remains to be drawn between NHS high earners and the judiciary, and that there are unique circumstances relating to judicial appointments—in particular, that judges are unable to return to private practice after taking up office, and that many judges take a significant pay cut to join the judiciary. However, we all recognise that there are significant issues around doctor and GP retention, and the points raised this evening have struck a chord with me. I look forward to discussing them further with hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Common Agricultural Policy (Cross-Compliance Exemptions and Transitional Regulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I should say that, given the heat, if Members would like to take their jackets off or loosen or take off their ties, I would have no problem with that; and please stay hydrated.
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Agricultural Policy (Cross-Compliance Exemptions and Transitional Regulation) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2022.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. These regulations apply to retained EU law relating to the common agricultural policy, including the cross-compliance rules, which farmers and land managers must follow if they are claiming certain rural payments. This SI is entirely technical; it makes no policy changes to retained EU law and makes no provision for future funding. It changes references to the European Commission, member states, EU funding and EU policies, and so on, to the national institutions that we now use, having left the EU. These would, if possible, have been amended or removed from the statute book by our exit SIs in 2020, had the EU regulation that introduced them been made in time. Sadly, it was only published and brought into force in December 2020, so that was not possible.
The instrument also amends schedule 3 to the Common Agricultural Policy (Control and Enforcement, Cross-Compliance, Scrutiny of Transactions and Appeals) Regulations 2014, which set out the circumstances under which a breach of the cross-compliance rules is dealt with. This SI simply extends the list of management agreements and measures, ensuring that farmers who engage in our new schemes are not placed at unfair risk of penalisation for complying with some of the requirements. The instrument has been developed in close consultation with the devolved Administrations and has been laid before Parliament with their consent. It does no more than is appropriate to remove or correct certain inoperable European references and cross-compliance exemptions, and is technical in nature. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Bardell. As ever, I thank the Minister for her excellent introduction to the instrument, and also for the helpful explanatory memorandums supplied in advance. I also thank colleagues in the other place for their scrutiny of this SI in Grand Committee.
Committee members will probably be delighted to hear that, because these changes are technical adjustments, we will not be looking to oppose them. We agree that it is unfortunate that EU regulation 2020/2220 was made too close to the end of the transition period to be addressed by the Department’s 2020 EU exit SIs. We also agree that it is right that we take this opportunity to remove ambiguities and potential confusion for stake-holders, and we understand the need to remove unnecessary references to member states, EU funding, EU policies, and so on, which no longer apply to UK law.
However, I would like to raise a query about how the cross-compliance regulations interact with the new environmental land management scheme. There was some confusion after the discussion in the Lords when my colleague Baroness Jones pressed the Minister in the other place on whether cross-compliance rules would continue after basic payments had been phased out. He seemed to indicate that they would, when others had understood otherwise, so it would be most helpful if the Minister today clarified the interface between the old cross-compliance and the new arrangements.
Finally, can the Minister provide further clarity on the changes to the scope of the existing cross-compliance exemptions, as set out in schedule 3 to the 2014 regulations? The new exemptions refer only to specific changes made to section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 and section 98 of the Environment Act 1995. I would be grateful if she elaborated on why these two provisions are the only two instances where exemptions to cross-compliance rules are necessary. Otherwise, I am happy to proceed.
Victoria Prentis
The confusion in the House of Lords was one of semantics. Cross-compliance, in the sense that we use it as farmers and at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is the compliance regime that stems from the common agricultural policy. Under our new future funding schemes there will be new compliance procedures, but strictly speaking they are not cross-compliance. I hope that distinction makes sense. The position is that cross-compliance, in the traditional sense of the terminology, will end when CAP direct payments are phased out and conclude. We will of course have a new risk-based inspection regime.
Daniel Zeichner
That it is probably what I expected the Minister to say. My one concern, which I raised during the passage of the Agriculture Act 2020, is that there is a danger that we will end up loosening our environmental protections. I would really welcome an assurance from the Minister that cross-compliance will be replaced by an equally rigorous but hopefully less bureaucratic and pernickety system.
Victoria Prentis
Absolutely. The whole tenor of the new schemes is about working with farmers—the terminology that I have used frequently to explain it to the hon. Gentleman is that we are looking more at carrots and less at sticks—but there will of course be a sensible, risk-based and proportionate inspection regime where that is necessary.
The purpose of the new schemes is to bring farmers into more regenerative farming and a more environmentally friendly way of both producing the food that we need and supporting our environmental and carbon capture ambitions. I think the hon. Gentleman knows and agrees with that. The whole tenor of the reforms is to move the agricultural world into a more sustainable place. With that in mind, it is of course important that we make sure that there is compliance—to use the word in its normal sense—with our new rules and regulations. I think I have dealt with the points raised, so I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Electoral Commission: Appointments
(1 year, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the motion, That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will re-appoint Lord Gilbert of Panteg as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 November 2022 for the period ending 31 October 2026; appoint Roseanna Cunningham as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 October 2022 for the period ending 30 September 2026; and appoint Chris Ruane as an Electoral Commissioner with effect from 1 November 2022 for the period ending 31 October 2026.
Mr Twigg, you will see that, on page 12 of the Order Paper, the Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee is to
“consider the motion in the name of Sir Mark Spencer”.
I am delighted to have had that premonition. I thought I would draw it to the Committee’s attention.
Mark Spencer
Not as shocked as I was, to be honest.
The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission has produced its second report of 2022 in respect of these appointments, which I am sure hon. Members read with great interest. Electoral commissioners are appointed under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, as amended by the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009. Under the 2000 Act, the Speaker’s Committee has a responsibility to oversee the selection of candidates for appointment to the Electoral Commission. Any reappointments can be made only on the Committee’s recommendation.
Lord Gilbert, Roseanna Cunningham and Chris Ruane will be three of four nominated commissioners, who are persons put forward by the registered leader of a political party. The term of office for the current nominated commissioner for the Conservative party, Lord Gilbert, ends on 31 October. Following a positive appraisal of Lord Gilbert’s performance as a commissioner from the chair of the Electoral Commission, the Speaker’s Committee agreed in November 2021 to progress with his reappointment, subject to the statutory consultation with party leaders.
I will turn to the Labour and SNP nominations. The term of office for the current nominated commissioner for the Labour party, Joan Walley—a great lady—expires on 31 October. The term of office of the current nominated commissioner for the Scottish National party, Alasdair Morgan, expires on 30 September. The Speaker appointed a panel to consider the Labour and SNP nominees and make recommendations to the Speaker’s Committee on their appointability. I am grateful to the panel for its work and unanimous recommendations.
Roseanna Cunningham was a Member of the Scottish Parliament from 1999 until her retirement in 2021, and she was elected as an SNP Member of Parliament between 1995 and 2001. Overall, the panel considered that Ms Cunningham was eminently appointable and that she would bring strong political experience and effective challenge to the commission board.
Chris Ruane was the Labour Member of Parliament for the Vale of Clwyd from 1997 to 2015, and from 2017 to 2019. Before Mr Ruane’s political career, he was a deputy headteacher. The panel considered Mr Ruane a strong candidate who would bring passion, understanding and constructive challenge to the role. The Speaker’s Committee is confident that Ms Cunningham and Mr Ruane have the experience and personal qualities to be effective members of the commission.
Statute requires that the proposed appointments or reappointments to the Electoral Commission be subject to consultation with the registered leader of each party to which two or more Members of the House of Commons belong. The statutory consultation provides an opportunity for the party leaders to comment, but they are not required to do so. Mr Speaker accordingly wrote to the leaders of the qualifying parties on 1 November 2021 and on 28 April 2022. No objections or concerns were received in response to the Speaker’s consultation.
As is required under the Act, Mr Speaker has given his agreement for this motion. I hope that the appointments will have the Committee’s support, and ultimately the House’s support. I wish the appointees well in their important roles.
Thangam Debbonaire
It is a pleasure to serve under your authority in the Chair, Mr Twigg, and please do advise me if I stray beyond the bounds of my role. I know that the commissioners have been properly scrutinised and recruited. That is set out well in the document, which I have eagerly read. However, I note that the background to their appointment is the Government’s treatment towards commissioners as a whole, partly in the passage of the Elections Bill—now the Elections Act 2022. Also, in the run-up over the past few years, there have been numerous calls by people on the Government side to abolish the Electoral Commission. In fact, that unfortunately includes the Leader of the House’s new deputy, the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who is on the record—from 2018, I think—as having called for the Electoral Commission to be abolished. The Electoral Commission and all commissioners, with the exception of the chair, who recused himself—
The Chair
Order. I interrupt to advise the hon. Member that she is straying from the matter. The debate is about the appointments, not the Electoral Commission itself.
Thangam Debbonaire
It is about the appointments. How can the Leader of the House assure the new commissioners being appointed that they will have the proper independence that they should be allowed, given the background of the Elections Act, given that Government Members, including Ministers now, undermine them, and given that the commission itself, which will include the new members being appointed as a result of today’s motion, expressed serious concern about the strategy in a policy statement laid out in statute under part 3 of the Elections Act?
Given that the existing commissioners, including one of the members now being reappointed today under this motion, expressed their concerns in their policy document, I would like the Leader of the House to answer various questions. How can he assure the new commissioners, who are being appointed today by the motion he is laying, that the Government will not interfere with their independence? Can he guarantee that there will be no further undermining of the Electoral Commission as a whole? In order for new commissioners to take up their role with enthusiasm, they at least need to know that they are part of a body that the Government does not intend to abolish. How will the Secretary of State’s considerable anti-democratic powers in part 3 of the Act affect the new and existing commissioners, in particular the role of the chair, who is being reappointed under the terms of this motion?
Will the Leader of the House undertake to discuss with his colleagues, including his new deputy, the importance of the independence of the new commissioners who are being appointed by this motion? Can he further guarantee that there will be no further attempts to undermine the good work of these new commissioners, alongside their existing colleagues? I would be grateful if he answered those questions.
Mark Spencer
I am delighted to reassure the hon. Lady that the Electoral Commission is an independent regulatory body. It is actually not accountable to the Government; it is independent of Government and only accountable to Parliament through the Speaker’s Committee. Those commissioners are completely right to act independently and are encouraged to do so. The Electoral Commission is not accountable to the Government; it is accountable to Parliament.
Thangam Debbonaire
The Act does state:
“The Secretary of State may designate a statement for the purposes of this section”,
and that will affect the new commissioners that he is appointing, particularly the new chair.
The Chair
Order. Again, I will have to rule on that. We are talking about the specific appointments, not the general policy.
Mark Spencer
Thank you for that guidance, Mr Twigg. We are appointing three commissioners here, who are highly skilled and experienced. They will deliver their role with true independence and I encourage them to do so. I am sure that Parliament will continue to monitor how they and the Electoral Commission perform in future, and I wish them well in their roles.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Rutley
Throughout the pandemic, the Government acted decisively to protect lives and livelihoods, continually supporting individuals and businesses. Our social security system had a key component—universal credit—which provided a vital safety net for about 6 million people during the pandemic, and stood up to those testing times. We were able to prove, in a real-life environment, how resilient the system was, and I am incredibly proud of the work that the Government did to keep the country going. Our support package was worth a total of £407 billion between 2020 and 2022, and constituted the biggest single fiscal intervention since world war two.
[Official Report, 5 July 2022, Vol. 717, c. 766.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley):
An error has been identified in my response to the debate.
The correct information should have been:
David Rutley
Our support package was worth up to £400 billion between 2020 and 2022, and constituted the biggest single fiscal intervention since world war two.
Unemployed People: Help into Work
The following is an extract from questions to the Secretary of state for Work and Pensions on 11 July 2022.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to her new role. Does she share my concern at recent data showing up to 70,000 armed forces veterans in receipt of universal credit? Does she think that the 50 armed forces champions around the country, who are no doubt doing their absolute best, have the capacity to provide the support to those who have served our country so that they can weather the cost of living crisis?
Julie Marson
That is a vital area. Our veterans deserve our respect and every bit of help and assistance that they can receive. We are extending the veterans champions scheme; I will be looking at that in much more detail. This is day one, but I look forward to focusing on that and ensuring that I engage with the hon. Gentleman and others who are concerned about it.
[Official Report, 11 July 2022, Vol. 718, c. 9.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson):
Errors have been identified in the response I gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis).
The correct response should have been:
Julie Marson
That is a vital area. Our veterans deserve our respect and every bit of help and assistance that they can receive. We extended the veterans champions scheme in April 2021; I will be looking at this area of our work in more detail. This is day one, but I look forward to focusing on that and ensuring that I engage with the hon. Gentleman and others who are concerned about it.
Petitions
Schools Bill
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
150th Open Championship
(1 year, 9 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
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I call Wendy Chamberlain to move the motion and to tee off the debate.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the contribution of the 150th Open Championship to culture and sport in the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I will try to keep the puns to a minimum. I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the fact that golf’s most prestigious event has reached a significant milestone—the 150th playing of the Open is taking place this week at the home of golf in my constituency of North East Fife. As Member of Parliament for North East Fife, I have to declare an interest, and I refer Members to the register: not only is the Open happening in my constituency, but, as a result of the St Andrews Links Order Confirmation Act 1974—private legislation passed by the House of Commons—the local MP is designated one of the eight trustees of the St Andrews Links Trust, which manages the courses in the town, including the Old Course, where the Open is taking place. As Members will see, the Act is a culmination of the interlinked relationship between golf and the town of St Andrews, which I am proud to represent.
The 150th Open is a significant milestone, and St Andrews is very much alive to the historical significance of the championship. On Monday, the Celebration of Champions exhibition match took place to celebrate the occasion of the 150th Open, and big names from the world of golf, older and newer, including players such as Tom Watson and Dame Laura Davies, took part. I hope that many saw the picture of previous Open winners, including Jack Nicklaus, appearing on the Swilcan bridge. I have appeared on the Swilcan bridge myself with my dog, and one of the great things about St Andrews is that it is public land and open to use. On a Sunday, people can walk their dog, walk on the courses and get their picture taken in what is probably one of the most iconic places in golf history.
Jack Nicklaus won the Open twice at St Andrews, but this week he was looking on from a golf buggy and his landmark moment came yesterday. It was an honour for me to attend and see him being granted honorary citizenship of St Andrews by the St Andrews Community Council in recognition of all he has given to the sport. Jack Nicklaus is the third American to be receive that distinction, following in the footsteps of Bobby Jones—another great golfer—and, interestingly, Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States.
I am in St Andrews often in my work as an MP, and in some ways, Members take the place they represent not for granted, but as what they see all the time. However, what came through strongly for me was the emotion that Jack Nicklaus and others displayed not only about the honour of receiving the award, but with respect to St Andrews as a place and what it means to golf. I am grateful to St Andrews Community Council, and to Mr John Devlin in particular, for nominating Jack Nicklaus for the award.
Yesterday, prior to the honorary citizenship event, the University of St Andrews gave honorary doctorates to a number of golfers, including Sandy Lyle, Catriona Matthew, Bob Charles, José María Olazábal and Lee Trevino. It really was a significant event for golf fans.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate her on securing the debate.
Next year, the Open will head back to Wirral—specifically to my constituency of Wirral West—and the Royal Liverpool golf club in Hoylake, which is situated on the Dee estuary. As well as coverage of arguably the biggest and best golf event in the world, the many millions of television spectators are treated to stunning views of Hilbre Island and across to north Wales.
When the tournament was last in Hoylake in 2014, it delivered an economic benefit of £76.3 million across the Wirral Council area and to the wider economy of the north-west. Wirral businesses—particularly the restaurants, hotels, guest houses, pubs and shops of Hoylake and West Kirby—did a fantastic job and got into the Open spirit. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is massively important that visitors from around the world see the best of what we have to offer, and will she pay tribute to all those people who provide such a warm welcome?
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree absolutely. She has demonstrated not only the economic impact that the Open has on the venues that host it, but the community aspect, which is so important.
The last thing I want to say about yesterday’s event is that it was open to the public. People could apply online for tickets, and afterwards the university hosted people in a marquee; the event was treated like a graduation. There were Americans and other tourists there who had applied for tickets, but there were local people there too, and it really felt like something that people could take in and participate in. There was a procession around the town afterwards.
It would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that the first ever Open was held not in St Andrews but in Prestwick. I am sure that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) would have something to say if I did not mention that. That was all the way back in 1860, but golfing originated in Scotland in the first part of the second millennium, with players attempting to hit pebbles over sand dunes using a bent stick or club. Little is known about those early games, but we know that the sport grew so much in popularity that, by 1457, King James II had banned it in order to encourage Scots to focus on military activities such as archery and ensure the defence of the realm from the English. Luckily, that only lasted 45 years, and from 1502 golf was being played widely and spreading from Scotland to the rest of Europe, and from there to the world.
The events of 1860 all came about because a competition was arranged to determine the best golfer after the widely accepted champion golfer, Allan Robertson, sadly passed away. He was a legend of the golfing world. His family had lived and breathed the sport for decades, a mantle that he took on and perfected. Living in St Andrews, with a business making and selling the best golf balls, he caddied and competed in the game. Old Tom Morris, whose bicentennial the Open is marking this year, was his apprentice, and they were unbeaten when playing together. Allan Robertson made his mark in other ways, too, redesigning the Old Course and being the first to use an iron club.
The loss of that legend, Allan Robertson, led to the first competition of what is now the Open. Although it was then an invitational between eight top golfers, including his apprentice, with the winner taking home the challenge belt, it later became more widely accessible, hence the name the Open. The first winner of the challenge belt was Willie Park. The following year, the competition became open, with amateurs also invited. Amateurs can still apply, through the qualifying rounds, to take part today.
The competition changed in 1870, when Young Tom Morris won the championship three years in a row, entitling him to keep the challenge belt. That is where St Andrews comes back into play. Left without a prize, the whole competition was cancelled in 1871, before Prestwick joined forces with the Royal and Ancient golf club in St Andrews and the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers to find a solution. Each club gave £10 towards a silver claret jug, which, as I hope we all know—we are all here, interested in golf—is still used today. I would argue that it is the most iconic trophy in the game.
The story is not over, though. The jug was not ready for the 1872 competition, so instead of cancelling it, the organisers gave the winner—again, Young Tom Morris—a gold medal. On Sunday, when the winners are presented, hon. Members will still hear both awards mentioned, as the gold medal is still given alongside the jug, as well as a silver medal for best scoring amateur.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is not here today, but I hope that she will forgive me for saying that it is particularly meaningful that the 150th Open is being held at the home of golf, as Prestwick has not hosted it since 1925. St Andrews is so tightly wound up in the history of the game that, for many, the R&A and the Old Course are synonymous with it. The R&A first held the Open at St Andrews in 1873; in 1894, the Open was first held in England, at St George’s; and in 1951, Portrush in Northern Ireland hosted it for the first time. The competition returned there with great success in 2019. Interestingly, the Open has never been held in Wales. The R&A says that it is happy with its current list of 10 courses, but it would be lovely to see a British Open truly representative of all four nations. Hopefully the R&A can find a course in Wales to suit.
Returning to the history, the first evidence of golf being played in St Andrews is a charter from Archbishop Hamilton permitting golf in the town, in the area that is now the Old Course. What is incredible about the course is that it has always been public land. That came through very strongly to me during the pandemic. In Scotland, we were able to play golf more than in other parts of the UK, given the restrictions, and it was good to see the land in St Andrews being widely used by many people. The public nature of the land is really important. At a time when sport was often reserved for gentlemen, that a young Allan Robertson was allowed to play on the greens outside his window arguably shaped the world of golf forever. That is why the links trust is so important. I sit on the trust as an elected representative, with others. It is focused on balancing the needs of the sport with the needs of the town, ensuring it benefits the people of St Andrews.
It is not just the rules of the game or the modern 18-hole course that originate from the Old Course, although both do, but the equipment itself, which is another reason why St Andrews is so synonymous with the sport. Allan Robertson made golf balls and alongside Hugh Philip, a local club maker, formed the Society of St Andrews Golfers, later Forgan of St Andrews. It is now the oldest golf manufacturer in the world. The craftsmanship has been perfected and passed down through generations, and we see that in the worldwide demand for equipment today.
The R&A has a responsibility for standards. I visited its Kingsbarns equipment standards facility; some of the tests they do look like really good fun, to be honest! Every club is tested on behalf of the 152 affiliated organisations, and every ball is approved, every year. There is a library full of weird and wonderful clubs and golf balls.
I am proud to say that more recently our golfing tournaments have become more diverse. St Andrews hosted the women’s Open for the first time in 2007 and then in 2013. It will return in 2024, alongside the Phoenix cup, disability golf’s equivalent of the Ryder cup. Scottish Disability Golf & Curling is based in North East Fife and I have attended several events to speak with participants and discuss equipment and access needs and requirements. I am grateful to the all-party parliamentary group for golf, which hosted a SDGC session.
I think I have made it clear that the Open taking place in St Andrews is a big deal, but I will be the first to acknowledge that it has not been without issues. There is no doubt that the train strikes in Scotland and the inability to reach an agreement on pay with the trade unions until this week has had an impact. To anybody listening, I remind them that the recommendation is not to travel by train this week and to make use of park-and-ride facilities to attend. St Andrews is in a rural part of Scotland and it is difficult to get there, so get there by car early and use park and ride.
I also acknowledge that not every resident of St Andrews loves having their town full of tourists. There is definitely scope to work more closely with local communities, especially in maintaining facilities such as cycle lanes for future events, and I will certainly push for that engagement in both my roles in the future.
None the less, after the two years of the pandemic where golf tourists stayed away, hosting the Open is a significant event. It is a major employer in North East Fife. In 2016, it was found to support nearly 2,000 jobs directly. If we take into account local hospitality and other ventures, that number is far higher. Golf clubs, hotels, restaurants, shops and local attractions are the obvious local beneficiaries of the arrival of golf fans to North East Fife, but the golf tourism industry is much more than that. I spoke in this place many times during the pandemic about the lack of support for golfing-specific parts of hospitality tourism. Companies such as coach businesses, drivers taking golfers from course to course and smaller and private golf courses who benefit from golf fans but struggled to attract them as a result of the pandemic missed out on some of the support that was offered. We expect more than 250,000 golf fans this weekend and very much hope they will bring those businesses back to life.
Golf is not just about St Andrews. It is alive and well across North East Fife and beyond. That is not just member-based clubs. The Fife Golf Trust and courses such as Scoonie and Leven in my constituency are publicly run and ensure wide participation.
For a community that thrives on summer tourists even once the Open has gone, the value of being broadcast worldwide is invaluable—although that is not quite true. The value is estimated as worth up to £50 million to the local economy, which is the same amount estimated that Royal Liverpool brings to the Wirral.
Anyone who knows me—in fact, anyone who has walked through the atrium of Portcullis House recently—will know that I am more of a fan of picking up a shinty stick than a golf one. I have had a lesson and I admittedly did find that the skills of hitting a ball with a stick are transferable, but I have still not been able to find a passion for playing the sport. It is potentially too late for me or, more likely, the demands of this place keep me too busy to pick up a second sport that takes four hours to play a round. I think the family would go off their rockers at that.
Golf takes time in its traditional format and I am glad to hear that different ways of attracting people to play and different formats such as nine-hole competitions are being looked at. With golfing on everyone’s lips in North East Fife and beyond, and with so much investment in and celebration of the sport, I hope we see more young people playing. I am pleased that this is the most accessible Open we have seen for families and young people: 20% of general admission tickets have been allocated to under-25s, including to 20,000 under-16s who are able to go free of charge. That makes it clear to the next generation that golf is not just for their dad, uncle, mum or anyone else. It is a sport for everyone to get involved with.
There are other modernisations this year, such as an area filled with massive bean bags, where people can lounge and watch the big screen, which I am looking forward to. There will also be a kids’ soft-play area, and a swing zone for children to try out golfing themselves. That will ensure that golf gets a new lease of life for future generations. There is snowball effect, with the Open growing in visitor interest. This is the first year where tickets have had to be balloted, and there is already a huge demand for tickets for next year’s event in Liverpool. The ballot is open now for those who are interested.
Although I have been talking about how important the Open is to St Andrews as the home of golf, I know it is also vital further afield. I am one of 10 MPs who represent constituencies that host the Open via the current rota, some of whom are here. As with any sporting event, the Open has a ripple effect in many ways across the country. It promotes sport domestically, boosts demand for golf-related goods and services from tourists and leads to more investment and facilities.
Sheffield Hallam University did a major piece of research in 2016, supported by the R&A, looking at the value of golf to the UK economy. The results were astounding. In 2014, there were 3.883 million adult golfers, of whom more than a million and a half played at least once every four weeks. Those figures will inevitably now be higher, with population growth and the switch to outdoor sports during the pandemic. Social prescribing is also beginning to be used for those suffering mental health challenges, since playing sport is good for them. Golf has been involved in that, which is something the all-party parliamentary group on golf has looked at.
In 2014, the gross value added to the UK economy was a little over £2 billion, with almost £1 million raised in taxes. One in 500 jobs is linked to golfing in some way. KPMG broke that down further in an older report in 2011, showing that golfing leads to spending and investment in equipment, manufacturing, training and hospitality. The courses need building and maintaining by companies that need accountants and lawyers, representatives from marketing and human resources.
Through direct spending on clubs and balls, maintaining grass, and running clubs, through indirect spending on hospitality and construction and through the multiplier effect, when all those people go out and spend their income, golf is worth billions to our economy. That will only grow as participation in golf grows. I have mentioned the growth in women’s and disability golf in recent years. Golfing is for everyone. It can be enjoyed alone, with or without friends.
More and more golf clubs are ensuring that they are accessible to their local communities, clubs such as Scoonie, which I mentioned. It is a sport for all ages and abilities. It is good for the body and for the mind. The Open plays a part in that; I am so proud that North East Fife and St Andrews are hosting the 150th Open at the Old Course this year. I am hoping it stays windy, as I experienced yesterday, because that will make for a more challenging outing for professional golfers. It is an incredibly historic event, which brings huge benefits to St Andrews and the wider community. I am equally looking forward to a future of women’s Opens and the British Masters for disabled players, because St Andrews is the home of golf. It continues to welcome those who are playing, participating or spectating, and I hope it continues to do so for years to come.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 11 o’clock. We find ourselves already on the back nine, because we are going straight to the Front-Bench speeches and Gavin Newlands for the SNP.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. You have certainly aced it thus far with your puns. I have not planned many puns, but I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate and highlighting the role the Open championship and golf more generally play in our society, particularly in Scotland, North East Fife and St Andrews.
It is a shame that, as you said, Mr Hollobone, there are not more Members here for such an important, interesting and enjoyable debate. We have lots of debates in this place in which we shout at each other, but this is one in which we would reach a fair level of consensus. It is apt that the debate is happening today, not because the 150th Open is being played this weekend at St Andrews but because my first new set of golf clubs in 25 years is due for delivery today. I am hoping to see how much they improve my game—I suspect not very much.
In opening the debate, the hon. Lady spoke very well and passionately about the subject. She is lucky to have St Andrews in her constituency, and even luckier to be a member of the links trust. I hope she can arrange a round on the course for all of us who have spoken in the debate. I very much look forward to attending St Andrews this weekend for the event. She mentioned a host of big names from the history of the game, all of whom are fantastic, but she included my favourite, Tom Watson. Who can forget Tom, at the age of 59, nearly winning the Open in 2009? It was very nearly an incredible achievement.
The hon. Lady mentioned the claret jug, one of the most iconic trophies in the game—I would argue that it is one of the most iconic trophies in world sport. She also mentioned the growth in participation. At least 1.5 million people play the game at least once every four weeks. The pandemic was very difficult for all of us, and for sport in the round, but golf and tennis bucked the trend and may have seen a growth in participation.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who is no longer in her place, rightly advertised next year’s event in her constituency at Royal Liverpool Golf Club, which is another excellent course. I look forward to that. In preparation for the debate, I researched the courses of Strangford, but sadly the Member for Westminster Hall, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), did not attend today, so that research has gone to waste.
I mentioned that I have new clubs arriving today. I have a love-hate relationship with the game, it must be said. I can just as easily hit 79 as 109, although recently I am much closer to the latter, mainly because of my slice. I said to my friend Michael Somerville, who I will be attending the Open with this weekend, that I would mention in my speech that the last time out I beat him seven and six. Hopefully that is now on the record for all eternity, and he will surely be buying me a pint at the weekend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) is not here either, so I can say that St Andrews is indisputably the home of golf. It is fitting that, for its 150th edition, the Open returns home to the Old Course—just one of seven courses in what is not a huge town. As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, there are many, many other courses around Fife. The Old Course is one of the few courses used for majors—indeed, for the major championship—where anyone can book a round without being a member of a club.
Aside from St Andrews, every part of Scotland has influenced the development and history of golf. The size of the hole is based on tools used at Musselburgh Old Course, itself a six-time host of the Open. Leith provided the earliest surviving rules of the game, published by the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers before its flit to Muirfield. Its rulebook still sits in the National Library of Scotland.
It was a challenge match in 1681 between the future James VII, John Paterson and two English guests of the then duke that settled once and for all Scotland’s role as the cradle of golf. The two guests of the duke maintained that golf belonged to England. To settle matters, the duke arranged a challenge match and enlisted the help of Paterson to play alongside him. After seeing off the visitors handily, the duke gave his winnings to Paterson, giving him the resources to build his own house on the Royal Mile, in an area that is still known today as Golfers Land.
It was St Andrews that standardised the 18 hole round in 1764, without which golfers today would be sipping a libation on the 23rd hole after carding a score of 130. Some of us can easily get close to that in 18 holes, let alone 23. The early forms of golf were so popular in Scotland that successive King Jameses outlawed them, such was the time they took up compared with militarily more useful pastimes, such as archery.
This year marks the first time the R&A’s three major championships—the men’s Open, the women’s Open and the men’s senior Open—will take place in Scotland in the same year. That is a tribute to the hard work and dedication of the team at VisitScotland, who have supported golf across the country this year, selling Scotland to the world and, in turn, delivering millions of pounds into our national economy. Clearly, though, not everything is rosy. In my view, the ownership of the Turnberry course is still a stain, and some poorer families are discouraged from participation in what is still—despite the sport’s best efforts—perceived as a middle-class sport.
I grew up playing at what we colloquially call the Royal Barshaw, the local public course where it is still only £10 a round, and I have played there recently. The work done by Scottish Golf and the R&A over the years has made great strides in dispelling the perception of the sport, but there is always more to do to ensure that we do not miss out on the next generation of Sandy Lyles, Colin Montgomeries and Catriona Matthews over the coming years. As the hon. Member for North East Fife said, golf is truly for everyone. Scotland has shown over the years that we can produce world-class talent across the sporting arena, whether that is Andy Murray, Laura Muir or Katie Archibald. Although we may be going through a temporary barren patch in golf right now, I know that with the work going on at grassroots level, success is just around the corner.
Golf accounts for around £300 million of value to the Scottish economy and more than 5,000 jobs, and it is one of the best shop windows for Scotland overseas. The eyes of the world will be on Fife this week, and while the chances of a home-grown victor this time may be a little smaller than before—although I would keep my eye on Bob MacIntyre; if I were a betting man, that is where I would put some money each way—those watching will be in no doubt that, to borrow a phrase, golf is coming home.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate. She gave a really interesting speech about Scotland’s proud golfing history and the importance of golf in her constituency. I would never have imagined the link between Jack Nicklaus and Benjamin Franklin—I will know that for future pub quizzes.
When we think about the great British sporting events, we think about Wimbledon, the FA cup final, the grand national, the Ashes and the Open—especially the Open at St Andrews, the home of golf. We look forward to this weekend’s 150th edition of arguably the world’s greatest golf tournament.
Research estimates that last year’s 149th Open at Royal St George’s brought a £113 million economic boost to Kent, the host county. Kent also gained an additional £94 million in gross advertising revenue thanks to the thousands of hours of global television coverage, traditional TV and online news coverage, digital streaming and social media content. That is in a year hit by covid challenges, so the Open is a real economic opportunity.
This year, we are set to have the highest attendance yet, so the Open could be even more of an economic boost for Fife. A record-breaking 290,000 fans are expected to attend, and the R&A says it received more than 1.3 million requests for tickets. Hosting such an event is fantastic for an area, bringing thousands of people to spend their money while enjoying the scenery, cafes, pubs, restaurants, arts and crafts, and independent shops.
St Andrews is a seaside town with a population of under 20,000, and it is expecting 250,000 visitors. Even if the trains were running smoothly, accommodating that number of people is always a challenge, but the Scottish National party’s ScotRail cuts and the temporary timetable have caused real problems on Scotland’s trains in recent months. A pay deal may have been agreed, but that may well have come too late for some of the thousands of visitors heading to St Andrews this weekend.
I echo the plea of the hon. Member for North East Fife for people to go early and use the park and ride. That is sensible advice for visitors. A ScotRail spokesman has said that the operator expects to run a quarter of the trains that it had planned for the Open, and the R&A has warned that fans who travel to the Open by train may find that there are no services to get them home. That it is a real worry. The lack of trains is likely to lead to thousands of fans filling the roads, and we hope it does not lead to problematic congestion for local residents. The problems on the trains have certainly hit businesses, tourist destinations and passengers for weeks, and the Government really need to get the basics right.
The last couple of years have been difficult for businesses, especially those such as golf that rely heavily on inbound visitors. Pre-pandemic, Scotland attracted around 17.5 million overnight visitors every year, which generated £5.9 billion in visitor spend, and an additional 134 million day trips were taken, with visitors spending £5.8 billion. In Scotland, spending by tourists generates around £12 billion of economic activity for the wider tourism supply chain and contributes around £6 billion—about 5%—to Scottish GDP.
Office for National Statistics figures suggest that accommodation and food services—the services most strongly linked to tourism—were affected worse in Scotland than in any other of the four nations by the pandemic restrictions. Even now, with the majority of restrictions lifted, a recent survey by the Scottish Tourism Alliance found that half of businesses have fewer bookings than normal for the summer period, compared with the same timeframe in 2019, and 40% reported a fall in spend since May 2021. The recovery is difficult and slow.
Scottish Labour has called for a new national plan for tourism to build a sustainable recovery and ensure that key tourist destinations have the infrastructure and investment to support demand. Scotland’s tourism sector can at least be happy that the Scottish Government are investing more generously in it than the UK Government are in English tourism. A recent Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee oral evidence session revealed that the finances devolved to VisitScotland are, in relative terms, something like six or seven times the core funding available to VisitEngland.
As a United Kingdom, our sporting culture is one of the biggest draws for visitors. In 2017, more than 2 million visitors went to a live sport event as part of their trip to the UK, which is 6% of all visits that year; more than 350,000 inbound visitors played golf during their trip to the UK, spending about £418 million; and 18,000 international visitors watched a live golf event during their stay, spending at least £30 million. Scottish tourism is still on a shaky road to recovery but, after a difficult few years, golf appears to be on the up and can play a key role in driving that tourism. As we know, when people come to play golf, it is not just the golf courses that profit but the tour operators, local accommodation, local restaurants, pubs and bars, taxi drivers, golf equipment shops, and everybody in the various supply chains.
Importantly, the nature of golf means that it is played in wide open spaces and is often naturally socially distanced. Back in the days when I used to hack around the public courses in Manchester, I was always socially distanced from my fellow players—and from the fairway. That aspect of the sport means that many people have been able to enjoy it as a form of entertainment and exercise with a low covid risk. In most places, golf courses reopened sooner than other sports facilities after the covid restrictions ended.
The rise of the sport’s profile appears to have further boosted participation. A survey of 99 UK golf clubs found that four in five members’ clubs and nine in 10 proprietary venues reported growth last year. According to research by the R&A and Sports Marketing Surveys, the total number of people who played a round of golf in the British Isles nearly doubled from 2.9 million in 2019 to 5.2 million in 2020. It is also fantastic that women are increasingly embracing the sport. The number of women players grew from just over 400,000 in 2019 to 1.46 million—28% of all golfers—in 2020. There is still a long way to go, but professional women’s golf is also enjoying a significant rise.
Meanwhile, the first Disabled Golf Week will take place across Scotland this year to coincide with the 150th Open at St Andrews. Organised by Scottish Disability Golf and Curling, the programme of events will aim to introduce people of all ages, with any kind of disability or serious health issue, to golf with training and tuition. It is good to see golf taking those strides towards greater accessibility and inclusion to enrich the sport further. Not only is the 150th Open championship set to provide a fantastic sporting event and a cultural and economic boost to Fife, Scotland and the rest of the UK, but it will help to inspire a diverse range of people to pick up a club—perhaps for the first time—and to get more physically active.
Last week, a report by the National Audit Office concluded that the Government had essentially squandered much of the legacy of the 2012 Olympics by failing to make meaningful inroads in boosting people’s physical activity levels. Let us hope that the legacy of the 150th Open championship has a different fate and that the event inspires people to get involved in sport and physical activity. Let us also hope for a fantastic few days of golf ahead of us.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone, particularly in these rather pleasant surroundings, it being rather cooler in the Chamber than outside.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate and on her compelling, passionate contribution. I learned quite a lot from it. She is sincerely passionate about golf, and it was fascinating to hear how an Act of Parliament requires her to be so. That part of history shows, as she said, how closely linked golf is to her local community.
I also thank the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and my Front-Bench colleagues, the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for their contributions. As is often the case with sport, I think that there will be a fair degree of agreement and consensus.
I am aware of the huge interest in golf. There has rightly been recognition of the value that it brings far and wide across the United Kingdom. From the grassroots right the way up to elite competition, the sport’s impact on local communities should not be underestimated. It has a social impact, an impact on physical and mental health and, as we have heard—I will come to this—a considerable economic impact. We talked about some of that before the debate—in particular how golf’s impact is disproportionately large in Scotland, and how the sport is widely recognised and respected.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife on her commitment to drive the conversations forward in many areas as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for golf and for hospitality and tourism. We should acknowledge that those are active APPGs with many members, and that certain other activities and events taking place today may mean that colleagues who wanted to contribute to the debate are otherwise engaged.
This is a really timely moment, on the eve of the event’s 150th anniversary, to reflect on the noteworthy contribution of the world-renowned Open championship. I am thrilled that this year the Open is returning to St Andrews—it is, as was said many times, the home of golf—in the hon. Member’s constituency.
Golf has a long heritage in this country. with the Open championship first played in 1860 at Prestwick in Scotland, predating many other major sporting events that make up the British sporting calendar. The first FA cup final did not kick off until 1872, and it was not until 1877 that we had the first tennis at Wimbledon—at a different location from the current tournament, which had its 100th anniversary just last week.
The Open is golf’s oldest championship and the original of the four majors. It is only right that on the occasion of the 150th Open championship we will see the largest event in its long history, with a record-breaking 290,000 fans due to attend the world-renowned Old Course. I am extremely excited to see crowds return in all their glory after such a difficult period for spectator sport.
Last year’s championship was a brilliant success. At the other end of the country, the organising committee did a truly fantastic job to co-ordinate the tournament safely as part of the Government’s events research programme. That enabled 32,000 golf enthusiasts to attend each day of the four-day event, and I was fortunate enough to see one of them. I reiterate my congratulations on the delivery of last year’s Open at Royal St George’s with such professionalism and sensitivity as the country continued to navigate the challenges of the pandemic.
As the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North mentioned, golf did a fantastic job of engaging with Government and stakeholders, taking its responsibilities, in order to reopen safely. In the process, it managed to attract many new golf enthusiasts, many of whom have stayed with it. It has done a good job of recovering from the pandemic. Importantly, that has contributed not only to economic activity, but to people’s physical and mental health. The many benefits of golf that we all recognise are now known more widely than ever.
This historic anniversary has clearly created a renewed excitement and unprecedented demand among golf fans wishing to attend the Open championship, resulting in the highest ever number of general admission tickets being issued. We will certainly have quite an atmosphere at the Open over the next few days.
The Open follows the excitement of last week’s Genesis Scottish Open, where Xander Schauffele survived a nail-biting final round scare in East Lothian, winning the tournament with a one-shot victory. It was another fantastic sporting occasion on British soil. Another brilliant couple of golfing events will take place this summer, which I am looking forward to, with the women’s Open next month, hosted by Muirfield, and the PGA Championship in September, at the Wentworth Club in Surrey.
I applaud golf the game, as the hon. Member for North East Fife and all contributors have done, for the progress and investment made in ensuring that golf is inclusive and accessible for all, in particular the progress with women’s golf and disability golf. That is really important and is supported by the whole House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I apologise for being late for the debate, Mr Hollobone—when the planes are delayed, it is beyond my control. Hon. Members will be able to tell from the sweat on my brow that it was quite frantic to get here. I apologise to everyone, including the Minister, and especially to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who I wanted to support.
The Minister is outlining the case for golf across in Scotland, which I fully support, but I am ever mindful of golf across all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is really good in Northern Ireland as well. My council, Ards and North Down Borough Council, sponsored the PGA EuroPro Tour just last year. It was a wonderful occasion to highlight our council’s area. Across Northern Ireland we have some of the most fantastic gold tournaments, which promote Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Member for North East Fife has talked about the benefits of golf a thousand times, but I endorse and support that, and put in a plug for us in Northern Ireland. We have some star players, including Rory McIlroy—he is the star who goes above and beyond—among many others. I just wanted to make that point, and apologies again for not being here in time for the start of the debate.
Nigel Huddleston
I was wondering when Rory McIlroy would be mentioned. We missed the hon. Gentleman earlier; if he reads Hansard, he will see that he was mentioned. He is absolutely right about golf’s contribution, which is what I will come on to now.
Golf has huge economic impact and importance across the UK, which is disproportionately large in the devolved areas because of the additional contribution of sport and its knock-on impact on tourism. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is right to highlight that importance. He mentioned the advocacy and support of councils, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, as well as the importance of golf at an appropriate price point. It is not a sport for posh people; it is genuinely a sport for all. I applaud many of the public and low-cost provisions in golf, which ensure it is accessible to many people.
Many local authorities and other institutions across the country are genuinely trying to make an effort to ensure that everyone can participate, no matter their income level. That is important for golf, because the sport recognises the perception that it is a bit posh, even though, looking at the demographics of the people who play golf, that is absolutely not the case. Again, I applaud the APPG for its work trying to get this point across. We all want golf, and all sport, to be for everybody.
Gavin Newlands
Just to correct the record, and on the point the Minister is making about affordability, I said that the price for a round of golf at Royal Barshaw, as we call it, in Paisley is £10. It is £10, but it is £5 for those who are unemployed, for children and for the over-65s. That is £5 for a round of golf, which shows that it can be affordable.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which again makes the point about the creativity and effort being made to ensure that golf is truly inclusive, which I applaud.
I will spend a little more time highlighting the valuable contribution that golf makes to the UK tourism sector, alongside sport overall. The sporting calendar is one of this country’s many tourism assets. Our sporting events not only act as a springboard for promoting the UK at home and abroad, allowing us to celebrate the diverse range of destinations across the country that we have to offer, but also serve as a catalyst for the wider sports economy. Every year more than 2 million visitors attend a live sporting event as part of their trip to the UK. In 2019, the last year for which complete figures are available, 61,000 of those visitors watched a live golf event during their stay, spending a total of £129 million. That is export revenue from inbound tourism. They stay longer than any other sports fan—an average of 16 nights per visit.
Visitors come not just to watch live golf at prestigious events such as the Open, but to play it. In 2019, more than 360,000 people embarked on a journey to the UK to play golf in some of our nation’s most scenic destinations. Those inbound visitors spent £525 million—a huge amount for local businesses and communities.
Golf continues to be an incredibly popular sport to play domestically across the UK, with 3,000 golf clubs on offer. Two new participation reports show that 5.3 million on-course adult golfers enjoyed playing on full-length courses in Great Britain and Ireland in 2021. That is the second highest number since monitoring began more than 30 years ago.
An independent forecast by the Sports Industry Research Centre, commissioned by the R&A, VisitScotland and Fife Council, indicated that the total economic impact of staging the 150th Open at St Andrews, with 290,000 fans in attendance, will reach £100 million or more. There is added value to be gained from broadcasting and digital marketing, and an estimated £100 million to St Andrews and Scotland as a result of the significant and ever increasing global media exposure. That increases the forecast total economic benefit of this year’s Open alone to more than £200 million, for the first time in history. That is a truly remarkable figure.
Jim Shannon
I am ever mindful that men might sometimes feel that they can play golf better than ladies. But about a month ago the Swedish golfer Linn Grant beat the gentlemen in a final. Does the Minister agree that that is an example of how golf equalises everyone? They are all on the same page. It is good to see ladies excel and beat men on many occasions—or all the time, probably. In golf, they do it well.
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman, as always, makes an important point that I dare not disagree with. He is absolutely right. It is important that we showcase, support and encourage our women golfers and disability sports. We need them on television, too, because that inspires people to take part, and for those participating at elite level it is important for getting sponsorship and other support. I encourage broadcasters to seek opportunities to showcase golf on television as broadly as possible, because that will have an impact.
The legacy of these games is huge. The economic impact, which we just talked about, is important, but some people could be watching these golf events for the first time, get inspired and be sports stars of the future. I am always proud to reflect on the success and outreach of the many sporting events that we host in the UK. Whether the upcoming Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, the ongoing women’s Euros or the Open championship, sport has the power to unit, inspire and generate a better future for the nation. The positive contribution of golf to not only the UK economy but UK society as a whole is clear and emphatic, as we have discussed. I am excited to see the sport continue to grow in popularity and impact across its grassroots foundation and the elite fanbase.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington made the important point about the economic contribution of sport, particularly to help the recovery of the tourism sector. I gently remind him, though, that the tourism, hospitality and leisure sector was not neglected during the recovery. In fact, £37 billion of Government support was provided to the sector as part of the recovery, and it is bounding back very strongly.
A couple of Members mentioned the impact of the train strikes that we are unfortunately facing at the moment. All the politics aside, if an event is impacted by train or other strikes, it is important that people plan ahead, because they could be inconvenienced. However, I am pleased to say that at the Open, and indeed as we saw a couple of weeks ago with Glastonbury, the organisers are trying to communicate the challenges, encourage people to plan ahead, and put alternative measures in place, including park and ride, additional bus services, earlier or later trains, where possible, and so on. Again, with good communication, some of the challenges can be overcome.
However, I also appeal to all stakeholders, including the unions: please do not target sport; please ensure that people who have been planning these events, in many cases for years, can go ahead and deliver them as effectively and efficiently as possible. For the hundreds of thousands of people who are looking forward to sporting and music events and so on over the next few months—particularly as we recover from the pandemic—it is important that those go ahead and they can enjoy them.
Of course, if there is an impact, alternative plans and mitigation measures are being put in place by organisers. However, it is important that we do everything we can to enable the recovery of our sporting and tourism economies. Everybody has sympathy for the cost of living challenges that many people face, but there is a way to do things, and deliberately targeting events that people have been looking forward to may well not achieve the public support that is perhaps hoped for. I respectfully appeal to all stakeholders to work together so that we can overcome the challenges.
Our trains, in particular, are a really important part of the overall sports ecosystem. Many people going to sporting events rely on the trains. Similarly, tourism right across the country—for both domestic and inbound travel—relies heavily on trains. I think that we all want to ensure that people have long-term confidence in using our train services, and that trains can play their important role in the overall economic recovery. We understand the circumstances and the cost of living challenges, but let us all be sensible about how we achieve our goals.
I once again say a huge thank you to everybody who has contributed to this incredibly timely debate. I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife for securing it. I now look ahead to what I know will be a captivating few days of true golfing excellence at this historic 150th anniversary.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now find ourselves on the 18th green, with Wendy Chamberlain to sum up.
Wendy Chamberlain
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. Before we retire to the clubhouse, I think—[Interruption.] Yes, my round—it sounds like it. We have had a very positive debate. Although I have had apologies from other APPG members, it is good that everybody who has attended has contributed so well and given us all a history lesson. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who is no longer in her place, for rightly noting next year’s event, when the Open goes to England, to Royal Liverpool.
I am also grateful to the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). I got more history—Paterson is my maiden name, so I will now go and do some research. He highlighted Bob MacIntyre—probably Scotland’s greatest hope this weekend—who is left-handed, famously, as a result of shinty. I will always bring it back to shinty if I can.
On shinty, I will say one other thing. We have talked about participation by people with disabilities and women, and that participation in sport is important. However, it is also really important that we start to see women operate in different positions in the governance of games as well. Since my election in December 2019, I have been encouraged to see an increased number of trustees from more diverse backgrounds in the links trust. As for myself, I was the first female director of the Camanachd Association between 2017 and 2019. It is also important for people to see that.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), highlighted the pandemic’s impact on golf and the fact that, for all that golf was really impacted, it has been seen to buck the trend by increasing and widening its participation. That has been really positive. The Minister talked about the APPG for golf, which is a very positive APPG. The reason for that is not just the participation of Members—from this place and the other place—but the engagement we have had from the national sporting unions and others such as the R&A. There is a real passion to drive forward and work productively with Government and parliamentarians.
All Members were right to highlight the importance of sporting tourism. We are all looking forward to welcoming visitors. I was in St Andrews yesterday, and lots of visitors are there already. I know people who are planning to be there for the whole week. We have had the events to mark the 150th Open, and there are events into next week. There is no doubt that people can come to sporting events and make that part of their visit, as opposed to that being the reason for their visit.
It has been a really positive debate. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for getting here in the end and making a contribution. He rightly mentioned Rory McIlroy and the importance of Northern Ireland from a sporting perspective.
Jim Shannon
This has probably been mentioned—I know the Minister mentions it regularly. For us back home, golf featured greatly in our wellbeing during the covid-19 outbreak—indeed, that applies to all sports. It is good for both our physical and mental wellbeing. Back home, the impact mentally, socially and emotionally has been great. Golf has been almost a release valve. The hon. Lady deserves great credit for securing the debate, because golf can do really good stuff for everyone.
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Member for that contribution. In my opening remarks, I mentioned social prescribing and, increasingly, golf and other sports are looking to participate in that.
This has been a very positive debate. However, I feel it would be remiss of me if, having mentioned Rory McIlroy, I did not mention the fact that golf, from a media perspective, has not been in the most positive light lately, given some of the developments in the game. I agree with Rory and Tiger Woods, who have both spoken on this matter, that we all have a responsibility in sport. We have talked widely this morning about the real positives, such as participation and how we look up to our sporting greats, and it is for all who participate in all sports—golf included—to ensure that they always have that at the forefront of their minds.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the contribution of the 150th Open Championship to culture and sport in the UK.
Global Vaccine Disparities
(1 year, 9 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
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Welcome to the coolest place in the building on this very hot day.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered disparities in the global distribution of vaccines.
I submitted a request for this morning’s debate because I want to draw attention to the grotesque inequalities in the distribution of vaccines to tackle the covid crisis. When we convene for these debates, often it is to seek more information from the Government or to make a request for changes in policy. Now that there will be a change of Prime Minister and potentially a rearrangement of the Government, including of Ministers responsible for this area in particular, this is a particularly opportune moment to place all the issues on the agenda and hopefully see some change. It is also worth using these debates to record one’s position, because when our children and grandchildren look back in decades to come on the Government’s performance, I think they will ask why we did so little to intervene effectively when there was such a huge scale of human suffering across the globe.
The global vaccine story is one of gross inequality. I heard the Prime Minister when he made the statement that it was greed that brought us the vaccine. It was not greed; it was public money. Very significant public resources went into all the vaccines. However, greed was certainly responsible for the obscene inequality that followed.
Over the last year, the richer an economy was, the more likely that country was to have vaccines. At the top end, it would likely have had far more than it needed, and at the bottom of the scale, many countries had almost none at all. Still today, just under 20% of people across the African continent as a whole are fully vaccinated, and only 16% of people in low-income and poor countries are vaccinated. The Prime Minister has talked about vaccine hesitancy being the main factor accounting for that. That is simply untrue. Studies have shown that there is far more vaccine hesitancy in the United States than in most African countries. However, the way that the giant pharmaceutical corporations—big pharma—and richer countries have behaved has certainly fuelled that scepticism, which should worry us all.
The problem is not simply a lack of solidarity or generosity, although that is shocking in itself. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), the shadow Minister for international development, recently uncovered, a year ago the Prime Minister promised to share 100 million surplus vaccines with the world’s poorest countries. That is a very small amount, but at least it is something; yet a year later, barely a third have been delivered.
Those are the doses that we had already bought and were otherwise going spare. They would have been thrown away if they had not been distributed, yet they counted against the aid budget. In fact, it gets worse: we charged the aid budget double what the UK was widely reported to have paid for those doses. The Government had charged around £4.50 per dose versus the £2.30 per dose that they paid, as reported by The British Medical Journal. Yesterday, we discovered that over 1 billion doses are believed to have been wasted around the world. That would have been sufficient to vaccinate everyone in the poorer countries.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Member for securing a debate on this issue, which has concerned me as well; indeed, it concerns us all across this House. Is he aware that Eswatini, a little country that borders Mozambique and South Africa and one of our Commonwealth family members, was hit hard by coronavirus? I have to say that whenever I raised this matter with the Government, and with the Minister in particular, they did respond. It is a country that I have a particular interest in because of the churches and the missionary groups there, and the Government deserve our thanks.
Does the right hon. Member agree that one of the difficulties—he has already outlined some of them—is that smaller countries have no one to advocate for them internationally? We need to be more proactive in our responsibilities, first to Commonwealth countries and then to those that have no one to advocate for them. I think he is also saying that we need someone to advocate for them and ensure they get the vaccines that are available. We should be doing that.
John McDonnell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for his dogged pursuit of the issue in Parliament and with Ministers. There is an issue about the strength of the voices of individual Commonwealth countries, and a real concern about some not being listened to. As a result of that, interventions are not taking place effectively in those countries, but it is invaluable that the hon. Gentleman has consistently raised individual issues with regard to particular countries in which he has an interest through the Christian movement. That adds to the pressure on Government for more effective action, and I am grateful for that.
The situation is worse than just failure to donate at scale. We did not donate as we promised on the scale that we promised, but we also worked to stop others producing the vaccines in their own countries. Around the world, factories offered to produce the vaccines, and one factory in Bangladesh said at the start of the pandemic that it could turn out 600 million doses a year. Compare that to the 35 million doses that the British Government have donated. More than 100 factories around the world could have been safely producing mRNA—messenger ribonucleic acid—vaccines, but were unable to do so because the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, or TRIPS, agreement locks that knowledge, which is often publicly produced, behind a wall.
The TRIPS agreement allows huge corporations and their shareholders to profit while preventing us from taking the action that we need to take to protect our own society, as well as people around the world. It is good for the big pharmaceutical companies, and Pfizer predicts $50 billion revenue for its covid vaccine—an anti-viral pill—in 2022 alone. These are the most lucrative drugs in history, and more than one Moderna executive has become a billionaire off its publicly funded and publicly created vaccines, but this situation is bad for us because it has not only created massive inequality, but allowed the virus to go unchecked in many parts of the world, mutating in a way that risks undermining the medicines we already have.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I know how passionate the right hon. Gentleman is about the subject as he supported my Westminster Hall debate on global vaccine access. He is talking powerfully about coronavirus vaccines, but does he agree that there has been a loss of progress on vaccines more generally? A good example is the polio vaccine budget, which the Government have pretty much obliterated. As a result, we are beginning to see wild poliovirus circulating again in some developing parts of the world. It is not just coronavirus; we are failing in our responsibilities on other fronts.
John McDonnell
There is a lesson I thought we had learned decades ago, which is that when we have viruses such as this, whether it is polio, covid or others, unless we treat the world, eventually we will become vulnerable again. That is exactly the experience we are going through now. Even with covid, we are going through it again. As we know from information from the past month, a new covid variant has arisen, and from what we hear, that variant is more transmissible than anything we have experienced. On all those issues, unless we have a global strategy to vaccinate the world, unfortunately we will not be able to isolate ourselves from future infections and future tragedies.
Let me return to the issue of the TRIPS waiver, which a number of hon. Members present have raised in various debates. It is worth reminding the House that there was a call from most countries to waive the rules during the pandemic. The tragedy for us was that the British Government were implacably opposed to the waiver. Britain was one of the last countries standing, and only on the last day did Britain sign up to the World Trade Organisation’s very poor compromise on the waiver. I will be frank: I think that is disgraceful. It is disgraceful for a Government of a country that had all the vaccines we needed. The onus was on us to do everything we could to prevent this infection from spreading, and to do all we could to assist poorer countries.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his important contribution to the debate. On the one hand, the Government are currently negotiating a free trade agreement with India. On the other hand, they blocked the proposal from India and South Africa for a TRIPS waiver at the World Trade Organisation. Does my right hon. Friend think that is the right approach to take to the issue of fair distribution of vaccines, and to our relationship with India?
John McDonnell
The issue that my hon. Friend raises is something that we have raised before. I commend India and South Africa for the work they did in lobbying so hard to try to get international agreement on the TRIPS waiver. We need to learn some lessons from this period, and one of them is that when the Government act unilaterally in this way, they contaminate future relationships—whether they are over trade or other matters of co-operation. I think that is the anxiety that many of us have. It is a disgrace that we actually sought to prevent others from making the drugs that they needed.
Many countries around the world are shocked at the way they have been treated by this country, and they want to start to do things differently. South Africa has set up an mRNA hub to try to crack this revolutionary technology, which we think can be used not just to prevent severe cases of covid, but potentially to create treatments for a wide range of diseases, such as HIV, malaria and certain types of cancer. The big corporations still refuse to share their know-how, but South Africa has worked out how to make mRNA vaccines and—even better—is sharing this know-how with other countries patent-free. A couple of weeks ago, President Biden’s Administration announced that they would work with the hub to help it. Many European Governments have offered funds, but Britain has done nothing. The Government must support those efforts and protect them from the pressure that will come from the industry. This is a new model of how medicines can be developed, and it deserves our support.
It is not just about covid. I believe that the way we produce medicines is broken. I ask the Minister to talk to Lord Jim O’Neill, who has been trying to get the pharmaceutical corporations to produce the antibiotics that our medical establishment has depended on for many years. He has been trying to engage in a dialogue to change practices within the pharmaceutical industry, but the corporations have done nearly nothing. Look at HIV/AIDs. We now have the means to wipe out HIV through pills that stop transmission. New injectables have just come online. Again, the countries that most need them are being overcharged or shut out of the market altogether. It goes on and on.
We have an industry committed to making huge amounts of money, but not to making and sharing the medicines that humanity needs. We have to change that, and conversations are happening across the world about how to do it—except here, where the Government’s commitment to shareholder return appears sacrosanct and is prioritised above saving lives and reducing human suffering. My warning is this: it is not only ethically obscene; it is bad for us, too. It means that the British taxpayer is getting a terrible return on their investment in new medicines, that the NHS is overpaying for medicines such as covid vaccines, and that we are not developing the medicines we need to prevent the next health epidemic.
There are huge healthcare disparities, because many people still lack adequate public, universal healthcare systems. Sadly, however, the UK Government, like the World Bank, is still pushing a deeply inadequate private, market-based healthcare model in many countries. It is telling that some of the hospitals that were supported with British development funds refused to treat covid-19 patients in the first wave of the pandemic. Many died, and many were left destitute by this model. It is time for the Government to stop pushing that failed model and start helping to build national health services for all.
Let me come to the specific requests for the Government. A coalition of different organisations, which includes Just Treatment, Global Justice Now, Oxfam, STOPAIDS and many others, is calling on the Government to demonstrate support for the World Health Organisation’s mRNA technology hub initiatives. The hubs will help to end the covid-19 pandemic for all by increasing manufacturing capacity for treatments and technologies.
More broadly, the hubs will support self-reliance, independence and health equity in lower income countries. They will ensure that we are adequately prepared for the next pandemic. The UK Government must provide financial support to the hubs and ensure that pharmaceutical companies share their manufacturing know-how and refrain from undermining the success of the hubs with intellectual property barriers.
As the new Administration is formed under a new Prime Minister, will the Minister, first, now back the coalition’s request that the Government use their influence to encourage Pfizer, Moderna and BioNTech to share their technology and know-how, and urge companies to remove intellectual property barriers to the production of mRNA products and related technologies? Specifically, the UK Government should call on Moderna to revoke the patents they hold in South Africa and prevent other pharmaceutical companies from similarly undermining the work of the new mRNA hubs.
Secondly, will the Government make a public commitment to support and finance the €92 million that mRNA hubs need to fund the initiative over the next five years? Some 59% has been raised so far from other countries, but not this country.
Thirdly, will the UK stop blocking the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights waiver at the World Trade Organisation? Will the Government ensure that the TRIPS waiver has a minimal duration of five years and includes all forms of intellectual property, including medical tools beyond vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics?
I hope that, with a change of Prime Minister and Administration, there is a window of opportunity for the Government to think again on the vital issue of how to prevent the loss of life and human suffering that has taken place on a global scale, which we have done so little to assist in tackling.
I expect the Minister will repeat the Government’s response to the petition that was lodged on this issue by many members of the general public, restate the various contributions and donations that have been made and compare us to others. The reality is that the financial contributions do not go anywhere near what is necessary. More importantly, the issue that must be addressed is the blocking of the local production in lower income countries of the means by which we can tackle the pandemic. If it is not, that will be a stain on this Administration.
The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate and to all hon. Members who have contributed. I will try to respond to some of the right hon. Gentleman’s points.
According to recent research by Imperial College London, the global roll-out of covid vaccines has averted up to 20 million deaths, but progress has been uneven. Hon. Members are absolutely right to want the global roll-out to go further and faster, because too many people remain unvaccinated, particularly in lower income countries and marginalised communities and among those in the grip of humanitarian crises.
The Government’s priority is to end the acute phase of the pandemic by ensuring that those most at risk are fully vaccinated and enabling societies to live with covid. Everyone in this House and throughout the country can be proud of the role the UK has played in developing and rolling out covid vaccinations. UK scientific excellence and co-operation has made a huge contribution to collective knowledge about the virus, including how to treat it and vaccinate against it. Professor Dame Sarah Gilbert and her team created and developed the game-changing Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, backed by the UK Government. The Government also backed research into several other successful vaccines that were produced at unprecedented speed, including through our £250 million support to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, otherwise known as CEPI.
We have also played a big role in the global vaccine roll-out, which has been the fastest ever against a single disease. Furthermore, we are a founder and one of the largest donors to COVAX, with our commitment of £548 million to its advance market commitment. That has helped COVAX to deliver more than 1.5 billion vaccine doses to 146 countries and territories worldwide, including 87 low and middle-income countries.
To help to address the supply shortages last year, we used our presidency of the G7 to make a collective commitment to provide 870 million doses to poorer countries by the end of 2022. Collectively, the G7 has exceeded that commitment by making more than 1 billion doses available. Nationally, we have donated more than 85 million doses to nearly 40 countries and made a further 15 million available. We have done all we can to meet our commitment to share 100 million doses. In 2021, the UK donated 30.8 million doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine, all of which were charged at cost. The OECD Development Assistance Committee will issue guidelines on the reporting of vaccine donations in 2022 later this year.
Through this immense collaborative effort, the world now has enough vaccine supply to enable countries to meet their immunisation goals; indeed, global vaccine supply now far outstrips demand. The key challenge is ensuring that developing countries can effectively administer the vaccines they have. We are working with the covid-19 vaccine delivery partnership and other international partners to tackle delivery bottlenecks and improve vaccine uptake to ensure that covid-19 vaccines reach the most vulnerable. Since January, the vaccine delivery partnership has accelerated progress towards national vaccination targets in more than half of the 34 countries with the lowest vaccination rates, with a strong focus on priority groups.
Community confidence and easy access are critical to successful roll-outs. We are using our development budget to encourage uptake and improve delivery. For example, our Nigeria health programme is supporting delivery and using evidence to build vaccine confidence in five of the poorest states. We have also provided £20 million to the Hygiene and Behaviour Change Coalition, which builds vaccine confidence through community engagement, working with health workers, religious leaders and other influential and trusted voices.
Just as the UK’s scientists and Government made a huge contribution to the first wave of vaccines, we are now working with partners such as COVAX and CEPI to ensure affordable and effective second-generation vaccines and make them available to low and middle-income countries, so that the world can respond rapidly to any new variant of concern. As part of this work, CEPI is supporting the Cambridge-based company DIOSynVax to develop a new pan-coronavirus vaccine to offer broader protection.
This year, we hosted the global pandemic preparedness summit, which raised more than £1.2 billion for CEPI’s work, including a UK Government pledge of £160 million. That money will fund the development of vaccines against new health threats—including possible new covid variants—in 100 days from any outbreak.
Rolling out covid vaccines puts huge pressure on weak and overstretched systems, so we are working with COVAX, the WHO, UNICEF and other partners to support countries in developing sustainable approaches to managing covid and other diseases. For the long-term control of the virus, it is critical to integrate covid-19 vaccination tests and treatments into primary healthcare systems, supported by strong and resilient health systems. The UK Government use our development budget to support countries to strengthen their health systems and work towards universal health coverage. We are also a leading supporter of Gavi’s work on restoring and strengthening immunisation and health systems for the 2.7 million children in the poorest countries who missed out on vaccinations in 2020 because the pandemic prevented them from getting their jabs.
Covid-19 has caused more than 6.3 million reported deaths, and the WHO estimates that there have been up to 15 million excess deaths in total around the world. It has had hard, far-reaching economic, social and health consequences, so stopping the next potential pandemic is vital. That will require a concerted and co-ordinated international effort. In addition to our investment in CEPI, the UK Government have pledged £25 million to a new World Bank-hosted fund for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. That will help to ensure more equitable access to vaccines, tests and treatments when a future threat to global health emerges.
On TRIPS, the UK Government continue to recognise the importance of the intellectual property system in incentivising innovation, research and the development of new medicines, vaccines and medical technologies. We welcome the consensus-based outcome on the TRIPS agreement reached at the WTO ministerial conference. We believe that decision will make it easier for developed countries to choose to export life-saving covid vaccines while preserving the incentive that intellectual property rights provide to invest in innovation.
John McDonnell
The Minister will soon run out of time, so will she address the issue of support for the WHO’s strategy of rolling out hubs? Will the Government think again?
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting his case forward, but I have been clear about the UK’s position.
The global vaccine roll-out is pivotal to ending the acute phase of the pandemic and transitioning to living with covid. The points that have been made about delivery and distribution are live issues, and we are working hard with our international partners to resolve them. The Government are also investing in the development of second-generation vaccines, pandemic preparedness and the strengthening of global health systems. That comprehensive approach is the only way to strengthen global resilience to covid and other future health threats.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered disparities in the global distribution of vaccines.
Careers Guidance in Schools
(1 year, 9 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
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of careers guidance in schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Ms Rees, and I welcome the new Minister to her place.
In 1985, I left school. I was living in a mining community at the time, right at the end of the miners strike. At the end of my school year, a careers officer told me—I stress, told me—that I should either go down the mines, go down the pit, or join the Army, one of the two. It was not so much advice as an instruction; those were the only two options open to me, according to the careers officer. I was not that politically switched on at the time, but I was definitely aware, at the end of a year-long strike, that the pits were not exactly the industry of the future, so I did not do as I was told.
Instead, I went on to become the first in my family to get a degree. Later, I became a careers adviser myself. Eventually, I became a manager of career services, as well as an assessor for those becoming and training to be professional careers advisers. It was a vocational choice grounded in that experience of receiving poor careers advice and being told that my options were limited. I did not—I still do not—want anyone trying to decide on a career or a change in career to have the experience that I had.
I am pleased to say that things have progressed since my school days. Barriers to good-quality careers provision remain in place and the quality of careers advice varies hugely from school to school. When good careers advice is not provided, that often hits the pupils from poorer backgrounds the hardest. It costs individuals and, as a nation, it certainly costs us our economic wellbeing.
“Levelling up” is a term whose future is unclear all of a sudden, but some young people are still not getting the impartial information that they need about the opportunities open to them. The Social Market Foundation, in its recent report on careers advice, argues that levelling up careers provision would make the country fairer. As parliamentarians, we all desire the country to be a fairer place. Careers advice was named as part of the northern powerhouse strategy, but it has not been named as part of the levelling-up agenda. When the Minister responds, will he say whether careers guidance should form part of any upskilling strategy for left-behind places?
Between the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, the Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Act 2022, which will shortly come into force, and the new statutory guidance, there has been much greater effort to ensure that careers advice is open to all pupils throughout secondary school. As someone who worked in the field, I welcome the extension of careers advice from year 7 to the age of 18 or, for those with additional need, to 25. However, may I ask the Minister whether there are plans to ensure that all schools are subject to the statutory guidance, rather than just maintained schools, some academies and some free schools? If we are serious about all pupils being given first-class careers guidance, we must ensure that all schools are governed by the statutory guidance.
Additionally, does the Department have plans to introduce a new careers strategy, given that the previous strategy lapsed in 2020? Given the legislation that has been implemented since then and the huge challenges to schools brought about by covid, it is clear that we need an up-to-date strategy to respond to the challenges that we face now, that pupils face now.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am greatly enjoying my hon. Friend’s contribution and he brings his experience to bear. He made a point about the statutory guidance and to whom it refers. Does he agree with me that, although the guidance is in statute, evidence shows that at least 25% of schools are failing to achieve the minimum standards of careers guidance, and that guidance is only one part of it? The other part concerns enforcement and assessment regimes, to ensure that the good intentions that the Government put forward are delivered on the ground.
Mike Amesbury
I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. Resources will have to follow statutory guidance. The pandemic has had a significant impact on schools’ ability to deliver careers advice. According to recent research by the Sutton Trust, 75% of teachers in state schools said it had a negative impact, far more than the proportion of similar results returned from private schools.
There is an increasing concern that we have arrived out of the pandemic to a different world, one that students are not being prepared for. With the jobs market evolving faster than ever, Teach First has found that nearly 80% of teachers believe their students to be less ready for the world of work than in previous years. Again, more disadvantaged students will be disproportionately impacted by that, with more than half of teachers saying that they feel the pandemic has impacted disadvantaged students’ perceptions of their potential careers.
Well informed and realistic careers decisions cannot be made if careers provision is socially patterned, as evidenced by the Social Market Foundation. Essentially, pupils from schools in affluent areas opt for university while those in less affluent areas take vocational options. That needs levelling up.
The Baker clause strengthened the legislative framework, stating that schools must allow colleges and training providers access to help pupils make informed choices. If careers provision is resourced to the tune of £2 per student—less than a cup of coffee—quality will be found wanting, as argued by Careers England. Ensuring that schools, teachers and employers feel supported to meet the needs of students will be vital for improving the quality of guidance given. With only 17% of year 13 telling the Sutton Trust that they have learned about careers opportunities in their local area, there is considerably more to do to connect businesses and schools.
Although the Careers and Enterprise Company has done some excellent work connecting schools and businesses in some areas, including schools in my own, only half of heads report that their schools are part of the CEC careers hub. That clearly needs to be scaled up. Since the abolition of Connexions in 2011, 2 million children and young people have not had access to independent careers professionals.
I would argue that we need massively to improve access to work experience, with only a third of pupils having completed work experience by the age of 18. A statutory duty, with resources to support a two-week placement, should be put in place. Where possible, we need to ensure that the work experience that a young person undertakes is relevant to their future ambitions. Beyond giving the important experience of the work environment, work experience should help those students better frame their future ambitions and make informed careers decisions.
That was brought home to me recently by a year 10 work experience student called Kevin, who chose to work in my constituency office because he felt it would be more interesting than the other opportunities on offer, but it was pretty clear that he wanted to be a firefighter. I have now put him in touch with our local fire service, and he used his experience to do a bit of research in my office when he was on placement there.
It is essential that any new Government strategy on careers advice focuses on work experience and ensures connections between schools, local authorities and local businesses. That will mean that pupils get more opportunities for their two-week work experience, which will help them make informed decisions. It will also help us, as legislators and politicians, to ensure we have a growing economy.
A new strategy must also deliver on one of the areas that we most need to change when it comes to careers guidance, which is apprenticeships. Although most students feel that they get plenty of guidance about university courses, only 10% feel the same way about apprenticeships. Too often, support for students considering apprenticeships or vocational education is much weaker than for those considering academic education. In some schools, every student creates a UCAS account by default, cementing the idea that higher education is the default option. We need to ensure that within careers advice apprenticeships and further education are put on the same footing as university education. We cannot continue with the disparity in information, advice and therefore access that we see all too often.
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an opportunity to link local economies, the labour market and businesses with apprenticeships if schools can organise that before people leave education? No one should be heading out of education not into the labour market, higher education or a traineeship. Does he see an opportunity to enact that via schools?
Mike Amesbury
I agree. In my constituency, Tata Chemicals Europe offers some brilliant apprenticeships, and at times it has really struggled to achieve the connection between the local school community and the apprenticeships on offer. I totally agree with that very good point.
As I have said previously, I was the first person in my family to go to university. I do not want a system that disadvantages students from working-class backgrounds and excludes higher education as a pathway if it is right for them. We must absolutely ensure that they are given the information and support they need to go to university and aspire to be the best they can be, but we should also ensure that people from all backgrounds make informed choices about the other brilliant opportunities on offer, such as apprenticeships, including those at levels 4 and 5, and those with a mixture of university and in-work training.
Students recognise that the situation with apprenticeships prevents them from properly considering them as an option. Some 31% think that having better information would have encouraged them, their friends and their classmates to choose an apprenticeship. It was also found that a number of people, including parents, reinforce the stigma associated with apprenticeships. We need to challenge parents and carers on that.
More funding and training for teachers is absolutely key if we are to reach parity of esteem between university and apprenticeship options. We must remove the idea that apprenticeships are not as valuable and almost second rate. To do that, we need a practical system to promote them. Having a central UCAS system means that universities can do active outreach around it. Teachers and other support staff, and generations of parents and carers, are also familiar with it. Students seeking apprenticeships deserve a system that is just as clear and effective and that is funded and supported.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the potential stigma about apprenticeships compared with university, but that is not a question of funding—it is a question of attitude. It is about changing the mindset, rather than resources. There are resources. There is careers advice. We have created 5 million apprenticeships since 2010. It is people’s attitudes that need to change.
Mike Amesbury
On the question of resourcing, if good quality, professional and impartial careers advice and guidance is not given in schools as part of education, then the stigma will remain, and there is an issue of resources there. The hon. Member is right to argue that it is not the only issue, but it is part of it.
UCAS currently advertises around 4,000 apprenticeships, and I think there are some 10,000 on the Government’s system. That is a tiny proportion of what is available. The Social Market Foundation’s recent research advocated for UCAS to be expanded to list all apprenticeship opportunities, in order to combat a system of university by default for many schools. Will the Minister outline what the Government plan to do to improve the provision of apprenticeships information and advice in schools? What assessment have they made of the value of creating a clearer system for apprenticeships information and applications, similar to that for university applications?
Although the statutory framework for careers guidance has been strengthened and the promotion of Gatsby quality benchmarks is good, resources for schools, after being drastically cut, have not been scaled up again. We will all be aware of some good practice in our local schools. Helsby High School in my patch has just won the pledge award through Cheshire and Warrington local enterprise partnership for its careers programme, but there are far too many schools where the quality is seriously wanting. The careers provision landscape is fragmented and piecemeal, with the Careers and Enterprise Company and a National Careers Service largely targeted at adults, schools employing their own careers advisers, with some not employing any at all.
I conclude with my asks of the Minister. An independent, all-age careers guidance service should be established. Rather than fragmentation, we should bring things together, including Jobcentre Plus. Ofsted inspections should be strengthened around impartial careers provision. A two-week work experience programme should be a statutory requirement and UCAS should be required to promote level 4 apprenticeships.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
The push by both parties over many years to get children to university has been a huge step in the right direction for many people and for social mobility. Now, a record 37.9% of young people go to university, but I believe we need to focus more on the careers guidance young people are given, especially the 60% of them who will not go to university. I have been hosting students from my constituency all summer—indeed, I have one sitting behind me—and it has given me a real insight into how they are taught at school. Not a single one of my holiday students thinks there is credible path to a good career other than going to university. Clearly, then, although university is the right path for many, we are not focusing enough on the 60% who do not go to university. Because the university “brand” has become so established and embedded, careers advice has to start as early as primary school if it is to be effective and to change hearts and minds.
One of the best schemes developed under the Conservatives has been apprenticeships, which allow people to gain qualifications and training on the job and to equip themselves with the skills they need to succeed in jobs across all sectors. I am proud to say that in Southend West, we have 830 young people undertaking apprenticeships, and 290 started a new apprenticeship this academic year. I applaud the local businesses that support these schemes, and I am delighted that Southend airport is to welcome two brand-new apprenticeships in the coming weeks.
Now, however, there are brilliant degree apprenticeships, which enable people not only to gain a full undergraduate or masters degree, but to earn while they do it and of course have a job at the end of it. Degree apprenticeships take between three and six years to complete, depending on the course level, with people spending most of their time working. They might attend university for one or two days a week, or in short blocks of, say, a week at a time, but overall people spend about 20% of their time studying and 80% working.
People leave a completed degree apprenticeship with no debt, having gained huge transferable skills, and with a good job to walk straight into. It really is a win-win-win for our young people, but sadly they are not being directed toward degree apprenticeships. According to the Centre for Social Justice, only 41% of 11 to 16-year-olds said that a teacher had discussed apprenticeships with them, and just 21% of teachers were reported to advise high-performing students to take an apprenticeship rather than a university place. That is backed up clearly by my experience of touring schools and talking to students across my constituency. This needs to change.
Many jobs vital to our economy require skills in science, technology, engineering, manufacturing and maths —skills that could be taught better and more effectively through apprenticeships. I am sure the Minister agrees with me that careers advisers in schools must do better on encouraging pupils to consider apprenticeships, particularly degree apprenticeships.
For many years, the only option at 16 was A-levels. I am pleased that the Conservatives have been working hard to change that, and we have made excellent progress. The Education Committee is reviewing and working on a huge report on the subject. Another option now is T-levels, which provide an excellent way for students to gain a high-quality technical qualification with the same prestige as A-levels. Sadly though, hardly any young people know about T-levels—none of my work experience students had even heard of them. That is simply not good enough. I am sure the Government want to improve the situation. Careers advisers in schools must ensure that students understand the full gamut of opportunities available to them, and that they abide by the Baker clause in the Technical and Further Education Act 2017, which requires schools to discuss technical education options with pupils.
Our children deserve the best-quality education, which must include the best-quality advice to achieve their dreams. Southend West is blessed with many high-tech industries that already, as I always tell the Chancellor, contribute more than £3 billion to the UK economy each year. Our children must be given the right careers advice to enable them to achieve their potential, whatever form that takes.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to her place. Until last week, she was my Whip, so there may be a degree of Stockholm syndrome in my coming here to support her today. Even if she was not the Minister, however, I would be keen to take part in this important debate, because change has been afoot in our economy over the last 10 to 15 years. When I was at school, I was not asked, “the Army or the pit?”, but the choice was similarly limited. It is noticeable that, even at my school, there was no mention of going into business. It was just not expected, which is pretty devastating, and may explain some of the issues in the economy.
There is now a bewildering array of opportunities for the transition from secondary education to the next stage of life. I have never been more optimistic for the future of children and young people coming up through secondary education. There is a wealth of opportunity that did not exist even five years ago.
Let us look at my constituency, which is made up of largely rural farming communities in Norfolk. In the last few weeks, I visited a rocket company that specialises in testing satellites in microgravity conditions. Fischer Farms is building the world’s—or certainly Europe’s—largest vertical farm, which is wholly reliant on robotics and artificial intelligence. Some 17 GW of offshore renewable wind will be located in the southern North sea between now and 2030, a large chunk of which will come to shore in Norfolk, with all the attendant jobs and careers. There is not just one film studio; a second, and arguably a third, is being proposed. They are all exciting new opportunities.
I have not even mentioned the research going on in Norwich at the John Innes Centre, which employs 250 scientists at the cutting edge of gene editing, gene therapy and biosciences. There is also specialist engineering at Lotus in Hethersett. I could go on—and that is before we get anywhere near Cambridge, which is a huge hotbed of exciting developments.
School leavers have the world at their feet, but because that is so exciting, because there are so many opportunities, and because it is so different and new, it is daunting, and there is a correspondingly enormous need for support. When I was starting out, I had no idea what I wanted to do in life. If any young person is unfortunate enough to be listening to this debate, I reassure them that that is absolutely normal. In fact, the number of people who know clearly what they want to do in life is vanishingly small. Finding out is a process. As we develop through our experiences, our aspirations and ambitions develop as well.
The Government are right to have moved away from Labour’s 1999 target of funnelling 50% of all school leavers into tertiary education—into universities. In my experience, that was damaging, because many people were shoehorned into an educational environment that simply did not suit their academic inclinations or the line of career development that they would later take. At the same time, there was a proliferation of unsuitable courses, as academic institutions tried to maximise their fees. It is not surprising that 6% of all those funnelled into tertiary education ended up dropping out in the first year, which was a huge loss of their time, energy and money.
A very large chunk—not a majority, I am pleased to say, but up to a third—of graduates did not get the benefit of their tertiary education within the next three, five or even 10 years. Fully a third of them were not in graduate employment five to 10 years after their graduation. That illustrates a philosophical difference between the approach of Labour and that of the Conservative party. Labour’s go-to approach is one of social engineering via targets, whereas we in the Conservatives want to give people choices. We want to open up the world, and we trust people to make up their mind. We see that this very week in the Conservative party leadership election. The Labour party talks about diversity—they want targets—but they are led by a middle-aged white male. I have nothing against them, but look at the Conservative party—the most diverse group of people. I think we are about to have the third female Conservative Prime Minister, and if we do not, we are highly likely to have our first ethnic minority Prime Minister. Is that not wonderful? And it is achieved not through targets, not through telling people, but by providing choice, opportunity and personal responsibility.
Mike Amesbury
Also in the Conservative leadership contest, there have been promises of tax cuts totalling over £300 billion so far. Those cuts would have consequences for public services providing the advice and guidance that schools and pupils need in communities up and down the country. Some of those promises are folly, to be frank.
Jerome Mayhew
I believe that the figure of £300 billion could come about if we had eight Prime Ministers all at once, rather than one at a time. If we take them sequentially, the offers range between £13 billion in tax cuts over the course of the Parliament, and £39 billion in tax cuts if my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) is elected.
I have talked about the opportunities in my constituency, but I also welcome the growth of apprenticeships as a viable alternative to tertiary education. It has already been mentioned in the debate, but it is worth mentioning again, that under Conservative-led Governments since 2010, more than 5 million apprenticeships have been undertaken—and the number is growing. Last year, there was an 8.1% growth in the adoption of apprenticeships, and that is an accelerating trend.
Earlier, someone mentioned—I cannot remember who—the problems with attitudes. It is parental attitudes primarily, not those of children, that need to be addressed. However, the data appears to suggest that that barrier is beginning to be broken down, which I heartily welcome. I also heartily welcome the universal technical colleges that have sprung up as a result of our innovative education programme, and the success through diversity in our educational provision. We have a UTC in Norwich; I am sorry to say that it is just outside my constituency, but we provide students to it. I visited it about six months ago and I was amazed by the links, and the dissolution of the barrier, between formal education and employment. Technical courses, on which there is a lot of work experience, are leading directly to employment.
Students are achieving T-levels, which are an excellent qualification that we need to build on. In some cases, the courses lead on to very well paid tertiary apprenticeships; but—there is quite a big “but” with universal technical colleges—pupils are drawn into the educational framework at the age of 14. I welcome the Government’s proposal to increase the age range during which careers advice is supplied, because some decisions have to be taken remarkably early. That applies particularly to those who are more capable of following the UTC route than other routes. We should think about that and build on it.
There are huge opportunities right now for people as they leave secondary education. Unemployment is at record lows—there is effectively full employment. In my constituency, the last time I checked, the unemployment rate was at just 2.1%; that is full functional employment. In fact, we have a need for more people. That creates opportunities.
Technical training through the UTCs and elsewhere is leading to the new industries that I have talked about. There is an increase in apprenticeships, whether they are tertiary apprenticeships or more technical ones. These are great; they are real opportunities. They are more diverse and complex, but I am really glad that the Government are getting behind them through careers advice.
Education does not stop when we leave school, and it does not stop at an apprenticeship. I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to lifelong learning through the lifelong loan scheme and the lifelong learning entitlement. The modern economy requires that we develop and change our careers. I am on my third significant career, which may be one career too many for those on the Opposition Benches, but it is the modern way. It is exciting and a bit more nerve-wracking. We need to reskill, re-energise and go for additional careers. I am on the side of working people throughout their varied careers, and I am very pleased to be part of a party that supports that.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on opening the debate, and on a very well reasoned and well argued speech, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to her place. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), I am excited about the opportunities for young people in my constituency, and I want to make sure that careers advice in our schools engages with the breadth and richness of the opportunities.
As the hon. Member for Weaver Vale said in his opening remarks, we all have to accept that there was never really a golden age for careers advice. He gave a good example of bad careers advice and limited options being presented. During my time at the Department for Education, I was pleased to contribute to a White Paper that took forward the argument for having careers advice in all our schools, but particularly in primary schools, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) mentioned. It is very important to set those aspirations and open up opportunities for people earlier.
The hon. Member for Weaver Vale directly addressed the challenge of people being presented with too limited opportunities. Something that I have seen done really well in some schools, but that could be done in many more of them, is opening up to young children a range of opportunities and different places where they could work, and I want to talk about a few of those opportunities in my constituency. There is a wonderful school in one of the most deprived areas of my constituency of Worcester called Cranham Primary, where the excellent headteacher Mr Cale—I think he was the deputy head when I used to go in and support him in his careers lessons—holds a “careers with Cale” session. He gets different people in, such as policemen, postmen or the local MP—most famously, he held one session just before Christmas with Father Christmas, which is an unusual career to get people to aspire to—to talk about what they do, and to raise aspirations by discussing the range of activities that people can do.
Perry Wood Primary School in my constituency also holds primary careers fairs, and gets a whole range of people—from engineers to police officers and farmers—to talk about the span of opportunities. We should support that. The schools White Paper says:
“We want all children to be inspired by the options available to them when they leave school or college. We will launch a new careers programme for primary schools in areas of disadvantage and are extending the legal requirement to provide independent careers guidance to all secondary school children, as well as increasing the opportunities for them to meet providers of apprenticeships and technical education.”
My hon. Friends the Members for Southend West, and for Broadland, pressed that point hard, and it is essential that we deliver on that. I hope that we can ensure that the programme supporting primary schools in areas of deprivation is backed not just in education investment areas, and areas in which we are setting out additional policy initiatives, but in pockets of deprivation in every constituency in the country, because we all have schools in areas where there are greater challenges, and where career aspirations are perhaps more limited.
Ahead of the debate—this is one reason why I was keen to speak in it—I was fortunate to talk to the organisation Primary Futures, which is engaging with schools up and down the country. I heard about the work it has done at Hollymount School in my constituency. I happen to be very familiar with the school, because before I became an MP, when I was a parliamentary candidate, I used to volunteer to read with the children. Primary Futures describes the school as “a non-selective state primary school serving an area of severe social deprivation in the Tolladine area of Worcester”. It has been doing some research with the University of Warwick, talking to the children about their aspirations, and there are some welcome findings. The vast majority of pupils surveyed—37 out of 44—believed that:
“English, Maths and Science can help me when I grow up”.
A similar number believed that:
“Learning at school is important for my future job”,
and a significant majority—nearly 30 out of the 44— agreed with the proposition that:
“There are lots of different jobs for me to do when I grow up”.
So far, so good.
Particularly pleasing is that, on the question whether
“Girls and boys can do the same job”,
more than 90% said yes, and not a single pupil said no. I was pleased because one of the last things I did as Minister for School Standards was give evidence to the Science and Technology Committee about girls in STEM. It is clear that there are no barriers to girls succeeding in STEM—succeeding in maths or physics—barring those that are artificially placed in front of them. We must keep on challenging those artificial barriers and encouraging people to pursue those careers.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale made many very good points. I absolutely agree with him about encouraging more employers to provide work experience placements. Where I perhaps disagree with him, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland, is on the need for centralisation in this space. I think that the Careers and Enterprise Company has done some very good work; it has encouraged businesses from across the private sector to engage with schools in a way that they perhaps were not doing a few years ago. Organisations such as Primary Futures also do great work.
I happen to know—from my own patch but also from speaking to people in the Department for Education about it—that we have a fantastically well-functioning careers hub in Worcestershire, which is successfully getting that connectivity between schools and the private sector. It is bringing businesses in to talk to primary and secondary schools. If we can do it in Worcestershire, I am pretty sure that it can be done in other areas of the country, with the right support from organisations such as local enterprise partnerships, chambers of commerce, businesses and councils. I would like to see that happening much more widely.
Mr Perkins
I, too, have seen some excellent provision through careers hubs, but the hon. Member is right that it is inconsistent. Does he know whether those hubs are actually leading to different work experiences for young people? Far too often, I see a form sent home with the child: “Find your own work experience and write the name here. We’ll make sure that you’re not going to die while you’re there.” That is basically all that schools want to know. What we really need to see is not the milkman’s son going to work with his dad, and the politician’s son going with his, but people getting experiences that are different from what they are already used to. Is he aware of those kinds of experiences in his hub?
Mr Walker
I do not disagree at all with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Absolutely, we want to give people those experiences. I talk to a lot of my engineering companies in Worcester, and one of their frustrations is that they feel that the image that people have of engineering is of where it was 30 or 40 years ago, with the traditional, metal-bashing image. What they are doing now is much more exciting, and much more engaging for young people visiting from schools. The working environment is also much better than it was.
Absolutely, getting people into a workplace that they might not necessarily know about must be part of this. That is something that our careers hub in Worcestershire does very well, and we have seen that, in particular, in the cyber-security sector. Nobody learns that at school, but they can learn the maths, computing and skills that can take them in that direction. Those companies are getting into schools to run code clubs, and they are getting children from the schools to come and do work experience. They tend to be the small businesses that, traditionally, careers advice did not look at.
I absolutely recognise that the box-ticking approach that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) described was sometimes a problem in the past, but I think it is actually more likely to be a problem in a centralised system than in one that encourages direct engagement between schools and employers.
I very much welcome this debate and am grateful for the chance to contribute to it. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take forward the opportunity for work in the White Paper, to continue to engage with apprenticeships and employers, and to ensure that we also take the opportunity to raise aspirations in primary schools.
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Rees, for calling me to speak in this really interesting debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) for approaching it in exactly the right way.
My earlier intervention, about tracking where our young people go next after leaving school, still stands, and it is a point that I am pleased to be able to expand on. We know when people are not going to achieve their desired outcomes or pass their exams: when they go AWOL and fall off the radar. I know from my previous role as employment Minister that the next time we pick them up, in a jobcentre and on to the next stage in their careers, is quite often after they have had a stay at the Ministry of Justice, or developed health conditions, addictions or other challenges that need to be unpicked. I strongly believe that, with the right interventions in the mid-teenage years, we can ensure that everybody can go into a fulfilling career. If exams and university are not the route, that really matters—as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), that applies to 60% of our young people.
I would like us to talk, in schools and more broadly, about the reality of a life of jobs. Unless people are very lucky, they do not go into a career or get a job for life—career-wise, we all live in insecure times in this place. We need to speak about jobs, roles and sectors, and about things changing, to inspire and enable our kids to take the opportunity of education into the world of work and not feel that education and learning happens only in schools, colleges or universities, or that it always has a label, like T-levels or indeed A-levels. Rather, it is absolutely part of working life. Some of us might have been in a very different job five years ago, and we might not even know about the job that we could have in five years’ time.
We need to empower our young people not to think that studying happens purely at school, college or university, but to understand that it is never over and that what they get from a good education—learning and having the confidence to take on new skills and abilities—is what they need to take them into a long-term career. We need to build an agile mindset into our young people. We need to help people to be ready to join the labour market at any age or any stage.
I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to the Front Bench—it is good to see her there. With my former employment Minister hat on, let me say that we should also absolutely tackle job snobbery. There is no such thing as good or bad work. We have all done jobs that we did not generally enjoy quite so much—they are less lucrative and “valuable” in people’s minds. But let us be honest that during the pandemic we started to understand who and what really meant everything to our lives. Many of those people were performing roles that, coming into the pandemic, we simply did not understand or fully appreciate. The mantra should be ABC—any job, better job, career—because guess what: people are never more attractive than when they are in a job. That is wrong, but it is a fact, because those soft skills and that confidence—I wish I had a penny for every time I heard the word “confidence” when it comes to changing or transitioning roles because of the pandemic—are absolutely key.
We need to instil that confidence through good careers advice in our schools and allow them to open up and spend time with their local economies. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) about that. People could live right next to the Cadbury factory or the theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon, but have never been inside. People can feel very locked out, even in their own communities. Schools should not just be unlocking careers or education, but should be unlocking opportunity that is right on the doorstep. No one should need to move to find opportunity.
Anna Firth
I totally agree with my hon. Friend that schools should be the ones to give this advice. I raised the issue this morning with the headmaster of Westcliff High School for Boys, which is in my patch, and he said that one size does not fit all. The funding for careers advice must go to schools, because they know their local area and the different opportunities that are available. Does my hon. Friend agree that we absolutely must put schools in charge of this funding and this advice?
Mims Davies
Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, but I am conscious of the need not to overburden schools. Let us find the bridge here—the career services and the links to the local labour market. There are good ways to assist schools with this work—Jobcentre Plus, LEPs, growth funds and Mayors—but schools also have to be absolutely determined to look at careers and long-term outcomes for young people and not solely at exam results. We have to make sure that we do not judge whether a school is good based solely on exam results; it is about where young people come from and where they get to—their progression—and some people’s progression is not simply about exam results.
That leads me to the work of the kickstart programme. Despite the pandemic, we got 163,000 young people under 25, who were those most at risk of long-term unemployment, into their first jobs. How did we do that? We got the employers into the jobcentres and we put people together. We threw out CVs, because no one has experience until they have experience—of course they do not, particularly in a pandemic. That work provided life-changing opportunities for young people, but above all it stopped people asking for the finished article. Who here has gone into a role—this role, any role—as the finished article? We have to help employers to stop looking for the finished article and to think about how they were mentored when they went into that sector. We should take them back to where they were before they came into their grand or great role.
Jerome Mayhew
Does my hon. Friend agree that the full functional employment we have now, with many companies facing a dearth of staff—I refer to my former entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that I was an employer and often struggled to find staff—will help to change employers’ attitudes, so that they work with what they have, bring people on and help to develop people’s careers in situ?
Mims Davies
I say to my hon. Friend that there is nothing wrong with being an employer. We need people to take those risks, opportunities and leadership roles, but they have to have the experience and the start-up to get there.
I genuinely think we are seeing a sea change with careers and employers, and that lets me explain a little more about the kickstart roles that were created. We have heard anecdotally that around seven in 10 people have stayed with their existing employer, but we also found that many other people had undiagnosed health conditions, challenges at home or other issues that meant going into the wider labour market was simply never going to happen for them, and that was exacerbated by the pandemic.
When I was at the Department for Work and Pensions, we therefore opened over 150 youth hubs. Those were locally led, and included the careers service, local authorities, jobcentres and employers. People could go into a safer, more relaxed and more comfortable space to have a one-to-one conversation along the lines of, “What can you do, and what are you interested in?” If employers can spark that interest in our young people, or in anybody at any age or any career stage, rather than talking about what people cannot do, they can take a chance on people. With near full employment—employment is at almost 80% in some parts of the country—employers are having to do that. They are throwing out the usual way of doing things and putting time and training into people, and I do not think anybody really regrets that, do they?
On universities—my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) and others put this brilliantly—we really have to help those who perhaps feel that there is a stigma about not going to university. We are sending people to university who are potentially wasting their time there and who could be doing something much more productive and beneficial in the local labour market. However, that can be done only based on really strong, good reading skills and digital skills, and while many young people and many of us generally can hide behind our mobile phones and feel that we have digital skills, we simply do not.
We need to tackle the STEM challenge strongly, talking about the skills needed for different sectors and jobs and what is transferable, but we cannot do that without face-to-face support. We know that works in jobcentres and with training. Online courses do not equip people with enough to get into those sectors and areas, so they can do some of that training, but they also need practical, individual human support. It is vital that we give them that and tackle the STEM issue as a result.
In Mid Sussex, we recently had a STEM event, chaired by Phil Todd and linked to the Burgess Hill Business Park Association, where schools came to spend a wonderful day building bridges, weighing things, creating things, working on projects and working with local businesses that they simply would not have known were there. In fact, 70% of jobs in Mid Sussex are not on the high street; they are in small industrial areas, back bedrooms, villages and areas that are not seen, and they are exporting globally. People do not need to work in a big building to have big opportunities; it is important that young people see that.
On good careers advice, the main thing is to give people confidence that it is not about where they start but where they end up. I have enjoyed yoghurt making, selling kitchens, working in Little Chef and selling mobile phones and pagers—remember them? I want to return to the issue of job snobbery, because pubs, restaurants and hospitality are places that we love, and we miss them when they are not open and cannot serve us. When we go on holiday and go abroad, we see how those places are revered. People can progress quickly in that sector. So let us talk about careers as a whole. I will conclude, Ms Rees, as I am sure that time is against us.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on securing this crucial debate and on the way in which he presented it, bringing his considerable experience to benefit the House. The debate is particularly timely, given that pupils across the country will be undertaking exams and turning their attention to their future careers. Indeed, many year 10 students are doing work experience as we speak.
I welcome the Minister to her position and congratulate her on her appointment. The speed of change in the Government in recent weeks has been bewildering for us all and, if we have had trouble keeping up with who is in and who is out, imagine what it has been like for the poor civil servants. It is fair to say that while it can sometimes be hard to be seen in a crowded field, her appointment and the very particular charm offensive with which she attempted to win over hearts and minds has certainly not gone unnoticed.
The debate is vital. The Labour party has long been of the view that the Government’s lack of commitment to work experience and careers guidance has been a damaging failure. In recent months, the Government have been at pains to prove that their attitude to work experience and careers guidance has changed. It could be coming true—who knows? Proving that their words can match their deeds, under the Prime Minister we now have Ministers themselves trying out work experience. The right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) got to try out being Secretary of State for a day—Labour prefers two weeks, but at least a day was better than nothing—and the Minister is on an extended two-month work trial that she hopes will go from temp to perm. Of course, unlike the traineeships that the Government are so keen to trumpet, that work experience is very much not unpaid, with the right hon. Member for Chippenham racking up generous severance pay for her 24 hours of labour. [Interruption.] Indeed.
On a more serious note, I would like to reflect on some of the valuable contributions made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale brought tremendous experience to bear, focused particularly on the funding and the inconsistency of service across the country. The points he made were knowledgeable and very much matched the experience that I had. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) said that we need to change attitudes to apprenticeships and trumpet their success. He is absolutely right: I want every school to declare not only the numbers of students going to university but how many attained apprenticeships. If we were trumpeting and saluting students who got apprenticeships alongside those who went into universities, maybe parents would get the message that apprenticeships are a positive step for young people.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) reflected on something that I have heard so many times: every one of the students who she had through her office had only been introduced to the idea of going to university. That is something that we hear so much. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) reflected that, in his area, opportunities were so plentiful that support is needed because the array of careers is so daunting. I have to say that does not reflect the message I hear from many students; the message they get at school is to first go into sixth form and then to university. The sense of an array of options is far too often missing.
I particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) who said, very accurately, something we all recognise: we have all had jobs that we do not enjoy much—whether she was referring to being a Conservative Member of Parliament in recent weeks or to her previous employment, she did not say. The hon. Member also said that new starters will not be the finished article. That is an important point for any Conservative Members going to hustings in future weeks to reflect on.
At the heart of the debate is the aim of equipping young people with the right tools to ensure they are ready for work and life. In 2010, the coalition Government axed Connexions, which led to the demise of universal provision for careers guidance. The reality is that we had five years where the provision was absolutely pitiful. There have been improvements since then; it is only fair to reflect that. However, whatever the faults of the Connexions service, it was a colossal failure to leave young people and adults, particularly from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, without the access to advice and support that children with wealthier and better connected parents are able to take for granted.
On work experience, like the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) I have witnessed some excellent provision. I visited a really good careers hub in the Black Country in recent months. However, even The Careers and Enterprise company itself would concede that the quality of those hubs and the shared best practice are inconsistent across different areas. The hon. Gentleman said that good practice needs to be much more widely available, and I certainly agree with that. I still think it is highly questionable whether leaving schools in charge of their pupils’ careers guidance will ever work. It is the Opposition’s view that careers guidance is a profession; it is not an add-on to a deputy headteacher’s job.
The awful legacy of the lack of careers guidance has been far too many young people leaving school without adequate careers advice. It has been a shameful failure of education and skills policy that will have left a lasting legacy on some of those affected—now in adulthood, without having had access to that advice. It is worth reminding ourselves that, even pre-pandemic, almost 800,000 young people were not in education, employment or training. That illustrates why it is essential that school leavers exit full-time education fully aware of the local labour market and the opportunities on offer.
That is why, during the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, Labour backed the Baker clause, which proposed that schools must allow colleges and training providers to access every student in years 8 to 13 to discuss non-academic routes available to them, and that each student should have three meaningful interactions with different providers at each stage of their educational journey. It is hugely regrettable that the Government did not adopt that recommendation in full, as their lordships had supported. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister, if she remains in post, whether the Government would be minded to allow the full Baker clause to be adopted. In my experience, schools will often have a primary focus on ensuring that the majority of their year 11 students are pushed toward the school’s own sixth form. If there is a financial need to ensure that there are x number of students at a sixth form, it is hard to see how schools will be genuinely independent in the message they are passing on to young people, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex reflected on earlier.
Parents naturally want to see their children succeed with high attainment in subject-based learning. However, many are increasingly concerned that their children should leave school as well-rounded individuals too, with the skills to succeed in the wider world. Currently, the availability and quality of careers advice remains patchy. The Government must move further and faster to equip children with the skills they require and ensure that there is a greater consistency across all areas.
The hon. Member for Worcester said that the service does not necessarily need to be the same in all areas, but what we do need is a minimum standard that is not only legislated for—we have legislation—but monitored and assessed against, whether that be through provision that the schools have to book or through an independent service. The sentiment that the availability and quality of careers advice is patchy and needs to improve is echoed by teachers, parents, children, employers and, indeed, by many of the contributions we have heard today.
According to Parentkind’s 2021 “Parent Voice” report, just half of parents said that their child’s school offered good careers advice. The Centre for Education and Youth’s “Enriching Education Recovery” report makes clear that the vast majority of teachers, parents and children agree that there should be improved access. This is echoed by the business community. In 2019, a Confederation of British Industry survey said that 44% of employers felt that young people leaving education were not work-ready. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex reflected similar sentiments about ensuring that being well-educated in school subjects also reflected the work-readiness of young people leaving our statutory education system. The CBI survey also highlighted the geographic variation in engagement with employers and educational settings. As the hon. Member for Broadland said, it is so important that local economies are reflected in terms of the experiences that young people have.
Students in rural and coastal areas often face a postcode lottery on access to joined-up support. The Sutton Trust has concluded that all pupils should receive a guaranteed level of careers advice. A recent Careers England survey revealed that three quarters of schools have insufficient, limited or no funding with which to deliver what is needed. About a third of secondary schools say that they receive the equivalent of £5 per student, with 5% receiving as little as £2 per student, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale reflected earlier.
The inclusion of the Gatsby benchmarks as part of the Department for Education’s statutory guidance on careers education represents welcome, though modest, progress. There has been a long history of Government statute failing to be implemented on the ground. Labour is backing pupils, parents, business and educators with its pledge to give every child access to quality face-to-face careers advice in their schools. Our proposal, set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) at last year’s Labour party conference, would provide face-to-face, professional and independent careers advice for every school pupil.
It is also vital that young people have a thorough knowledge and understanding of their local labour market. That is why the next Labour Government will reintroduce two weeks of compulsory work experience for every child. As I said to the hon. Member for Worcester, it is important that that reflects the breadth of opportunities and is not narrowed down to a self-selected form sent home with children.
We will reverse that removal from the curriculum by the coalition Government to equip young people with the skills that they need, so that there is work experience in the school curriculum. In addition to support for schools, we will work with business communities to ensure that they offer the placements needed. Once again, Labour is committed to restoring a skills-led agenda for our children. It is crucial that that is addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.
In responding for the Government, will the Minister say whether they will allow every child to receive three independent options of careers at each stage of their school journey, as proposed by the Baker clause? If not, why does she consider that not the right direction to go in? Does she recognise the criticism that some schools are so determined to get all their top students into their own sixth forms that they deliberately reduce the number of alternative options presented to children? If she does, what does she propose to do about it? Does she believe that a school with substandard careers guidance should still be able to be ranked as outstanding? Does she agree with Labour’s plan—as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex sensibly does—to ensure that every child receives at least one face-to-face careers guidance appointment? If not, what does the Minister think is an appropriate standard?
This is a crucial debate on a subject that has the potential to be life-changing for young learners. It is an area for which Labour, under my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, has already made concrete proposals, and one that the Government must begin to take more seriously for the sake of the next generation of workers and for our nation’s economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on securing this important debate. It is wonderful to have the opportunity to talk about the importance of careers guidance. Like the hon. Member, I was the first in my family to go to university, as a mature student. I agree with him that all schoolchildren should be made aware of the vast array of options available to them, including FE, HE, apprenticeships, the new T-levels and the work environment. I hope he feels that, as I delve deeper into my speech, I answer some of the questions and respond to some of the points made.
Careers guidance in schools is a fascinating part of my new brief at the Department for Education, and it has never been more significant. High-quality careers guidance is an essential underpinning of the Government’s schools, skills and levelling-up reforms. I may not agree with the hon. Member for Weaver Vale on everything, but today’s debate underlines the shared commitment to ensuring that all young people get the advice and help they need to pursue their chosen path in life. I pay tribute to his excellent work during his many years in the careers service. We are fortunate to have the benefit of his experience and knowledge of this most important issue.
I will talk about our vision for careers guidance in schools and set out three key ways in which we are realising that vision: first, a world-class careers framework for schools; secondly, our significant investment in support to help schools and colleges to improve their careers offer; and thirdly, our innovative plans to improve the quality of information and data that will help young people to navigate their career choices. In our vision, careers guidance will connect our young people to opportunity and will equip them with the support that they need to succeed. That is a critical point for unlocking individual potential and for boosting the long-term economic prosperity of our great country.
Our skills reforms are transforming opportunities for young people. High-quality careers guidance is crucial if we are to capitalise on the skills revolution. It is important not only that we seek to provide better choices, but that we give clarity to young people and their parents about what those choices might offer. A few people in the Chamber touched on that point today. Our mission is to drive the quality of careers guidance in schools. That begins with a framework to guarantee access to independent careers guidance for every pupil. It offers a clear sense of what good looks like, and it will hold schools accountable for progress.
This September, new legislation to extend the legal entitlement to independent careers guidance to all secondary school-aged pupils in all types of schools will be implemented. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson)—who is not present, I am afraid—for sponsoring that legislation. The implementation of that careers guidance Act will be followed swiftly, in January, by a significant strengthening of provider access legislation: the duty on schools to invite the providers of technical education or apprenticeships to talk to pupils. Again, we have touched on that today.
Jack Lopresti
May I congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment, and say how thrilled and proud I am? Does she agree that apprenticeships are a fantastic way not only to enhance social mobility, but to increase the skills level in order to maintain our sovereign defence manufacturing capability? That will not only enable us to defend our country better in the decades to come, but create lots of jobs.
Andrea Jenkyns
I thank my honourable husband, or should I say my hon. Friend? I obviously agree with him—although I don’t usually—that we are not only defending our country and the people of Ukraine, but benefiting from that capability.
In January, there was a significant strengthening of provider access legislation, with the duty on schools to invite providers of technical education or apprenticeships to talk to pupils. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, there will be at least six opportunities for pupils to have high-quality encounters with different providers throughout school years 8 to 13, so that they can understand and explore technical choices before making vital decisions about their next steps.
Our adoption of the Gatsby benchmarks as a career framework has been a great success. From a standing start in 2018, more than 4,200 secondary schools and colleges are using them to develop and improve their careers programmes. The benchmarks are based on international best practice and describe all the crucial components of a world-class careers programme for young people. Since the launch of the Government’s careers strategy in 2017, we have seen improvements across every dimension of careers guidance, with a particularly strong performance by schools in disadvantaged areas. There was a question about the strategy, which I will touch on later.
It is incredibly valuable to be able to measure the inputs of schools into careers guidance and to see that outcomes are improving. Early analysis shows a positive link between careers education, as assessed by the Gatsby benchmarks, and young people going into sustained education, employment and training after leaving school. A recent study based on data from nearly 2,400 schools shows that when Gatsby benchmarks are achieved by a school, that increases the likelihood of a student being in education, employment or training after year 11. It amounts to a 10% reduction in the proportion of students who are not in education, employment or training post-16 if schools meet all eight benchmarks, compared to schools that achieve none. Importantly, the reduction is twice as great, at 20%, in schools with the most disadvantaged students. We know what is working well and we know where schools are finding it difficult to implement the benchmarks, and that allows us to target our support more effectively.
To realise the maximum value from our investment in careers guidance, we are strengthening the accountability framework for secondary schools. On all graded inspections, Ofsted inspectors assess the quality of careers education, information, advice and guidance on how much it benefits pupils in deciding on their next steps. It is important that pupils feel they are at the centre of that journey. If a school is not meeting the requirements of the provider access legislation, inspectors will state it in the published inspection report and consider what impact it has on the quality of careers provision, and the subsequent judgment for personal development.
We have developed a model to support schools in improving their careers offer.
Mr Perkins
The Minister spoke about the importance of the Gatsby benchmarks and the evidence that they improve outcomes, and said that careers guidance will now be checked by Ofsted. Does she think it should be possible for a school that does not meet the benchmarks to be assessed as outstanding, despite having inadequate careers guidance?
Andrea Jenkyns
The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point. It is important not only to give support to the schools in question but to note that in the Ofsted inspection report.
On support for schools to improve their careers offer, we have developed a model that is proven to accelerate improvements in careers guidance. Schools do better if they are part of networks of regional careers hubs—as we see in our local areas—and enterprise advisers. Careers hubs are local partnerships among schools, colleges, businesses, providers and the voluntary sector that enable the sharing of best practice to enhance careers provision. Enterprise advisers are business professionals who work with schools and colleges to strengthen careers strategies and employment engagement plans.
By linking such networks, schools work much more closely with employers and the local enterprise partnerships. This model is crucial to drive the quality of careers provision locally. It promotes the sharing of best practice and economic information and intelligence. Alongside that, we encourage every secondary school to have a trained careers leader, to make the most of the connections and co-ordinate and integrate the careers programme throughout the school, with the backing of their headteacher.
To underpin the delivery of this excellent model, we are investing £29 million this year in the Careers and Enterprise Company. With that funding, the CEC is supporting schools and colleges to implement the Gatsby benchmarks by extending the careers hubs, the enterprise adviser network, the careers leaders training and digital support. I am delighted that all secondary schools and colleges across Weaver Vale are now benefiting from that support; we intend to replicate that throughout the country.
Allow me to share some of the numbers behind our investment. More than 2,200 careers leaders have engaged in funded training since the scheme was launched in 2018. To touch on the question that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked, two thirds of schools and colleges in England were part of a careers hub by September 2021. As we work towards the full roll-out, that proportion will increase to approximately 90%, which will mean 4,500 schools and colleges will benefit from a careers hub by August next year. Around 3,750 business professionals work as enterprise advisers with schools and colleges to develop their careers strategies and employment engagement plans.
I am sure everybody here will agree that more important than the numbers is the impact of our investment on young people. The engagement of employers at scale is crucial to the improvements in careers guidance that we are seeing. Employers provide inspiration and insight to young people, deliver hands-on experience of the workplace, highlight pathways into work, and are increasingly helping to integrate careers learning into the curriculum.
Let me give a few examples. Thomas Dudley, a 100-year-old manufacturing company in the west midlands, has worked with local schools to develop mini challenges in history, business, design, English and maths that link those topics with jobs in the local economy. Pupils then visit the business and experience how the skills they have learned can translate into their future career.
Let me share a couple of examples of the excellent work in the area of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. Greenbank School has helped employers to be more confident in supporting people with autism. Supported by the CEC’s Cheshire and Warrington enterprise adviser network, the school adapted its autism training to better meet the needs of employers and give them an insight in the challenges that young people with autism face. The training was delivered to numerous local employers, including Bentley, Siemens and the NHS.
Sir John Deane’s College has secured prestigious degree apprenticeships for its pupils with major companies including Rolls-Royce, Deloitte and Unilever. The college has established an aspiring apprenticeships programme for year 13 students that includes CV workshops, mentoring, university visits, employer encounters and vacancy-search support.
All schools in the area of the hon. Member for Chesterfield have been part of the careers hub since the start of the academic year, and four out of the nine secondary schools have done careers leader training. That provision will be extended further. Local employers—including KPMG and Dalton HR Solutions—are providing senior business volunteers and enterprise admissions to his local schools.
On improving careers information, another important area of focus is to provide young people with clear and consistent information about the full range of careers options and relevant education and training courses. We established a National Careers Service a decade ago and continue to provide personalised careers information and advice to all aged 13 and over. We are improving the NCS digital offer to allow greater personalisation, but we want to go further. The levelling-up White Paper announced the unit for future skills, which will help to ensure that comprehensive and relevant labour market information and data related to occupations, skills and careers are made available to support effective careers guidance at a national and local level.
I have only a couple minutes left, so I will answer some questions. On improving information in schools about apprenticeships, we already deliver information and outreach work to schools on apprenticeships via the apprenticeship support and knowledge programme. My predecessor wrote to all pupils aged 11 to 13 to promote apprenticeship opportunities, and strengthened provider access legislation to ensure that all pupils have six encounters with different providers, as I said.
On the point about £2 of careers funding per pupil, we are routing investment through the NCS and the CEC so that we can target money where it is most needed to secure better value for money. More than £92 million has been invested in 2022-23.
On the careers strategy, we appointed Sir John Holman as a strategic adviser on careers information, advice and guidance. We will respond to his recommendations in due course, so watch this space.
I am running out of time so will finish by thanking everyone who has taken part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) spoke about T-levels and the importance of career guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) described the opportunity to set up your own business and discussed choice, opportunity and personal responsibility.
The former Department for Work and Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), is passionate about young people’s education. She touched on the important point of tackling job snobbery. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), the former Minister of State for Education, demonstrated his continued commitment to education by taking part in the debate. Some of his work includes the “Opportunity for all” White Paper, which includes a programme targeting primary schools in 55 education investment areas and adopts benchmarks for good careers guidance. I thank him for his great work on that.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for his commitment to apprenticeships, as a former co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield made some valid points about the importance of work experience. My own work experience during college—I am sure everybody has a couple of horror stories—was with an interior designer. The lady, who worked from home, got me ironing her husband’s underwear. I am sure work experience has improved drastically since then. I can reassure hon. Members that I have had 60 work experience students through my office since I was elected, so I am fully committed to it.
Finally, our mission is to level up opportunity and give every young person the chance to go as far as their talents take them. I am enormously grateful for the support that Members have given on this important issue. We have built the foundations for a career system based on employer engagement, dynamic career leaders and local collaboration, and we encourage the use of evidence for improvement. We will continue to target investment at the changes that make the most difference on the ground, so that every young person in this great country has the chance to reach their full potential.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the provision of careers guidance in schools.
Badger Culling
(1 year, 9 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
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I will call Tracey Crouch to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on badger culling.
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. After many years of debate in this place, colleagues will be well aware of my views on the badger cull. My primary motivation for speaking out against the cull was and always will be the tragic and indiscriminate killing of more than 150,000 badgers since the first two operational culling zones opened in 2014. My view is often reflected in national polling, which continues to show opposition among the general public to the cull—not least in the two e-petitions that have been attached to this debate, respectively signed by 106,000 and 35,000 people, including from my constituency of Chatham and Aylesford.
Since first becoming involved in this debate through the lens of wildlife protection, I have often heard with great sadness about the immense financial and emotional pain that bovine tuberculosis causes farmers up and down the country. The devastation for a farmer when a skin test comes back positive, virtually condemning their herd of cattle, is utterly heartbreaking. The fight has therefore become just as much about protecting badgers—an iconic species in the UK—as ensuring that farmers are supported by the Government in implementing the wide array of countermeasures to prevent TB that help to target transmission within species, which has been shown to lead to far higher prevalence of the disease than transmission from one species to another—in this case, badger to cattle.
I sincerely thank Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and their officials for the work they have done over the past few years to explore other ways to tackle this devastating disease. I welcomed the Government’s response to the Godfray review and the subsequent strategy, and I welcome the more humane approach against TB in targeting vaccination for both cattle and badgers, increased testing frequency and—most welcome—the gradual phasing-out of intensive badger culls.
To that end, I am pleased that no new intensive badger culling licences will be issued after this year, although I remain concerned that culling will remain an option and continue to be licensed by Natural England. As we have seen with the Government’s authorisation of emergency applications of neonicotinoid insecticides, despite their ban via EU retained law, it seems that the announced end is not always the actual end. I am sure the Minister will therefore understand the scepticism among those of us who want culling to cease.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The hon. Lady is a champion on this issue and I congratulate her on securing the debate. Does she agree that it is absolutely key that the Government fund both more cattle vaccination and a much larger programme of badger vaccination, to provide farmers with the evidence that badger vaccination can actually work at scale? That will give them the confidence to embrace it. Ministers have a real role to show leadership in getting farmers on board.
Tracey Crouch
I agree. I appreciate that it is very easy for us as Back Benchers, without the controls of the Treasury, to always call for extra funding, but I do think there is real merit in ensuring that we fund these things exceptionally well.
On vaccination specifically, in their response to the Godfray review the Government announced a move to vaccinate both cattle and badgers. With a large-scale badger vaccination trial currently taking place in East Sussex—the hon. Lady’s area, I believe—the Vaccinating East Sussex Badgers, or VESBA, project will vaccinate badgers across 250 sq km of east Sussex every year for four years, with an annual vaccination target of 675 badgers. Although East Sussex is in the edge area, the Cuckmere valley in the county has long been a TB hotspot; I understand that the first vaccination waves have primarily been focused there. I hope that such a Government-backed study can independently determine whether the vaccination of the wildlife reservoir will in turn reduce TB numbers in cattle. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated whether the Department has already seen evidence of movement in the early stages of the trial.
From an animal welfare perspective, I would much rather see badgers vaccinated than shot. However, the process of identifying badger setts, laying bait, setting traps and then vaccinating the badgers is an exercise that is not only costly and time-consuming but cannot effectively be expanded throughout the country. May I impress on the Minister that if we are going to vaccinate, let us vaccinate the cattle? By contrast to the wildlife, we know how many cows we have and where they are. Will the Minister update us on where we currently are regarding the research studies announced in response to the Godfray review of the candidate cattle vaccine and subsequent improved skin test, with the ambition of introduction within the next five years?
Back in 2019, I spoke in a similar debate in Westminster Hall on the badger cull. That was before more positive announcements from the Government that were welcomed by animal welfare organisations and charities alike. In that debate, I spoke about the success of the Gatcombe strategy used at a farm in south Devon, where the farmer Dick Sibley has worked with the animal welfare group the Save Me Trust to change a farm rife with TB into one with an official TB-free status in just three years. The core element of the strategy is based on identifying and cutting off the roots of infection in the herd through enhanced testing, which is much more sensitive than the notorious skin test. This allows the farm to identify the infected cow and remove it before the disease takes hold of the herd.
Such tests are, of course, more expensive for famers than a traditional skin test, which I believe costs around £5 a cow. Can we look at supporting farmers with the cost of administering the most reliable tests available? That makes much more economic and scientific sense in the long run and would help to identify the hidden reservoir in the English cattle herd. The improved testing techniques used by the farm both on cattle and on their immediate environment pointed to slurry in the farm harbouring harmful levels of TB and contributing to the cycle of transmission within the herd.
In response to these points about testing and improved husbandry in cattle in farms, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), told me that he had met Dick Sibley and that from 2015 the Department had had
“a biosecurity plan that included slurry management”.—[Official Report, 23 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 22WH.]
However, at that point the data was “mixed” in confirming the links between slurry and TB in cattle. My right hon. Friend confirmed that the Department was still in “dialogue with Dick Sibley” at Gatcombe Farm and the Department was “keen” to look at evidence that could show a link between slurry and cattle. Will the Minister confirm whether such work is still being carried out by the Department and whether guidelines for farms will be updated to try to minimise TB outbreaks through measures on farms?
As I have made clear, I welcome the move to gradually withdraw from culling, although I remain concerned that high-intensity culls will continue to be allowed in the already approved areas. I am encouraged by data in Wales, which has ended its badger cull and seen similar levels of TB reduction to cull areas in England.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and I offer my support for her work in this important area. She is speaking eloquently about this ongoing and serious problem that affects one of our largest land animals, a species that makes such an important contribution to biodiversity in the wider environment and is under enormous pressure. Her point about the culls, in particular, is very well made. I understand from former civil service colleagues who have worked at DEFRA—I was a civil servant myself, albeit not in that Department—that the debate around culling has been very contested for some time, that many scientists have had deep concerns about culling for a long time, and that it is seen as quite cruel to badgers.
Tracey Crouch
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. One of the sad things about the badger cull debate is that it has been quite divisive: two groups have been pitted against each other rather than working together. We have moved forward significantly since the start of the badger cull debate, with those who care passionately about wildlife respecting the challenges of bovine TB in herds and, equally, farmers being keen to move forward and not be seen as people who do not care about wildlife, which they do enormously.
We have come together much better and converged on a much more congenial atmosphere and conversation, but the badger cull still continues. The whole point of today’s debate, I hope, is to stress the importance of bringing the cull to an end and starting work on a whole variety of different measures. I know that the Minister will refer to the proverbial toolbox; it is clear that there is a whole host of ways of dealing with bovine TB. I am sure she will make those points in her speech.
The data from Wales is really encouraging. The devolved Government have announced a new approach and are targeting cattle as the victims and main transmission source of the disease. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the UK Government are in dialogue with the devolved Administration and whether they are monitoring data from that strategy to support the fight against TB in England.
The Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill is going through Parliament at the moment. I intervened on the Secretary of State on Second Reading and spoke about how gene editing may improve disease resistance in livestock. He said that there is already work going on to breed natural resistance and select, for instance, dairy cattle with a higher resistance to bovine TB. I hope the Bill will enable scientific advances to be made far faster so that cattle and farmers can be protected without harming our wildlife.
Despite the announcement in May 2021 of the phased end of culling, Natural England issued 11 new supplementary badger culling licences the following month, and announced seven new intensive cull areas in September. I am concerned that, despite DEFRA’s mantra, new areas will continue to be approved. Will the Minister outline how many new supplementary intensive culling areas have been approved this year?
Will the Minister assure me and the many other Members who care passionately about this issue that the Government are serious about phasing out the cull and are investing in a diverse armoury to tackle the disease, including accelerating work to develop an effective cattle vaccine, improving husbandry measures such as herd health plans, restricting cattle movements, and ultimately enabling financial incentives so that farmers can use improved and reliable testing to remove infected cows at source?
The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to participate in this important debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She is extremely well supported in her long-running campaigns on these issues by the Badger Trust and the Save Me Trust, which are the sources of much of the information she shared. I agree that we have moved forward. The tone of the debate has become far more measured, and indeed better for tackling the problem.
This is a very personal problem for me. My grandfather died from TB, and I gave up my Longhorn cattle 10 years ago because of the prevalence of TB up our valley. I was keeping cattle for pleasure rather than serious business purposes, and I really did not want to infect next door’s precious Jersey herd. For me, TB has very personal connotations, and I know well that it is a very dangerous disease in all species—human, bovine or badger.
Bovine TB definitely represents a threat to the cattle industry. Over the past 12 months, we have compulsorily slaughtered 26,000 cattle in England to control the disease. We all agree that badgers are implicated in the spread and persistence of bovine TB. We know, and we have seen the evidence in the Downs study—although not all agree—that the badger cull has led to a significant reduction in BTB in the areas in which it has been carried out. We also know that many people hate the idea of culling badgers, and of course nobody wants to see a protected species culled more than necessary.
As my hon. Friend said, there is no single answer to the problem of bovine TB. It is a very costly problem for the taxpayer: we spend about £100 million a year on testing, compensation and culling cattle. We are open-minded in DEFRA about how we should continue to tackle the problem, and of course we work closely with the devolved Administrations and scientists further afield to look at what solutions are available to us. It is important that we retain that open-minded view as we look to the new stages of this dreadful disease.
Matt Rodda
I am pleased to hear that the Minister and DEFRA are working with the Welsh Labour Government and that there can be a process of learning from how they have moved on from culling. I appreciate the economic pressures that farmers are under at this very difficult time. I hope there can be consensus so that we can move forward, and I am grateful to the Minister for working on that basis.
Victoria Prentis
It is important that we continue to work with our partners in the devolved Administrations wherever we can. There has been a certain amount of angst up the border between England and Wales as a result of the difference in policy—it is a very high-incidence neighbourhood—so it is very important that we work together wherever possible.
The tools available to us include culling where necessary—I have no doubt that it will be necessary during outbreaks; I make no secret of the fact that, where there is an outbreak, culling may be the only answer for both badgers and cattle—and vaccinating cattle, which for me is the goal. Many of us received the vaccination in school; it is not that different in humans. What we need to do is develop a test that does not give a false positive reading if a cow has received a vaccine. The test is currently being trialled and worked on. We started field trials in June last year and hope to have them completed this winter. The results are not yet published. We are still hopeful, though, and we are very much working towards 2025 as the date for having a real vaccine for cattle that can be rolled out widely. For me, that will be the game changer.
Vaccinating badgers is also a solution. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said that the Government need to put some welly into this, if I may put it like that. I say politely that the Animal and Plant Health Agency now has 28 full-time vaccinators working hard to vaccinate badgers in the vaccination window, although not all badgers need to be vaccinated. We need to be clever about this.
As hon. Members can imagine, vaccinating badgers is a very difficult process. Initially at least, it has to be done annually, to make sure that the vaccination is effective. If there has been a significant cull, the badgers that are left can be vaccinated in a targeted way. We vaccinated about 1,500 badgers last year and expect that figure to be higher this year. We have introduced a simplified licence to cut the administrative burden for those who wish to vaccinate badgers.
Vaccinating badgers is definitely one of the tools in the toolbox, but is not a simple thing to do, nor is it entirely great from an animal welfare perspective, because badgers need to be attracted, trapped, vaccinated and then released, and then trapped again, which is not without its difficulties.
Caroline Lucas
I appreciate the Minister’s points about vaccination. I appreciate that there are no silver bullets, but vaccination is probably a lot better than culling. Could she clarify one point? The Government have promised an end to badger culling post 2025 but reserved the right to cull beyond 2025 in certain epidemiologically important conditions. What are the criteria for those conditions? My concern is that that is a very big loophole and that, when there are Ministers in post who are perhaps less concerned than she is, it could be used to continue the cull in a rather more indiscriminate way than I think she intends.
Victoria Prentis
I do not think I am able or indeed qualified to give the hon. Lady the reassurance she seeks. If a cull were to be licensed, that would be done with the chief veterinary officer, who would be able to advise the Minister at all stages of that process. What I would say is that, certainly as I see it, we are currently experiencing a decline in bovine TB in high-incidence areas and we are pleased by the way the graph is going, although we are by no means happy with the situation. TB remains a real scourge for our cattle farmers, but things are going in the right direction.
If there is an outbreak, it seems right that the Minister, whoever that is, or the chief veterinary officer, depending on the circumstances, is able to take the decision to cull cattle, badgers or other species where necessary, as is the case with other prevalent and harmful diseases. I know from my family experience that TB is a peculiar illness that can manifest itself in different species, at different times, at different speeds and in different ways. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to set out what would cause angst to the chief veterinary officer at any one time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to husbandry, which is also important. We have worked on strengthening cattle testing and movement controls. We have worked to improve biosecurity on farms and when trading, as well as simply keeping badgers away from food and water troughs where we can. We have looked at different forms of double fencing, to ensure that there is not cross-holding contamination. The ibTB website enables farmers to look at the history of the cattle they are buying, and at the disease status of nearby farms.
We have all learned a great deal from the covid pandemic, probably not voluntarily. We have learned to use a range of measures to control disease. It is not all about washing our hands thoroughly and “hands, face, space”; it is about vaccines, lockdowns, antivirals and treatment methods. We need to retain our learning from the pandemic when considering the scourge of bovine TB. I am pleased with the reductions we have seen in high-risk areas, but this remains a difficult disease for the farming industry to cope with. I am determined that we continue to work on all fronts to come up with the right solutions.
Question put and agreed to.
Non-proliferation Treaty: 50th Anniversary Review
(1 year, 9 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
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 50th anniversary review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. In her absence, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing the debate. I am sorry that she is unwell and I hope that she feels better soon.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty had its 50th anniversary earlier this year and has long been regarded as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. The Government, such as they are, continue to argue that the best approach to multilateral disarmament is a step-by-step approach based on existing instruments—above all, the NPT. At the same time, however, they consistently refuse to provide specific numbers on the size of the UK’s current stockpile or the timetable for their reduction programme.
In the context of the appalling war in Ukraine, the UK has been added to a list of NATO nuclear weapon storage locations in Europe. Ministers have not come clean about that either and are refusing to confirm or deny whether a green light has been given to the ramping up of nuclear capacity at Lakenheath, for example. I believe that we should be told.
It is also worrying that the UK Government have not yet decided which Ministers will attend the 10th review conference to coincide with the 50th anniversary. Given that the UK has said that it
“looks forward to working with all states to strengthen”
the NPT at the upcoming review conference, I trust that the Foreign Secretary will be present to engage meaningfully in not just the NPT process but the wider process of eradicating all nuclear weapons from our planet.
The review conference is an opportunity to call on Russia and all nuclear weapon states to declare that they will not threaten to use or use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. We need to know that the UK will make that call and that the Secretary of State will be there in person to underscore the importance of that message. Our aim surely has to be to prevent nuclear war and the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, that is one of the most powerful reasons why many of us have campaigned for the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons.
A successful first meeting of the treaty states parties in Vienna adopted a strong declaration and action plan to make prohibition a reality. The UK needs to support that, as well as to engage constructively in making the NPT work better. That prohibition treaty is accepted by the UN as part of the wider non-proliferation and disarmament regime. I was in New York for the UN negotiations in 2017 and I saw the seriousness with which many states participated, but I also saw the UK’s empty seat and felt frankly ashamed that our Government had behaved so irresponsibly by boycotting the process.
If that prohibition treaty is now part of the multilateral regime alongside the NPT, it is an important UN process that the UK needs to participate in from now on, precisely to strengthen Britain’s defence and security. It has one clear goal: to stigmatise and prohibit nuclear weapons. Some 63 nations have ratified it, 66 have acceded and a further 23 have signed. Article 4 provides a process for nuclear weapon states to engage prior to disarmament through a legally binding time-bound plan for the verified and irreversible elimination of nuclear weapon programmes.
That is an important route for our Government to engage with the treaty and take the first steps towards signing and ratification. If the UK is genuine when it says that it is committed to multilateral disarmament, it is entirely inconsistent to do anything else, let alone to oppose the global prohibition treaty, as is its current position. Likewise, the refusal to commit to never using nuclear weapons first is inconsistent with showing leadership on nuclear disarmament and proliferation.
Some 50 years after the world agreed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear technology, and to achieve nuclear disarmament and a general and complete disarmament, too many countries are still pursuing aggressive models of national security that create conflict. Real human security is about using our resources and our diplomacy together to tackle and reverse those wider causes of insecurity, such as climate breakdown. It is about ensuring that everyone has enough food, water and shelter to meet the world’s needs and that people have peace and education. That is the kind of security that should be at the heart of national Governments’ decision making, not a stubborn ideological adherence to the nuclear doctrines of the past or to the myth of deterrence, and it also needs to be the basis for international agreement.
As the 10th review conference approaches, I call on Ministers to demonstrate real global leadership, real ambition and bold thinking. A nuclear-free world is possible if we are prepared to challenge and then shift moral, political and legal norms. That kind of security is not something that we can or should wait another 50 years to achieve.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on opening the debate. The review conference will bring together over 190 signatory states to discuss progress in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology since the last review conference in 2015 and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament.
The original treaty was negotiated by Labour’s Minister for Disarmament, the MP, later Lord, Fred Mulley, under Harold Wilson’s 1964 to 1970 Government, but it has been a formal commitment of all Governments—Labour and Conservative—since 1970. Nuclear disarmament is a priority of humanitarian politics, given the function of nuclear arms to wipe out mass civilian populations, as occurred tragically and appallingly in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with smaller weapons than those that exist today, and their use by all sides to assert foreign policy priorities throughout the cold war and since.
The text of the non-proliferation treaty sets out the aims of
“strengthening of trust between States in order to facilitate the cessation of the manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery pursuant to a Treaty on general and complete disarmament”.
A clear goal of the treaty is to end the existence of nuclear weapons in states that possess them, alongside preventing their further proliferation. Therefore, it is truly regrettable that both Labour and Conservative Governments have retained nuclear weapons and failed to progress to the complete disarmament of the UK’s nuclear weapons, which we have agreed to.
Over 60 years, the UK has replaced Polaris with Trident warheads and missiles, and replaced the Resolution-class submarines first with the Vanguard class and now with the Dreadnought class. Furthermore, the Government announced in 2021, in their integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, that alongside the new submarines the ceiling on the number of nuclear warheads held by the UK will increase by 40%, in a reversal of the downward trend seen in recent decades. The proposed changes in warhead numbers are a reversal of the UK statement by Baroness Anelay at the 2015 review conference and run counter to international momentum towards global nuclear abolition.
The repeated failure of the nuclear weapons powers to make progress on taking steps towards disarmament and to carry out disarmament at repeated NPT review conferences since the first one in 1975 has made it necessary for disarmament-committed states in the New Agenda Coalition to work with civil society to drive the process forward. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion referred to, that has resulted in the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, which 86 states have signed up to and 66 states have ratified, and which has now entered into force. That is the right step forward.
However, the UK remains outside that treaty, which is dominated by nations from the global south but, critically, also includes forward-thinking countries such as New Zealand and Ireland. It really is regrettable that the UK national report on the NPT, which was published in November 2021, says nothing about the UK’s planned increase in the warhead ceiling or about engagement with the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, and that its reference to the P5 process has no timetable for warhead reduction.
The war in Ukraine has resurrected ghosts of the cold war and brought home to all of us again the threat from nuclear weapons and nuclear accidents, at a time when both Russia and the USA have been modernising their weapons of mass destruction and the UK is also proposing to increase its nuclear arsenal, contrary to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
We need strong civil society movements in the UK and elsewhere to push the UK Government and others to join the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons, and I am proud of the leadership being given by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Wales, of which I am a member. This year marks 40 years since all the then county councils in Wales declared themselves to be nuclear-free zones, which meant that nuclear weapons could not be stationed in Wales. That landmark decision is being celebrated this summer with a travelling exhibition across Wales—including a visit to my constituency during the week of 8 August—that commemorates the horrific bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on 6 and 9 August 1945.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The hon. Lady is making some powerful points. I note her point about nuclear weapons not being stationed in Wales, and I want to put on record that I am very envious of that. I wish that they were not stationed in Scotland, where they are located a stone’s throw from our largest population centre—despite the opposition of most elected politicians in the Scottish Parliament and Scottish politicians here, and against the will of civil society.
Beth Winter
I agree, and I hope that one day we will have a nuclear-free United Kingdom and indeed a nuclear-free world. The horrific consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain in our memories. Let us not forget that it was women from south Wales who had the courage and vision to march to and surround the US cruise missile base at Greenham Common, and I am proud of the fact that I was there as a child with my family.
As part of the work around the touring exhibition, CND Cymru is urging support for the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. CND Cymru says that while nuclear weapons exist we all live under the threat of such weapons being used. It is vital that there is support for the global abolition of nuclear weapons and that the UK Government start to engage with the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and eventually become a signatory to it, so that the world can be free from all nuclear weapons. I am pleased to say that the Welsh Senedd—our Welsh Parliament—voted to back the treaty in March, calling on all states to ratify it. I also welcome the fact that a number of local authorities in Wales have signed resolutions to the same effect.
We need action now more than ever. The world continues to be an extremely dangerous place, and I am sure that everybody in this room shares my desire for a future for our children, grandchildren and beyond. Unless we have a nuclear-free world, that is unlikely to happen.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for what she said and for the work she has done over many years on peace and nuclear disarmament issues. We have been at many rallies, meetings and demonstrations together, and I am sure we shall be at many more in the future. I also absolutely endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) said.
This is an extremely important and timely debate, because it means that the Government have an opportunity, which they have not always had, to set out ahead of the non-proliferation treaty review conference their position and aims for the conference. I do not remember them ever doing that before, and I hope the Minister is able to help us with what the Government’s aims and plans will be.
I attended the last NPT review conference, which was held in New York in 2015, as a representative of peace organisations in Britain. It was, as such events always are, extremely interesting. A large number of peace organisations were present, as were Governments from around the world. In this country, our media protect us from the anger of many people around the world who see Britain and the other five declared nuclear weapons states as insular, uncommunicative and not very interested in discussing peace issues. Our media do not report that.
You do not have to spend long at an NPT review conference to understand that a large number of Governments around the world take non-proliferation extremely seriously and support all sections of the NPT. I have also attended a large number of non-proliferation treaty prep conferences, which take place every year, so I have seen the great efforts made to build alliances to improve things, and when people say, “Well, the NPT hasn’t achieved anything,” I beg to differ—it has achieved a great deal.
The NPT was a landmark policy in the 1960s, and we should give credit to Harold Wilson and the Government of that time for bringing it about. It requires the declared nuclear weapons states to take steps towards disarmament, and its other signatories not to share, accept or develop nuclear weapons technology. It is easy to say that it has not worked because other countries, such as North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel, have clearly developed nuclear weapons, but many other countries have not. South Africa, for example, specifically renounced the development of nuclear weapons, which helped to bring about an Africa nuclear weapons-free zone. We also have such zones in Latin America and central Asia, so the steps have been enormous.
The significance of the 2010 and 2015 review conferences was in the discussion about the middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone. That is a bit of a mouthful, but the point was for it to cover the whole middle east and therefore to include both Iran and Israel, as well as Saudi Arabia. That would mean negotiated talks including both Israel and Iran. I do not expect them to agree on everything, and they may well disagree on many things, but everyone must see that taking a step towards a nuclear weapons-free zone in the middle east is a huge opportunity. The issue was pushed forward in 2010 and discussed again in 2015, and that step forward has not totally happened by any means, but we did get the weapons agreement with Iran, and that is now back on the agenda.
Together with the all-party parliamentary group on Iran, I have been on visits to Iran and indeed to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to push that agenda forward, and we have a great opportunity to do that again. I hope the Minister will tell us that the Government are serious about resurrecting the deal that Donald Trump did so much to sink—by the way, that is an international agreement, not a bilateral agreement between the US and anybody else, as Donald Trump probably thought it was. I think that that is a positive development.
There are two other positive points about the global ban on nuclear weapons, as mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Brighton, Pavilion and for Cynon Valley. The ban is widely supported around the world, with 60 countries—a large number—having endorsed, signed and ratified it, so the idea that Britain cannot engage in any way is going against the wishes of the vast majority of the world’s nations, which have very different political views and aspirations. Instead, we are expanding our number of nuclear warheads and we have signed the AUKUS pact with the US and Australia. While that is not specifically a nuclear agreement, two nuclear-armed countries are involved in it, and Australia is apparently willing to host whatever the US wishes to place there. We should therefore pause for a moment and think.
This is not an academic debate; it is a matter of enormous seriousness. I totally condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine. There has to be a ceasefire and a long-term settlement of some sort that will give peace to the people of Ukraine, Russia and, in particular, the Donbas. But it must be obvious to anyone in the world that a nuclear-armed state—Russia—is directly involved in the conflict and that NATO, which is obviously nuclear-armed to a huge degree, is supplying large amounts of weapons to Ukraine. So there is a serious danger—obviously, I hope this never happens—that this thing proliferates into a nuclear war. That should at least give us some pause for thought and concentrate our minds on where we go on this.
I hope the Government can play a positive role in New York, and perhaps explain to the rest of the world why at this time we are increasing the number of nuclear warheads we have. The others of the five declared nuclear weapon states—China, Russia, France and the US—are also apparently increasing their number of nuclear warheads, despite a period in the 1990s when that number reduced. I hope that we will be serious about the negotiations and our participation.
Those who attended the Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons—my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) attended it, for example—listened to the victims of nuclear war. The victims were elderly people in Japan who survived but lost family or have suffered cancers ever since, because of the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—very small compared with the nuclear weapons now available—or, with harrowing stories, nuclear-test victims from all around the world. They include British, American and French servicemen, and peoples of the Marshall Islands and so many places around the world who have suffered the effects of nuclear testing. We should think carefully about that.
I will conclude with this point: we have a whole generation now who do not really appreciate what a nuclear weapon does. It is the ultimate weapon of mass destruction, completely indiscriminate in who it affects. There is no such thing as a targeted nuclear attack or a battlefield nuclear weapon; a nuclear weapon kills everything within its reach, in the area surrounding a nuclear explosion, and it leaves behind a residue of cancerous materials, there for decades and decades to come, polluting the atmosphere and the oceans.
Anyone who would seriously contemplate using a nuclear weapon, knowing that millions will die as a result, with the potential for a further disaster after that, needs to think very seriously about what humanity is about and what we are about. On 6 August we commemorate Hiroshima Day, and 9 August is Nagasaki Day. Those were the only times that nuclear weapons have been used in war, but they have been used in tests and threats ever since.
Please, let us be serious about the non-proliferation treaty review conference and about how we can help to bring about, seriously, a nuclear-free world. It is within our grasp. As a country that has nuclear weapons—we developed them after the second world war and maintain them—we are in a strong position to say, “We will take a lead. We want to follow the NPT in its words, its letter and its spirit, and help to bring about that change.” We have to talk peace at some point; and while there is a war going on, this is the most ideal time to talk about peace. That is really what we are all striving for.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I had not put my name down to speak in this debate, but I am happy to make a brief contribution to reinforce what I said to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter). The key point that I want to make is that nuclear weapons are located in Scotland, although the elected representatives of our country in our own Parliament and in this Parliament oppose them. That is a democratically unsustainable position. They are weapons of mass destruction that are morally and economically inappropriate to any of the threats that we face today. I am grateful to you, Mr Dowd, for giving me the chance to put that position on the record. That is all I would like to say for now.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Mr Dowd, and to follow my good friend from Eastwood, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald)—remember, no one ever criticised a speech for being too short. Those were excellent points well made. I also welcome the Minister to his place. This is our first debate together, and I look forward to many happy adventures at the Dispatch Box together.
It is a pleasure to wind up for the SNP in this consensual debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing it, because it is important that we take stock in advance of the review conference in the treaty’s 50th anniversary year. Opposition to nuclear weapons and the cause of nuclear disarmament are, for my party—not just for part of my party, but for all of my party—matters of deep, deep principle.
It is worth explaining to colleagues present that the modern SNP sprang in large part out of the anti-nuclear movement and the Stop the War Coalition. Opposition to nuclear weapons is in the SNP’s DNA, and I am deeply proud to walk alongside friends and colleagues on marches and protests in opposition to nuclear weapons. I am proud to be a member of a party with such a clear ambition and stance.
We aspire to be an independent state and an enthusiastic non-nuclear member of the EU, the UN, international fora and NATO. The vast majority of NATO states—27 out of 30—are non-nuclear, and Scotland aspires to that status, so it is logical that we are an enthusiastic supporter of the non-proliferation treaty. We have high hopes for the 50th review conference, and we have hopes, at least—I hope they are not dashed—for the UK Government’s participation in it.
The treaty’s importance was arguably set out best by UN Secretary-General António Guterres in the last review conference in 2018:
“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is an essential pillar of international peace and security, and the heart of the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. Its unique status is based on its near universal membership, legally-binding obligations on disarmament, verifiable non-proliferation safeguards regime, and commitment to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.”
That principle was echoed recently by NATO at the Madrid conference last month, when it endorsed the NPT in the strategic concept. The conclusions of the Madrid conference state:
“The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is the essential bulwark against the spread of nuclear weapons, and we remain strongly committed to its full implementation, including Article VI. NATO’s goal is to create the security environment for a world without nuclear weapons, consistent with the goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
We are all signed up. The UK is a signatory to the treaty and has ratified it, so I call for more action from the Minister. I would be the first to support and applaud more action if we see it, and I say that with a clear conscience and in good faith. I have two main questions for the Minister. We need to see what the UK’s stance is going into the August conference, so will he publish something so that we can hold the Government to account? Will he commit to making a statement in the House after the conference so that we can likewise hold the Government to account for what they said at the time? Those are two concrete questions.
I extend a hand of friendship to the Minister and the Government. We are all signed up to these aims, but signing up to stuff is easy; making it happen is what makes the difference in the world. The UK is in a position to lead, but we have not seen much leadership to date. Scotland wants to be a nuclear-free independent state, but I would work with anybody to see the UK take a lead in nuclear disarmament for the better future of us all.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. Thank you for being here this afternoon.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for stepping in at the last minute and opening this debate on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), who secured it. It could not come at a more important time, as all Members said, especially as Russia continues to recklessly wage an unjustified and illegal war in Ukraine.
We have had a very interesting set of speeches, and there has been a lot of unanimity. I hope the Minister’s response will continue the unanimity, because this is one of the most important treaties ever signed in the history of human society—certainly the history of the United Nations.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion opened the debate by saying that the specific number of warheads in the UK stockpile is not published anywhere. Will the Minister correct that? The hon. Lady said, and I agree, that there is no transparency, in line with our obligations to the non-proliferation treaty. Importantly, she said—again, I hope the Minister will put us right on this—that no Minister has yet been allocated to attend the NPT review conference in New York. It should be the Foreign Secretary, or at least the Foreign Secretary should be there for part of it. I am hoping to be there myself as an observer.
The aim of the NPT is to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. An inconsistent approach to multilateral nuclear disarmament seems to be emerging from the British Government, although I hope that is not the case. We want to be consistent. We want all parties in the country and the Government to agree on this.
The hon. Lady said that the security of a nation is about more than simply the weapons we hold. She is absolutely right. It is vital, it seems to me and to the Labour party, that we look at food security, energy security and the terrible inequality from which many nations in the world suffer, as I saw recently on my visit to Colombia. That is what brings security: if we reduce inequality and ensure the security of food, energy and housing, we can have a more sustainable and much more secure human society and planet. She said that a nuclear-free world is possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) spoke about the horrors of the use of nuclear weapons, quoting Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and was echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). The NPT demands, eventually, the elimination of all nuclear weapons. Are we going down that path at the moment? We have to conclude that that is not happening. We are increasing stockpiles not just in the UK but across the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said that the Ukraine war has resurrected fears of a nuclear war. I remember from my campaigning youth as a student the fears we had of living under the threat of nuclear war. It seems that many generations have lived under that fear, and the NPT offers the hope that we can reverse that position. She said that she deplores the 40% increase in the number of warheads in the UK stockpile. We need an answer as to why that is necessary. I cannot understand it either. We all live under the threat of nuclear weapons being used.
We then heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North. He said that this is an opportunity for the Government to set out their plans for what they will do at the NPT review conference. He is absolutely right: we would like to know. Here is an issue where we can all agree on a policy put forward by the British Government—there are not many of those right now. It would be a really good gain for this Parliament and this country if we could do that.
My right hon. Friend said that a large number of Governments across the world treat this issue with great seriousness, and so should we. The non-proliferation treaty has achieved a great deal in its 50 years. He mentioned the JCPOA—the nuclear weapons agreement with Iran—which should be resurrected. I hope we will hear more about that from the Minister. There is a serious danger—we all feel this, don’t we?—that the Ukraine war could escalate into a nuclear war. That would be the end.
We heard briefly from the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), who more or less said that she would like to see nuclear weapons removed from Scottish soil. I think we would all like to see nuclear weapons—
Kirsten Oswald
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for indulging me. I want to be very clear: I would like to see nuclear weapons removed from all shores across the world. There is no place for nuclear weapons in the world. They resolve none of the challenges the world faces today. He has set that out very clearly himself.
Fabian Hamilton
The hon. Lady interrupted me in saying exactly that. We want to see the non-proliferation treaty taken to its logical conclusion, which is the ultimate elimination of all nuclear weapons. That seems a vain hope that the moment, but we know as politicians that unless we have those hopes and aims, unless we look to the future and have a vision for a better world, we will certainly never achieve it. We may fail in our lifetimes, but we must have that vision and hope—that determination —to aim for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.
As we have heard, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty is the most successful international treaty in history. It has prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the world and has almost certainly deterred some rogue states from easily accessing the materials needed for nuclear weapons programmes. It is therefore vital that the review conference in New York in August provides fresh impetus towards further nuclear non-proliferation. As a nuclear power, it is really important that the UK acts responsibly and throws its entire diplomatic weight behind this review conference in the NPT’s 50th year. We need to play our part alongside other nuclear powers to ensure that a nuclear conflict can never take place, because we all know that if it did, the destruction would reach every corner of our world and kill millions and millions—not only human beings, but all living creatures.
Non-signatories to the NPT and those who continually flout its obligations should also form an important part of the review conference. Given regional tensions, it is vital that we put as much diplomatic pressure as we can on India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and indeed South Sudan to finally sign and ratify this historic treaty. As far as we know, South Sudan has no nuclear weapons, but it has not signed the treaty.
It is also important to hold to account countries such as Iran that continue to pursue nuclear weapons programmes—that, of course, flies in the face of its commitments within the NPT. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what recent discussions the Government have had with those countries about signing up to the NPT, even if they refuse to attend the review conference. Of course, North Korea was once signed up and then withdrew from it. Can it be persuaded to sign up to the NPT again?
My party has a long and proud history of action on nuclear non-proliferation. While we are clear that the Labour party is steadfastly committed to our nuclear deterrent, we also understand that, as a nuclear power, we must act responsibly. That is why Labour Governments signed the NPT in 1968—as hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned today—signed the comprehensive test ban treaty, and phased out tactical nuclear weapons in 1998. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, there is no such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon; it destroys every living being and creature in its path.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. Just a reminder: we expect a vote at around 5.17 pm.
Fabian Hamilton
Oh, gosh. I am sorry; I didn’t realise that.
Continuing that rich history of multilateral non-proliferation is the right thing to do—to act now and use Britain’s position as a nuclear-armed state to convene a nuclear forum to discuss the next generation of arms control, including on hypersonic missiles. The non-proliferation treaty review conference is just around the corner and is the perfect opportunity for the UK to put non-proliferation back on the global political agenda at such a vital time.
With that in mind, it is worrying that the Government have, as part of their integrated review, decided to increase the cap on the amount of nuclear weapons the UK can hold. We in the Opposition all believe that sends the wrong message to our international partners. It also came without justification. Does the Minister have any update on the justification for that increase? How does he believe it will impact on our participation at the NPT review conference?
We must also look to the NPT review conference to hold discussions on the other important non-proliferation treaties, especially the comprehensive test ban treaty, because the United States has still not ratified it. Does the Minister have any plans to discuss that with his US counterpart? Beyond the political and diplomatic process, it is vital that we remember the human consequences of nuclear testing. We must honour those who risked their wellbeing in nuclear testing on behalf of this country, but also encourage other Governments to do the same in areas such as Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, where significant cancer clusters have been linked to previous nuclear tests. The horrific consequences of nuclear testing for those communities exposed to nuclear test fallout should be a driving force in bringing Governments to the negotiating table. Our country can be a force for good for a more secure world, and it is about time that we reclaimed that moral duty.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Graham Stuart)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing the debate ahead of the NPT review conference in August, and to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for stepping in and leading it.
I completely agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on the quality of the debate that we have enjoyed this afternoon. I will try to respond to as many of the points raised as possible in the perhaps eight minutes before we vote.
We had a mention of RAF Lakenheath. It remains long-standing UK and NATO policy neither to confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons at a given location. The UK does not have a policy of no first use because—this goes to the heart of much of what we are discussing—the credibility of the deterrent rests on the conviction that we would bring all means to bear to ensure the security of the UK and our allies.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion referred to the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The TPNW fails to address the obstacles that must be overcome to achieve lasting global disarmament and offers no solutions to the challenges posed by what is, as hon. Members suggested and with which I agree, a deteriorating security environment. The TPNW will not lead us closer to a world without nuclear weapons and risks creating division within the international community, at a time when we need to focus on building consensus and strengthening the NPT to make progress on disarmament together.
What I have picked up, enjoyed and appreciated in the debate—the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) was particularly fluent on the point, but hon. Members across the Chamber picked it up—is the recognition of the importance of the NPT. It is a remarkably successful treaty. Over the last 52 years, the NPT has been the cornerstone of global nuclear security and civil nuclear prosperity.
In 1960, as the right hon. Member for Islington North mentioned, President Kennedy predicted that there could be up to 20 nations with nuclear weapons as soon as 1964. Yet today the number of nuclear-armed states remains in single figures, thanks to the NPT. It is important that we recognise that and cement that progress, although I recognise people will want other initiatives. The NPT has extended access to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. It has prevented the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It has provided a framework for significant levels of disarmament since the cold war peak. It has been remarkably successful.
Now, after two years of delay, we are delighted that states will be able to come together next month in New York to review implementation and take forward the objectives of the treaty. The UK remains committed to full implementation of the NPT in all its aspects. We are a nuclear weapons state that takes its responsibilities seriously. We are committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons, where all states share in the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies.
At the review conference, the UK will work constructively with states parties for a successful outcome. We will mark the progress of the past 50 years and call on all states to reaffirm their commitment to the three pillars of the treaty—disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
Celebrating success does not mean ignoring reality. Since the last conference in 2015, we have seen a significant deterioration in the security environment and the treaty faces a number of challenges. We have previously identified risks to the UK from major nuclear-armed states and emerging nuclear states. Those risks have not gone away, and some states are now significantly increasing and diversifying their nuclear arsenals. They are investing in novel nuclear technologies and developing new warfighting nuclear systems, which they are integrating into their military strategies and doctrines, and into their political rhetoric, to seek to coerce others. The increase in global competition and the proliferation of potentially disruptive technologies mean there are new threats to strategic stability.
Russia’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, which the right hon. Member for Islington North rightly and fully condemned, is a dramatic demonstration of the risks we face. We do not underestimate the challenges. They make strengthening the NPT more important. The treaty is not an academic document. It must live in the real world and adapt to address modern challenges. We believe the NPT provides the only credible route to nuclear disarmament.
The UK Government are proud of our contribution to the NPT’s success and of our own track record. We set out the steps we have taken since 2015 in the UK’s national report, published last November. I refer those asking for clarity on the UK’s views and objectives to that report. It sets them out. Our views have not changed since that report. If people have already read it, they should look again. We share the aspirations of all states parties to the NPT for a world without nuclear weapons. Disarmament cannot be done unilaterally or in a single leap. It requires a series of incremental, mutually reinforcing steps.
Building such a framework requires the active participation of the entire international community. Rallying their many disparate interests presents a huge diplomatic challenge, but it is one in which the United Kingdom has already played a significant role. We have pioneered work in nuclear disarmament verification, championed transparency and advanced understanding on irreversibility. In December we published a food for thought paper, outlining one vision for how to get to a world without nuclear weapons in support of the forthcoming review conference that hon. Members have mentioned.
We have pressed for significant steps towards multilateral disarmament, including the entry into force of the comprehensive test ban treaty and successful negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty. It is the comprehensive test ban treaty that deals with the testing issues, which have been referred to by hon. Members, as opposed to the NPT. We possess the smallest stockpile. That is worth noting, given the impression that in some way the UK has not been stepping up: we possess the smallest stockpile of any of the nuclear weapon states recognised by the NPT, and we are the only one to maintain a single delivery system—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I apologise to the Minister for rudely interrupting him earlier on. He can carry on where he left off.
Graham Stuart
Thank you, Mr Dowd. It is a pleasure to be back. I am grateful to Members for returning to the debate.
We remain committed to our article 6 obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. Reducing the risk of nuclear conflict remains a priority and we believe that short-term progress, in line with many of the contributions we have had, is achievable. We should seek to foster dialogue, which many Members have mentioned, both among states possessing nuclear weapons and between states possessing nuclear weapons and non-nuclear weapon states in order to increase understanding and reduce the risk of misinterpretation and miscalculation.
Although we recognise that work on risk reduction does not replace disarmament obligations, we see it as a complementary and necessary step to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict and enhance mutual trust and security. We will continue to work with international partners, civil society and academia to build mutual trust and create the environment for further progress on disarmament.
The UK works to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. We have sought to strengthen the international nuclear safeguard system and the International Atomic Energy Agency through our diplomatic efforts and through direct assistance from our nuclear safeguards programme. We will encourage all states that have not yet done so to sign, ratify and implement safeguards agreements. We will promote the ratification of security conventions and seek universal commitment to the additional protocol and a comprehensive safeguards agreement, which together provide credible assurances of the absence of undeclared nuclear activities and will strengthen the non-proliferation architecture. Nevertheless, the UK recognises that significant regional risks remain, particularly from Iran and North Korea. They have been highlighted in the debate. We are working hard to combat the risk of proliferation and remain firmly committed to ensuring coherence to the NPT and the IAEA safeguards regime to ensure global safety and stability.
Finally, the UK has encouraged and will continue to encourage the development and exchange of peaceful nuclear technologies, enabled by the NPT. Nuclear technologies have a critical part to play in tackling climate change, for instance, not only in helping to achieve net zero, but also through nuclear applications such as helping to improve food security and agricultural resilience. The technologies can help countries to adapt and become more resilient to climate change. They are also vital to global health, as they are used to treat cancer and prevent the spread of insect-borne disease. We want the review conference to highlight the significant global contribution that the peaceful use of nuclear technology makes to improving people’s lives and advancing progress to the UN sustainable development goals.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am interested in the outline that the Minister is giving us of what will happen in New York. Could he assure us—I think a number of my colleagues raised the question—that Britain will be represented by a suitably empowered delegation that can take part in serious discussions about building alliances for the future? These conferences do not normally come to a huge conclusion themselves, but they often point to a direction for the future. I would like assurance that this country will be adequately represented, so that we can go forward on this. Also, can we possibly offer up at least a reduction in nuclear stockpiles as part of our negotiations?
Graham Stuart
It is not our practice to announce in advance who will be attending. What I can tell him is that we are very much looking forward to it. It has already been delayed. I hope that the rest of my speech has made clear that we take this as a serious opportunity and aim to make the most of it.
We have published a working paper on a new sustained dialogue on peaceful uses, which aims to help overcome barriers to accessing the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear technologies. We continue to urge all non-NPT states to sign and ratify the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states as soon as possible.
There are a number of issues, and I will try to deal with some that have been raised. The spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition, the hon. Member for Leeds North East, raised the point that the UK supports the universalisation of the NPT. Though we cannot force any state to join, we discuss the importance of the NPT with all states at all levels, and whenever we engage with states. We regularly seek to encourage India and Pakistan, for example, to join the NPT.
On Scotland hosting nuclear weapons, the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent is a national endeavour benefiting the whole of the UK, and it underpins the security of this nation and that of our allies. By way of information, I note that recent opinion polls show that Trident enjoys 58% support among young Scots, even though the SNP and Green Ministers in the Scottish Government wish to see us remove it and even leave NATO altogether—[Interruption.] I do not think the SNP can have it both ways. It wants to have an independent Scotland and join NATO, which is perhaps what the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) will say, while also removing part of its nuclear deterrent.
Kirsten Oswald
I wonder if I can point the Minister back to the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) made only a few minutes ago. He set out our policy position very clearly, and I do not think that it is helpful for the Minister to represent what has been said in an entirely different way. It is not for the Minister to determine what happens to people in Scotland and whether nuclear weapons are situated there. That is something that rightly and properly should be for those who are democratically elected by the Scottish people.
Graham Stuart
As the hon. Lady will be aware, that is a matter for the UK Government, and this Parliament of the Union reflects the whole of the United Kingdom, including the people of Scotland.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) requested that we should put on paper our position on the New York conference. I have already directed him to our November 2021 national report, and I am confident that the Government will update the House after the rev con in due course.
On the point made by the right hon. Member for Islington North about having a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the middle east, we remain committed to that and firmly believe it can be achieved only by consensus of all the states of the region. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we continue to push for that.
I hope that has addressed most of the points that right hon. and hon. Members have made. The right hon. Member for Islington North also made a point about the humanitarian impact. The UK recognises the importance of engaging with the humanitarian consequences debate and listening to the views of non-nuclear weapon states. However, we believe that that conference was co-opted by civil society organisations to press for unilateral disarmament, which obviously is not the policy of this country. It was on that basis that the UK decided not to attend.
I hope that I have dealt reasonably with right hon. and hon. Members’ points. We will be able to discuss any further ones following the New York conference, and I look forward to working with Members of different parties in doing so.
Jeremy Corbyn
In response to what the Minister just said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) said earlier, after the NPT conference will the Minister be in a position to make a statement or ensure there is a debate, so that Members of the House can raise in discussion what actually happened at the conference? Too often, these conferences have huge energy put into them but there is not much parliamentary discussion afterwards. If the Minister was prepared to guarantee that there will be some kind of statement, that would be very helpful.
Graham Stuart
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that fresh in my post as I am, I am not yet briefed as to whether I am in a position to guarantee that, but I am quite sure that Members in this Chamber are more than capable of ensuring that we follow up on that conference, whether in this format or another. In common with the right hon. Gentleman, I would hope that would occur, given the seriousness of the issue and the fact that it must not disappear from parliamentary debate or drift out of sight.
To conclude, the NPT remains essential to the maintenance of a safe and secure world, and I am delighted to have such cross-party support for that. At the 10th review conference, the UK is ready to work with all states parties and partners from across the international community and civil society to achieve a meaningful outcome that contributes to the preservation, universal adoption and, of course, full, ultimate implementation of that treaty, which had such foresight so many decades ago.
Caroline Lucas
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. It has been constructive, even though there is obviously a vast gulf between the position of the Minister and that of most of the rest of the Members in the Chamber. I still wonder how on earth he could look himself in the mirror if he really was going to give the green light to using nuclear weapons first. Sometimes we do not necessarily think through the impacts of the positions Governments take and what they would mean in humanitarian terms; I would encourage all of us to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the 50th anniversary review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Written Statements
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Channel Four Television Corporation: Annual Report and Financial Statements 2021
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)
The Channel Four Television Corporation (C4C) report and financial statements 2021 have today been laid before Parliament.
The 2021 annual report shows that C4C performed well last year, delivering on its remit and obligations and reporting a strong set of results, particularly in terms of growth in digital revenue and viewers. To enable C4C to continue to build on this success over the long term, it needs greater access to capital and the option to make and own content to ensure it has the best tools to support a long-term sustainable future. In this context, it is right that the Government acknowledge both the considerable opportunities and challenges presented by the dynamic market context in which C4C operates. The Government are committed to take the steps necessary to protect one of our most important public service broadcasters not just today, but in the years to come. That is why, as part of a package of reforms set out in the recent White Paper “Up next”, the Government are moving ahead with plans to move C4C out of public ownership to become a privately owned, free-to-air public service broadcaster, alongside other successful privately owned PSBs, including ITV, STV and Channel 5.
On 14 June 2022, the House of Commons debated a motion on the future of C4C. This statement fulfils the Government’s obligation to respond to this debate.
The motion called on the Government to reverse its decision on C4C. Like every broadcaster, C4C faces huge competition for viewers, for programmes and for talent. Streamers such as Netflix and Amazon Prime Video and global media groups such as Disney and Paramount have far deeper pockets than our PSBs. C4C is uniquely constrained. Under its current ownership model, C4C has fewer options to invest, fewer options to innovate, and, crucially, fewer tools to support its growth than its competitors.
As a responsible Government, we must recognise these constraints and be prepared to act now to address them. We therefore believe it is the right time to unleash C4C’s full potential, and open the broadcaster up to private ownership while protecting its public service broadcasting remit. A sale will allow C4C to access greater investment—meaning it can create more great programming made by people who live and work in the UK—without losing what makes it distinctive and without exposing taxpayers and the public finances to greater risk.
The motion called on the Government to protect C4C’s contribution to levelling up and maintain its Leeds headquarters and commissioning expenditure outside of London. The Government recognise and value C4C’s ongoing commitment to levelling up, as emphasised in its annual report, and its support for national and regional economies. We will maintain C4C’s existing obligations in terms of production outside London and England. We expect C4C’s access to networks outside London and its ability to speak to a diverse range of audiences across the UK to be an attractive asset that any potential buyer will look to nurture and develop. Across PSBs, it is clear that ownership is not correlated with regional spending. In fact, though its latest annual report shows it is on an improving path, C4C spent less in the north of England as a percentage of its total production spend than PSBs as a whole in 2020, and less than privately owned ITV, with C4C spending 19.3% in 2020 in Northern England, compared with ITV’s 30.4%. There is no reason that a sale could not accelerate the process of growing the broadcaster’s impact outside London.
The motion also called for the Government to maintain the publisher-broadcaster restriction. The Government will remove this restriction to enable C4C to diversify its revenue streams into content and improve its business resilience. C4C will still be required to commission a minimum volume of its programming from independent producers, in line with the quotas placed on other PSBs, ensuring its continued contribution to the sector. The Government believe that in the long run, the UK production ecosystem will benefit from a more sustainable C4C. A change of ownership that improves Channel 4’s access to capital could increase spending on production. For example, Channel 5’s overall content budget increased following its acquisition by Viacom in 2014, with first-run spending up by an average of 7% per year between 2014 and 2018. C4C has excellent relationships with independent producers right across the UK, and there is no reason this should change. Indeed, we expect a new owner to value and want to build on those relationships.
The Government are clear that C4C will remain a public service broadcaster. Its public service broadcasting remit will remain written into law, and the right buyer for Channel 4 will be one who shares our ambition for the business and our belief in what makes it special. We are not trying to change the distinctive role C4C plays; we are seeking to give it the best set of tools and the freedom to flourish and thrive long into the future.
[HCWS201]
Intelligence and Security Committee’s Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism Report: Publication
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament has today laid before Parliament a report on extreme right-wing terrorism, examining the threat to the UK and the UK’s response. I welcome the comprehensive and detailed nature of the report, and I thank the Committee for the extensive work that has gone into it.
This report highlights the significant close working relationship between our security and intelligence agencies and counter-terrorism policing. It is through this regular collaborative approach that we can keep our citizens safe from all forms of terrorism. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our agencies and counter-terrorism policing for their excellent work to better understand and disrupt the threat from extreme right-wing terrorism.
The Government will consider the ISC’s report in full and respond formally in due course.
[HCWS200]
Transport for London Funding Settlement: Extension
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Following my statement to the House on 27 June, Official Report, 5WS, I am updating the House on an extension of the current Transport for London (TfL) funding settlement that was due to expire on 13 July to 28 July. This has been agreed by the Mayor of London.
Since the start of the pandemic, we have supported the transport network in London with over £5 billion funding through extraordinary funding settlements for Transport for London. We have recognised the reliance of London’s transport network on fare revenue, and the Government continue our commitment to mitigating loss of fare revenue because of the pandemic.
This extension to the current funding settlement is necessary due to the unsatisfactory progress made by TfL on meeting agreed deadlines, including relating to pensions. Resolving these issues is an integral part of setting TfL on the path to financial sustainability, and the Government stand ready to engage constructively to reach a resolution. This extension ensures that they receive due attention.
The Government are committed to supporting London’s transport network as we have since the start of the pandemic and are in discussions with TfL on a longer term settlement. By rolling over the provisions of the existing agreement, the extension provides continued support to Transport for London and certainty to Londoners while we work with Transport for London on its funding needs.
This extraordinary support to Transport for London has always been on the condition that Transport for London reaches financial sustainability as soon as possible and with a target date of April 2023 and the Government continue to press the Mayor of London and Transport for London to take the decisions needed to put the organisation on a sustainable footing. I will update the House at my earliest opportunity on the details of any longer-term funding settlement.
[HCWS199]
Grand Committee
Procurement Bill [HL]
Wednesday 13th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Procurement Act 2023 View all Procurement Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (11 Jul 2022)
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I will just wind up the debate we had on Monday. In this group, I have Amendment 52, which is about adding the improvement of
“economic, social and environmental well-being”
to the procurement objectives. I also put my name to a similar amendment, Amendment 48 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I completely support everything that he said in his introduction; it covered what I would have said in support of my amendment, so there is no point in going over all that again. In fact, we discussed a number of amendments in this group that looked at the economic, social, environmental and cultural benefit and value of the Bill and considered what we mean by “public benefit”. It was a useful debate to explore those potential objectives and what the definition of “public benefit” is. It will be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to those discussions.
I also supported the amendments laid by my noble friend Lady Thornton, Amendments 47A and 52A. As my noble friend said, we believe that maximising social value is something that contracting authorities should have regard to. This is in line with the social value Act and the national procurement policy strategy, so this should all be put in line together. We also know that the Government are committed to expanding the use of social value within procurement to maximise these areas. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who is not in her place today—
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Oh, the noble Baroness is there; I was looking for her in the place in which she sat on Monday. She moved, just to confuse me. This is the trouble with picking things up later.
The noble Baroness rightly said that meeting net zero is a government-stated objective and we believe, as she does, that this should also be an objective within the Procurement Bill. It could make a genuine difference, should that be something that needs to be taken account of. We also support those noble Lords who said in the debate that this helps to meet the levelling-up agenda as well as achieving net zero.
We know that social value is included in the NPPS—the national procurement policy statement—so I ask the Minister: if it is in the policy statement, why is it not referenced in the Bill? It concerns me that the policy statement can be changed at any point, so not having it in the Bill and just having it in the statement means that it is not absolutely embedded within the legislation. I will briefly mention that, between 2012 and 2020, there was no statutory guidance on social value. This inhibits its development, so we need to ensure that this does not happen in future.
I express strong support for Amendments 49 and 58 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which are about climate and environmental matters and the importance of having these based within the Bill. She also said that “public benefit” needs further clarity, so I must ask again: does “public benefit” include environmental outcomes? It would be helpful to have further information on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, spoke importantly about the fact that using procurement in this way is an opportunity to drive behaviour change, because we are not going to achieve the Government’s net-zero objectives without behaviour change.
Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, specifies a number of overarching requirements that a contracting authority must take due regard of when carrying out procurement. We support the main points that he made—particularly, as well as the carbon account, the ethical and human rights record of the supplier, as he said. I know that we will talk about this in a later debate, but that is important.
Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, introduced, again talked about defining “public benefit”. I think that the Minister can see that this is not party political: right across the Committee there is concern about what “public benefit” means and what it is going to deliver as part of the Procurement Bill. The noble Lords, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Purvis, also tabled amendments on this issue.
I finish by briefly mentioning an interesting briefing that I had from UKCloud. I do not know if other noble Lords have received it, but it is about the importance of maximising social value through procurement in the world that UKCloud works in—the cloud providers—and how doing so would be consistent with wider net-zero policy aspirations. UKCloud feels that it is important to support businesses in this country that are providing those kinds of platforms and support and that the sector can lead in the provision of clean, green technologies, which can help to digitise and decarbonise users of its services. It also believes that, if the sector got that kind of support from government, UK businesses would have the opportunity to really innovate and become leaders in this field. I found that an interesting briefing. If the Minister has not seen it, I would be happy to share it with him, because it had some interesting thoughts in it. The briefing also said that UKCloud feels that weighting should be given to make sure that cloud providers for the UK Government are paying their taxes in full on all earned income in the UK—that is an important point—and that they should have a clear and measurable track record of investing in local jobs and skills. The briefing has some interesting points about how procurement could help its particular type of business. I finish there and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness and all those who spoke on this group on our previous day in Committee. It was obviously unfortunate that we could not finish this group then, but I am grateful to all noble Lords, including those who were here on Monday who are not able to be here today. It has been an interesting debate and I think that we will wrestle with the philosophy of this as we go forward. I have been interested in the contributions made.
I am constantly asked to define “public benefit”. One of the reasons why we have different political parties in this country and why politics has evolved is that, at different times, different people define it in different ways. The search for a total, accurate, 100% agreed definition that covers every possible eventuality may be an illusion. However, I understand that noble Lords are saying that they feel that there needs to be more clarity. No doubt we will continue this conversation on other amendments to come.
I was interested in this debate. As he knows, I have very considerable affection and enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—it is very easy to say in this House that you have very considerable affection for somebody, because we are such a nice lot; I think generally we do mean it—and his experience. He said something very interesting. Having argued for his amendment, he said that this Bill would finish with something akin to what he wanted in it and that it would do that because it was a Lords starter.
The only way to interpret that is that the noble Lord would advocate using the power of the House of Lords to force the elected Government to include something in a Bill that they did not wish to include, in their judgment and in the judgment of the House of Commons. That is a perfectly legitimate point of view, but I was interested to see that the noble Baroness from the Labour Front Bench had signed that, as she just reminded us, and expressed her support for what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had said. Perhaps I should take this away and tell my friends that if ever there is a Labour Government, it would be reasonable for the unelected House to hold up Labour legislation indefinitely on a Lords starter in order to force change.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, he really cannot get away with that. There are huge numbers of different amendments, which all have the same intention of trying to implement the Government’s policies on climate change and sustainability, which, as the Committee on Climate Change has said, are absolutely fine. The Government’s problem is that they do not have the policies to implement their own strategy. All I am trying to do is to help them implement their strategy. I do not think that that is a great constitutional abrogation by your Lordships’ House. This is a Lords starter, the Government chose to bring it to the House of Lords, the Parliament Act does not apply and it is quite reasonable for this Committee—of course, I cannot speak for my Front Bench; I am speaking entirely as a lowly Back-Bencher—who is seeking to encourage the Government to recognise that they will lose this in this Committee and that the leverage they have to respond is less than it might be.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I think that was the noble Lord trying to wriggle off the hook but impaling himself back on it at the end of his remarks. We have to make this House work via the usual channels, and it is reasonable for an elected Government in another place to listen respectfully to the other House, which it should—it is our duty to ask the other House to think again on certain things—but there is a point where we do not say that it should be taken to the wire. However, if I am ever a Back-Bencher and there is something from a Labour Government that I do not like, perhaps I will take away the Hunt dictum—one of the advantages of continuing on Wednesday what you did on Monday is that you can read Hansard, and I read carefully what the noble Lord said—and practise what he preaches. Anyway, let us get on with the business at hand. It is an important issue on which the Front Bench opposite might wish to reflect.
Amendment 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, seeks to ensure that contracting authorities consider a number of additional requirements when carrying out procurements, including reducing net carbon budgets, supplier human rights records, data security in the platform, and transparency. In our view, as I have argued before in Committee, contracting authorities are able to deal with these matters as things stand, and in a way that is more targeted and effective than through inclusion in a broad obligation to “have regard”. In a sense, that is the difference between us. Although the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that his were modest demands, and deliberately did not include net zero, for example, that is brought in by the analogous amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington.
Contracting authorities will be able to take account of suppliers’ carbon-reduction plans and other environmental objectives where they are relevant to the subject matter of the contract. It is unnecessary and potentially unhelpful to contracting authorities to attempt to impose on them all an obligation to have regard to a range of other factors, including net zero—as mentioned in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington—in and throughout all of their procurement activities.
In particular, it places unnecessary burdens on them in relation to areas where this is of limited relevance and would open up smaller contractors unnecessarily to the risk of legal challenge. After all, these matters are also covered in another legislation. Contracting authorities will need—this is in the Bill—to consider the ethical and human rights record of the supplier, in some respects, when considering whether a supplier is eligible to participate in the procurement. We will discuss this issue later. The Bill contains effective provision on the exclusion and debarment of those who do not.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Can the Minister please explain why the term social value is not in the Bill?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have just said, we believe that the additional objective of maximising social value would be a duplicate, as it is embraced in “public benefit”.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I am sorry, but the Minister has said that there is no definition of public benefit, and that is quite right. However, there is a legal definition of social value. It exists and is on the statute book, so why are the Government not using “social value” in the Bill?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, I have set out the argument. The noble Baroness disagrees but I am not going to repeat a third time the reason why we think maximising social value is unnecessary and would be a duplicative addition. Each procurement is different and what is appropriate, for example, for a large-scale infrastructure project is not for smaller transactional procurements.
Furthermore, procurement policy should be aligned with wider government policy and, as such, the publication of a national procurement policy statement is based on the strategic policy priorities relevant at the time. It would not be appropriate, in our submission, to include in the Bill priorities which can and probably will change —we have heard that they will—based on an Administration’s objectives. It is always important that policy priorities are included in individual procurements only where they are relevant to the subject of the contract.
On Monday, for example, noble Lords on all sides gave those of us on the Front Bench, I freely confess, a hard time in discussing the importance of minimising bureaucracy to facilitate SME participation in procurement. I took that away as a powerful call, which I have said we will discuss. As I think I have already indicated outside the Chamber, the Government are keen to meet and consider these points.
The paradox is that seeking to include extraneous requirements, which this and other amendments in the group risk, could make it harder for small businesses to bid for public contracts. One cannot talk the small business game, which noble Lords did strongly and fairly, while adding compliance requirements that make things harder for small businesses and help larger organisations to corner the market.
We think that Amendments 48 and 52 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, are unnecessary and potentially unhelpful to contracting authorities in attempting to impose on them an obligation to have regard to improving the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of the relevant area in and throughout all their procurement activities. In particular, they would place unnecessary burdens on them in relation to areas where this is of limited relevance and, again, open them up unnecessarily to the risk of legal challenge.
I wonder whether we would all agree—in fact, I do not have to wonder; I know that we would not all agree—on what carrying out procurement in a “socially responsible way” means. In a sense, that is implicit in the challenge from the noble Baroness opposite. We all might have rather different understandings of what that requires. Imposing a legal obligation of such potential breadth on contracting authorities is, we submit, exposing contracting authorities to unnecessary risk and complexity. Contracting authorities will be able to take account of measures that improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the relevant area—this may differ from local authority to local authority, for example—where it is relevant to the subject matter of the contract. The Bill already allows this, which is absolutely in line with the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
On Amendments 53 and 58 in the names of my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, as I said in our debate on an earlier group, the term “public benefit” is deliberately undefined; consequently, it is intended to be a flexible concept that gives contracting authorities a degree of discretion. Again, local authorities may have different views from place to place on what the most urgent benefit in their area is. Although all the proposed economic, environmental and social additions, including creating new businesses, jobs and skills, and reducing geographic disparities in the United Kingdom, might be facets of public benefit in different circumstances—I do not challenge that—we do not believe that it would be helpful to elaborate them in the Bill.
It might also be unfair to small contracting authorities to impose an obligation to consider the reduction of geographic disparities in the United Kingdom; they might be more concerned about disparities up the road. Doing so risks excluding other matters that might be more valid in specific circumstances. The Government consider that contracting authorities are better placed to make that decision in the individual circumstances at hand. We want contracting authorities to think about the extent to which public money spent on their specific contracts can deliver greater benefit than it otherwise would. I think that there is agreement in the Committee on that point. As I have said, each procurement is different; for example, what is appropriate in delivering a giant infrastructure project is not appropriate for smaller procurements.
I turn to Amendments 59 and 59A from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace—
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said but I am still puzzled. We are trying to craft a Bill that will have quite a long shelf life over a period when we may have a change of Government or some change in government. The Minister is saying that the catch-all public benefit is the only thing that we should have in the Bill in terms of principles and objectives. I would have thought that the consensus across all our democratic parties on public benefit and social value is a little wider than that and that it would help to provide guidance if that were spelled out rather more in the Bill. Otherwise, the principles and objectives will simply swing from one side to the other when different Governments come.
Everything cannot be left to each changing Minister to define. Surely the concept of public benefit is one that we share, as is the concept of social value. We also share the view that £300 billion-worth of public procurement sets a culture, the core of which I hope that all Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens share, because that is what we are attempting to get. The Minister is saying that we cannot agree on that. I am aware of some people—the Chicago school of economists and those who follow them—who deny the concept of public benefit altogether and believe that private benefit is the only thing that drives the economy, prosperity and society. I hope that we are not there and are not starting from there.
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord always slightly loses me when he rides off in his speeches. I have a vision of him lying awake, trying to get to sleep, thinking of these terrible right-wing Conservatives whom he always cites and seeing the worst in everything. I thought that the great tradition of the Liberal party and liberal values, which I was brought up with and adhere to, is to give space to variety and not uniformity; there should be flexibility, with opportunities for local judgments and for contracting authorities to make them. The concept of public benefit is wide and flexible and should be so to give contracting authorities a degree of discretion to consider whether their specific contracts can deliver greater benefits than they otherwise would.
For example, contracting authorities are already able to make it clear in their technical specifications that fair trade options can be included in the products provided to meet the requirements of the contracts, provided that they do not discriminate against other products of other suppliers. The noble Lord objected to the mention of the terrible word “money”, but public procurement needs to have a focus on achieving value for money. The two things are not contradistinctions.
While I would expect contracting authorities to consider these matters where appropriate, it would not be helpful to elaborate them in the Bill, for the reasons that the Government have submitted, as they would not apply to all contracts. The course that the other side is proposing will lead to a uniformity imposed on a diversity, which is the antithesis of local values. I respectfully request that these amendments be withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Just before the Minister sits down, I really do not think that that is what we are trying to achieve. It is just to try to bring in a definition of something. If you have an objective laid out, without proper understanding of what the phrase is trying to achieve or what it means, it could be quite confusing. All we are trying to get is some clarity on what is meant by “public benefit” and what the Government are trying to achieve by having it as an objective. I have no problem with there being flexibility around this—that is important in procurement—but, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said, we need some sort of guidance. If the Government do not want to put a definition in the Bill, some guidance underpinning it, on what this is looking at and what the Government are trying to achieve, would be extremely helpful.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in a sense, it depends where the straitjacket applies and where flexibility is enabled. We will come on shortly to debate the national procurement policy strategy and I gleefully anticipate that that will be another zone of contention in our Committee, to which many of your Lordships will want to add more and more things. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was enthusiastic about the national procurement strategy at the opening of our proceedings and it is something that an incoming Government would be able to change and mould. Maximising public benefit is an important objective of the Bill.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have listened very carefully and have just reread every amendment in this group. Can the Minister point to one amendment that prescribes how the principles in each amendment have to be enacted by each local authority or each purchasing authority? They are broad principles which allow the flexibility that the Minister has just described or relate to issues such as social value, which is already in Clause 11. The amendments are exactly the same regarding social value, the environment and social aspects. Where does the Bill say what that means and where does it not allow discretion?
Lord True (Con)
A considerable number of amendments mandate that contracting authorities must have regard to certain items. Others add to the objectives in Clause 11. It is a difference of interpretation. The Government are in one place. On reflection, I think that perhaps people outside government circles will think that that is not as unwise as it now seems. I again respectfully suggest that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Knight of Weymouth
“(1A) In carrying out a procurement, a contracting authority must take into account the impacts or potential impacts on local good work as a consequence of awarding the procurement contract with particular regard to the evaluation of—(a) the gains or loss of employment in the contracting authority,(b) the terms and conditions of work available, and(c) the quality of work available.”
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I should start by apologising for not being able to be present for Second Reading, but I hope that we can have an interesting niche debate about the importance of good work and good work in respect of government procurement. There are five amendments in my name in this group, and I am delighted that I was joined by my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady Hayman and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I am grateful to them for their support. Also in this group are some important amendments from my noble friend Lord Hendy.
There are two aspects of regulation as I see it. One is about putting some minimum standards in place, which is what my noble friend’s important amendments are about, and the other is about commissioning better practice and better performance, and that is where my amendments sit.
I should also remind your Lordships that I am the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Future of Work, along with David Davis in the other place. We have been working with the Institute for the Future of Work on this good work agenda and have found from the evidence around good work that the more you can increase the quantity of good work in the economy and society, the better the prospects are for people and the communities in which they live. We therefore remind the Minister and the Committee of the importance of this agenda in terms of levelling up, in particular, but also building security, prosperity and self-respect—there is a virtuous circle in play.
We are also trying to tackle particular problems that the Institute for the Future of Work, for example, uncovered in its report The Amazonian Era. It looks at the supply chain in the logistics sector that starts with the Amazon warehouses and the problems of algorithmic management where people are being managed by machines and are suffering in terms of their mental health, self-respect, security and prosperity as a result. The Committee may be interested to know that President Biden in the United States is currently instigating a whole swathe of work around supply chains for procurement in order to look at this very topic.
In one of the amendments, we define what good work is, but it is important to remember how good work aligns social, economic and health interests. Taking health, for example, the institute’s good work monitor shows a really strong correlation between health outcomes and higher-quality work, especially regarding chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart disease, some cancers, liver disease, drug use and self-harm. All those can be improved by people being able to work in a better environment. This was underscored by the Deaton review for the Institute for Fiscal Studies in May 2019.
There is also a correlation between the pay and benefits that workers receive and the productivity they then generate—hence this is also good for employers. The Resolution Foundation today has published a report showing that UK households are, on average, £8,800 worse off than their equivalents in France and Germany, in large part because of low productivity. This is a British disease that we need to tackle. I suggest that tackling, and incentivising through procurement, a better quality of work is at the heart of what we might want to do. I can also tell the Committee that this is not at the expense of unemployment. There is a very useful correlation showing that good work creates good and higher levels of employment.
I will not run through the principles of good work, as they are set out in one of my amendments. However, in terms of the requirement that we want to put on those entering the process to secure government procurement, there are plenty of indicators to help them demonstrate the quality of the work that they are offering and engaged in. The amendments would essentially ensure that the impacts on access to work and the conditions and quality of work are evaluated at a prequalification stage in procurement. They would thereby deliver strong public benefits. I listened carefully to what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, said in response to the last group of amendments around public benefit. The essential argument was, I think, that it applies differently to different projects, and he therefore wants to keep it loose and flexible.
I say to him that I worry, first, about the possibility of companies that are successful in procurement off-setting one social or public benefit against another. I really do not want to see anyone off-setting the quality of the work against some other social good or public benefit. Secondly, my understanding of how good, successful capitalism works is that business and employers demonstrate four types of value: value to the shareholder; value to the customer, in this case the public purse; value to society, namely public benefit; and employee benefit and value. That is the value mix we are looking to incentivise and get right. In this context and this group of amendments, we are arguing—there is really good evidence to support this—that you can deliver really strong employee benefit and in doing so deliver extremely successful social and public benefit along the way. I seek to get this written into the Bill through these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 186, 292, 297, 315, 319 and 519. I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and my noble friends Lord Hain and Lord Monks for adding their names. Of course, I support the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Knight, for the reasons he advanced.
All the amendments in this group are designed to utilise the tremendous power of public procurement to improve the lot of Britain’s 32 million-strong workforce. As the Minister reminded us at Second Reading, £300 billion of public contracts is involved, some 13% of GDP. Public contracts involve tens of thousands of employers and hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of workers in their execution.
At Second Reading, I tried to make the case for the Bill to restore the fair wages resolution of the House of Commons, which subsisted to protect terms and conditions from 1891 through to 1983. The response of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord True, was:
“To impose your political objectives on a nation, you have to win an election and form a Government.”—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 925.]
He made that point earlier this afternoon in different words. It was a powerful point, but we do not think it is sufficiently powerful to answer the amendments proposed.
There are two reasons for this, one ethical and the other legal. I will deal with the ethical issue first. As we know, Clause 11(1) of the Bill includes “maximising public benefit” as one of four objectives to which the contracting bodies must have regard in letting public contracts. Clearly, one way of maximising benefit is to improve or maintain the condition of the working lives of both the workers engaged on public contracts and the many more millions whose employers will be influenced by the terms and conditions set on public contracts.
The other side of that coin is the public benefit in preventing bad employers undercutting good ones in the obtaining of public contracts. Bad employers such as P&O Ferries, which deployed employment practices which the Prime Minister and other Ministers condemned as abominable, should not on any basis be the beneficiaries of public contracts, as I am sure the Minister will agree. Schedules 6 and 7 of the Bill already specify various mandatory and discretionary grounds for excluding potential bidders from public contracts, among which are various forms of abuse of workers. So the principle is established, but the exclusions do not go far enough.
Amendments 186 and 319—one is mandatory and the other discretionary, if your Lordships do not like the idea of mandatory exclusion on this basis—would provide for the possible exclusion of bidders on the basis that the bidder has been found by an employment tribunal or court to have significantly breached the rights of an employee or worker, or that it has admitted that it significantly breached those rights, or that it has made a payment to an employee or worker in respect of a significant breach of their rights. That would catch the P&O Ferries-type employer. Of course, it is necessary to include, as the previous legislation did, a mechanism for self-cleansing so that bidders that are genuinely remorseful and have changed their practice can be included.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly and with great pleasure to follow the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Knight of Weymouth. I could not possibly repeat large amounts of what they said. I will just add a couple of points.
First, Amendment 186 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and signed by the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Monks, looks at excluding suppliers for other improper behaviour, particularly the mistreatment of workers. This a change to the Bill that I think would be welcomed by many good employers, because it would help them to ensure that they can compete against cowboys and potential cowboys.
It raises a point that I raised in our earlier discussion about supporting small and medium-sized enterprises; there is continuing debate on this issue, which I am sure we will take to Report. In many cases, we have seen that small and medium-sized enterprises, although not all of them are angels, know their workers as individuals. They are very often better employers, whereas large multinational companies treat their employees like blocks of labour to be moved around on a chess board. I would assert that ensuring that bad labour practice is punished would be of benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises, which noble Lords all around the Committee agreed was a good idea.
Moving on to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, particularly Amendment 54 and the linked Amendment 535, it is really useful to put this into context, so I will refer to a UNISON report entitled Outsourcing the Cuts: Pay and Employment Effects of Contracting Out. It focuses on some very detailed case studies and looks at what we have seen, particularly over the past decade: an increased work intensity forced on staff, with greater job insecurity and low or non-existent increases in pay. That has happened right across the UK economy, but it has particularly been the case with outsourced contracts of the kind we are talking about here. As the report says,
“outsourced public servants are at the sharp end of this pressure.”
Those are the circumstances we have been in.
I want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Knight, alluded to: that the quality of life we have in the UK, and the quality of our economy, is acutely related to the nature of that work. Amendment 54 in particular says that the
“contracting authority must take into account the impacts … on local good work”.
We have low productivity; extremely poor public health, both physical and mental; and communities that have truly been hollowed out by low pay, where no one has any money to support local independent businesses. This is a spiral downwards, and we have to get out of that. These amendments are working towards putting in provision to change that. I point to the Government’s levelling-up agenda, which is regionally based, so I believe that they do indeed want to address this.
I will pick up on one practical point and an example of how this might be used. Let us imagine that we have two bids for a contract, one of which is from a company that is trialling—as many now are, and as many have fully implemented—a four-day working week as standard with no loss of pay. I suggest that this amendment says that the impact that could have on the local community must be taken into account. Think of all the extra time people would have for volunteering or for childcare, and the impact that would have on the quality of local life. This would build in things that the Government say are part of their agenda. Perhaps it was more Cameronian, but I think the idea of communities providing local services and volunteering is probably still part of the Government’s agenda. So these amendments would deliver things that the Government say they want to deliver, and I believe they would be truly impressive improvements to the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 54, 104 and 535 and will speak to Amendments 67 and 116, which I have signed, which were all so well introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Knight. I declare an interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Future Of Work.
My own interests, and indeed concerns, in this area go back to the House of Lords Select Committee on AI. I chaired this ad hoc inquiry, which produced two reports: AI in the UK: Ready, Willing and Able? and a follow-up report via the Liaison Committee, AI in the UK: No Room for Complacency, which I mentioned in the debate on a previous group.
The issue of the adoption of AI and its relationship to the augmentation of human employment or substitution is key. We were very mindful of the Frey and Osborne predictions in 2013, which estimated that 47% of US jobs are at risk of automation—since watered down—relating to the sheer potential scale of automation over the next few years through the adoption of new technology. The IPPR in 2017 was equally pessimistic. Others, such as the OECD, have been more optimistic about the job-creation potential of these new technologies, but it is notable that the former chief economist of the Bank of England, Andrew Haldane, entered the prediction game not long ago with a rather pessimistic outlook.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, which focus on what we believe work in this country should look like. There are a number of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth, to which I was pleased to add my name. He introduced them in his usual way—eloquently, knowledgably and passionately. I thank him for that.
We believe that a commitment to good work standards in procurement, in response to the new challenges faced in the labour market that noble Lords have talked about, is an extremely important and appropriate part of what we need to be looking at. We know that Scotland introduced a commitment to fair work first and my noble friend Lord Hendy talked about its introduction by the Welsh Government, so this is not new or untried. Other parts of the United Kingdom are looking at how best to achieve this and we think that the Treasury should also be looking at it. It should be not just about procurement but much broader: how do you underpin good work?
My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth’s amendments clearly recognise that procurement can be a powerful tool to support public policy goals and targets, beyond just ensuring value for money. We have heard about the Institute for the Future of Work and its research that shows that creating and protecting good-quality jobs provides resilience and promotes well-being and prosperity at every level. Again, that supports the Government’s levelling-up agenda. My noble friend Lord Knight also mentioned how it would increase productivity in this country. Surely that is an ambition that the Government and the Minister share. We believe that promoting good work is a public good that advances national, economic, social and health interests and priorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, spoke in support of my noble friend Lord Knight’s amendments. She made a couple of important points about how work intensity has increased while, at the same time, work security has decreased in this country. I agree with her on the issue of outsourced contracts. That is something that we have to look at because, as the noble Baroness rightly said, quality of work is related to quality of life, because we spend so much time at work.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke to a number of amendments and focused particularly on AI, automation, the impact of new technologies and their potential disruption to jobs. There has been some good research on this, which we need to take account of as we develop legislation. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on how that could be managed in this Bill or perhaps through other means.
My noble friend Lord Hendy also had a number of amendments in this group and I thank him for his detailed and careful introduction. A lot of this is incredibly important. He spoke about previous and other legislation and how we need to bring it up to date in this Bill. That is incredibly important if we are to get the best legislation that we can. He was quite right when he said that we need to use procurement to improve the lot of Britain’s workforce and ensure that we have high standards.
We all need to pay attention to the point that my noble friend made about P&O Ferries because, as he explained on his Amendment 186, we need some buffer or means to manage bad employers—as you could simply call them—as opposed to good employers. The Government condemned the actions of P&O Ferries, as I am sure the Minister did. If there is anything that we can do with the Procurement Bill to stop that kind of behaviour happening again, we should take clear advantage of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, also supported the amendment.
I am sure that the Minister would support the fact that we are trying to improve the quality and security of the British workforce. I will be interested to hear his thoughts on the debate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint. The following amendments are concerned with placing additional requirements on contracting authorities so that their procurements create good jobs and opportunities in local areas. I will address the issues in turn.
Amendment 54, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, whom I thank for his extremely interesting opening remarks, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, seeks to include a new procurement objective in Clause 11, requiring contacting authorities to have regard to the importance of local “good work” when carrying out a procurement. We believe this is unnecessary. Under the Bill, contracting authorities will already be able to give more weight to bids that create good-quality jobs and opportunities for our communities, where this is relevant to the contract being procured and is not discriminatory. This is absolutely in line with the Government’s levelling-up objectives and means better value for money.
Additionally, the concept of “good work” includes a wide range of matters, such as union representation and access to facilities for career guidance and training. Including this provision would have the effect of slanting public procurement away from SMEs and VCSEs, which this Government have worked hard to champion in the Bill, and in favour of large employers with significant resources and a highly unionised workforce. That is very much the opposite direction of travel to the policy behind the Bill.
Amendment 67 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight, Lord Hendy and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cement-Jones, for not only taking us into the future but looking at what is starting now and what has been going on for quite a few years to create a different workforce from the one we have now. He talked about something that we will have to discuss further in both Houses—both the opportunities and the challenges to the workforce that we see today. That is probably not for this Bill, but I can see much further work being done on the issue.
The amendment seeks to include in the national procurement policy statement the creation and protection of “good work”. We have already set out in previous debates the rationale for not including policy priorities in the Bill and why instead the national procurement policy statement is a more appropriate vehicle for this.
Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, seeks to lay out a new rule in the Bill which would allow contracting authorities to request information from a supplier submitting a tender about good work standards and practices. This amendment is not necessary: the Bill already allows contracting authorities to set the criteria against which they wish to assess tenders and it is open to them to include these matters within those criteria. Any bidder will therefore have to submit information setting out how they meet the chosen criteria. Including a specific power for contracting authorities to require such information could call into question the ability of contracting authorities to request other information relevant to the assessment of tenders.
Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight, Lord Hendy and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, requires extensive quantities of information about contracting authorities’ good work policies and measures to be included in the tender notice. I have set out already the Government’s objections to including significant requirements on contracting authorities in relation to this and other similar matters. Public procurement needs to be focused on achieving value for money. We do not consider that it would be appropriate to embed obligations on policy objectives such as “good work” in the tender notice or indeed elsewhere throughout primary legislation for public procurement.
Amendments 186, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy, Lord Hain and Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and Amendments 315 and 319, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy, Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Woodley, seek to introduce new exclusion grounds in relation to breaches of labour rights. Employers who seriously violate the rights of their workforce are not fit to compete for public contracts. The Bill expands the range of serious labour violations to be considered as part of the mandatory grounds for exclusion, for example the failure to pay the national minimum wage and offences relating to employment agencies.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Why would breaches of ILO conventions not apply to bidders in this country if they apply to bidders from outside this country?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As that is a legal question, I shall get a legal answer for the noble Lord, and I will certainly write. I thought I had answered him, but I will make sure that that is clearly written legally.
On the TCA, with respect to Articles 387 and 399 of the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, procurement law does not grant rights to workers and, as such, the exclusion grounds are not inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under those articles. The rights protected by these provisions are provided elsewhere in national laws, none of which are affected by the Bill. The exclusion grounds are not intended as a means of enforcing labour rights; rather, exclusion is a mechanism to ensure that contracting authorities do not award contracts to suppliers that pose a risk.
I am confident this will enable contracting authorities effectively to protect the rights of workers delivering public contracts, especially when combined with other changes we are making to strengthen the exclusions regime, such as the inclusion of serious labour misconduct in the absence of a conviction as a discretionary ground for exclusion; requiring assessment of whether the exclusion grounds apply to subsidiaries of the supplier; and extending the current time limit for discretionary exclusion grounds from three years to five years.
Amendments 292 and 297, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy, Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Woodley, remove the requirement for contracting authorities to consider the risk of the circumstances giving rise to an exclusion ground recurring in applying the exclusions regime. Exclusion is not a punishment for past misconduct; that is for the courts to decide. Exclusion is a risk-based measure and, as such, suppliers should be encouraged to clean up their act and given the right to make the case that they have addressed the risk of the misconduct or other issues occurring again. This might be through better training, stronger compliance controls or dismissing the staff involved in any misconduct. It is for contracting authorities to decide whether the evidence they have seen is sufficient to reassure themselves that the issues in question are unlikely to occur again.
Amendment 519, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, proposes to use Clause 104 of the Bill to omit Section 17(5)(a) and (b) from the Local Government Act 1988. It would remove the prohibition on relevant authorities, as detailed in Section 17(5)(a) and (b) of the 1988 Act, to consider in relation to public supply or works contracts the terms and conditions of a contractor’s workers and the employment status of their subcontractors.
The Bill provides for a range of labour violations to be considered as part of the grounds for exclusion, which must be considered for every supplier wishing to participate in each procurement within the scope of the Bill. These matters will be subject to further debate, possibly later today, when the Committee considers the exclusions and debarment regime in the Bill. I am sure my noble friend Lord True will have more to say on that.
The purpose of Clause 104 in the Bill is, first, to ensure that authorities to which Section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 applies are not prevented by that section from complying with their duties under this Bill; and, secondly, to enable a Minister of the Crown or the Welsh Ministers to make regulations to disapply, when required, a duty under Section 17. The clause ensures that authorities covered by the 1988 Act can take advantage of domestic procurement policies that may be implemented during the life of the Bill.
Clause 104(1), which amends Section 17(11) of the Local Government Act 1988, directly achieves this. However, it amends Section 17 only to the extent necessary to ensure that the relevant authorities are not prevented by virtue of the section from complying with the Bill. It would not be appropriate to use the Bill as a vehicle to make further amendments to the 1988 Act, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy.
Amendment 535, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Knight and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Bennett, creates the concept of “good work”, relied upon by the other amendments in this group. In the light of my responses on substantive amendments, there is little I can usefully add on this amendment. I therefore respectfully ask that noble Lords do not pursue these amendments.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the response and to those who took part in this relatively short debate. The arguments were well made, and I think the Minister at the Dispatch Box, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, agrees with the basic premise. As ever with these things, I was not surprised but disappointed at the response.
My noble friend Lord Hendy made a really good case about the importance of punishing bad labour practice. Recalling P&O Ferries is important; these cases come along and it always ends up feeling like too little too late. This is an opportunity to act more proactively and actually put something into statute.
On the amendments in my name, I was grateful to hear about the UNISON report, as I was not aware of that. I was grateful to hear that the Labour Administration in Wales are getting on with something like this. It is good to hear, as ever, the insights from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on AI and algorithmic accountability and regulation. I will need to think about that. I was really pleased to hear the Minister say that she thought more needs to be done on that.
In closing, I offer this up to the Minister: before we come to Report, is it worth having a chat? I listened carefully to what she said about the impact on SMEs from the way we frame some of this. If she is interested in having a meeting to discuss how we can achieve something on the good work agenda in this Bill, probably including David Davis, because I think he is minded to table similar amendments when it goes to the other place, we would be delighted to do that. Perhaps, with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, tagging along too, we can start to sketch out what we might be able to do on algorithmic regulation in this Bill or in future legislation. On that basis, I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Noakes
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I will move Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley and speak to Amendments 61, 63 and 64 in his name. As on our previous Committee day, at his request I am handling his amendments this week.
Amendment 60 is one of those favourite Committee amendments that changes “may” to “must”. No Committee can ever get through without at least one of them; there will be some others, I think. The amendment would change “may” to “must” in Clause 12(1) so that it would require the Government to produce a national procurement policy statement. Although it is clearly the Government’s intention to publish a statement, the current wording of Clause 12 leaves it open to them not to do so. That is a serious omission, especially given the introduction of covered procurement, which we will debate on Report. The NPPS will be the only way to ensure that all public procurement is conducted in accordance with the principles and objectives set out in it.
Amendments 63 and 64 would require that the consultation is based on a draft statement. The present drafting would allow a consultation without the benefit of seeing what the Government intended the statement to say. I do not think this is an acceptable or effective consultation process. It makes something of a mockery of consultation, particularly for the first NPPS. I note that Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also includes proper consultation on a draft.
The other amendment in my noble friend’s name is Amendment 61. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has added her name to it, and I understand that she will also speak to it. That is probably just as well, because I am not much in favour of lists such as the one here, even when they are non-inclusive. The various other amendments in this group show that noble Lords are attracted to attaching other pet causes to the list. I should say, though, that my noble friend Lord Lansley believes that we must ensure that the existing statutory obligations on the environment and social value are included in the priorities in order to reaffirm Parliament’s will, and he has added innovation and competitiveness in UK industry because they are stated Treasury priorities, as set out in the Spring Statement. Lastly, he included
“the minimisation of fraud, corruption, waste or the abuse of public money”,
which should be underlying values in relation to public procurement. He believes that these items should be specifically referenced in the Bill.
I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, I rise to introduce Amendments 65 and 546.
This is an important group of amendments. Although contracting authorities may never bother to read a Bill that we have debated for hours, all of them must have regard to the NPPS, so what is in that document is really important. The amendments in this group look at two particular areas. One is what is put in the Bill about the strategic priorities. The second is the process for parliamentary scrutiny to bring that into being.
Amendments 65 and 546, in my name and the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington, Lady Verma and Lady Young of Old Scone, so they are cross-party amendments, are intended to tease out the strategic priorities that the Government allude to in the opening sentence of the NPPS, as stated in the Bill, because it does not put anything in the Bill.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Before I speak to Amendment 66, I express my wholehearted support for the amendments so well introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. Of course, this is a place where we see the colours of the Government, because this is how they spend their money. So, this is not about idle words—it is about hard cash and what actually happens on the ground.
Having worked in local government on a London council, I know the power of procurement—it is absolutely massive. The amendment that I am introducing—I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is supporting it—is about how we can ensure the health and sustainability of food and catering services. That priority appears to be currently missing across the NPPS. My amendment sets out in subsection (3A) a range of topics that must be covered in relation to food, including the requirement to set targets on those matters. I know that the targets are a matter for the NPPS, but I have specified a minimum target, which has come from the national food strategy.
In common with other noble Lords, I see this amendment as addressing a key strategic priority, which is both nationally and locally important: that high-priority, cross-cutting topics such as sustainability and the health of our food system must be front and centre in legislation, rather than being left to a policy statement that could be changed unilaterally when we get a change of Government. While I fully accept that you have to have flexibility and be able to change, this argument applies to the technical detail and second- order priorities. It seems reasonable to assume that it is unlikely that considerations such as local and environmentally sustainable sourcing, servings and diets, or the management of resource inputs and waste outputs, will cease to be key national or local priorities, even in the medium to long term. Even were we to fully address them, we would wish to be watchful and continue to prioritise them to ensure that they remain addressed.
I have been pleased to see that the Government agree with me on the importance of this issue, hence the recent public commitment in the government food strategy to consult on extending the government buying standards for food and catering services across the whole of the public sector and the accompanying Defra consultation on how we are going to do it. The government food strategy also agrees that public sector food should be healthier, more sustainable and provided by a range of local suppliers, which will improve accountability and inform future policy changes. It also commits us to requiring public organisations to report on the food that they buy, where they serve it and what they waste. I think that this amendment is wholly uncontroversial. It simply captures the key topics that make up the buying standards.
My amendment sets one minimum target on the face of the Bill in relation to local and sustainable sourcing. The government food strategy has an aspirational target that 50% of food by value should be sustainable or local, but my assumption in setting a target of 30%, rising to 50%, is that the strategy’s target was not intended to mean that 50% of food should be local but unsustainable, with the other 50% being wholly sustainable but from miles away. I have therefore anticipated a degree of overlap from the start, until, over time, both sides meet the 50% criteria.
I do not think that there are any sensible grounds to reject this amendment on the basis that procurement authorities are wholly on top of this agenda and that a statutory footing for food and catering standards, however flexible, is therefore unnecessary. Rather, a considerable amount more might be done to strengthen the oversight of food and catering.
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee highlighted a number of issues in its report last year. Monitoring appeared to be almost absent, no penalties were ever applied where standards were visibly not adhered to and an independent survey covered in the Select Committee report found that 60% of secondary schools were not even following the school food standards. Another report found that half of hospitals were not complying with the government buying standards—you can see why that happens when they get paid by Coca-Cola to keep a machine in their lobby, which then becomes part of a hospital’s budget.
Its conclusion was that we do not have a clear picture of how frequently and effectively buying standards are being followed by the public bodies that are mandated to follow the standards. It means that food supply chains cannot normalise around one set of baseline standards. If we put a framework for the food aspects of the NPPS on a statutory footing, it will flow down through all areas of the contracts.
Before leaving this subsection, I draw noble Lords’ attention to what has happened in one particular place in the UK—Preston. Between 2010 and 2016, the council estimated that it lost roughly 60p in every £1 from central government payments. Preston City Council identified the biggest organisations in the city—council, university, police and housing associations—and worked out that they had a combined annual spend of £750 million. In 2012-13, only £1 of every £20 stayed in the local economy. It was reworked so that, by 2017, the six local public bodies spent £38 million in Preston itself and £292 million in the area. It used the social value Act, a 2013 law that requires people who commission public services to think about how they can ensure wider social, economic and environmental gain. Local food obviously creates local jobs in horticulture, which is also set out in the Government’s response to the National Food Strategy. A target on local spend will only help to make this really work.
Proposed new subsection (3B) takes the recommendation of an updated reference diet for the nation, in line with our health and sustainability goals. As Henry Dimbleby explained in the food strategy, this diet, which he recommended to be published by the FSA working with the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities, Defra and a range of other consultees, would create a single reference point and a consistent approach across government policies. The NFS observed that
“Dietary guidance in the UK is based on evidence of the health effects of individual nutrients and foods rather than overall diet”.
Therefore, it is not consistent. It continues:
“Our current Eatwell guide, the closest we have to a reference diet, does not take sustainability into account”—
at all. The absence of mandatory dietary guidance for public procurement has been widely cited as one of the reasons—in fact, probably the main reason—for the poor quality of food on offer in public settings. Creating a legal obligation for food procured by the public sector will not only avoid inconsistencies—as in an “eat as I say, not as I do” approach—but allow the Government to lead by example.
The point of all this is that it empowers local communities and farmers, creates jobs and makes children more interested in food. All the way through, it will help to change the health of our nation and put us on a much better footing. If this diet is created in the future, the Minister of the Crown who produces the NPPS would be obliged to have regard to it, which does not tie the Government’s hands or force them to carry out work they do not want to. It merely provides for joined-up governance.
With those remarks, I reiterate my belief that this amendment is completely uncontroversial and ought to meet the Government’s support. I commend it to the Minister and look forward to hearing their views.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I have already spoken to the positive case for the inclusion of climate and nature in the Bill. Amendments 65 and 546, to which I have added my name, would offer the particular benefit of providing additional stability or, if noble Lords wish, discouraging repeated tinkering through the frequent updates of the national procurement policy statement by putting the essentials of the NPPS in the Bill.
I make one other point, which relates to the contrast between the Green Paper and the language on the national procurement policy statement. The Green Paper said, strongly and correctly, that
“money spent through public procurement will be used to deliver government priorities through projects and programmes that generate economic growth, help our communities recover from the COVID-19 pandemic and tackle climate change.”
These have all been mentioned already by noble Lords. Elsewhere,
“government spending must be leveraged to play its part in the UK’s economic recovery, opening up public contracts to more small businesses and social enterprises to innovate in public service delivery, and meeting our net-zero carbon target by 2050.”
The eventual text of the current non-statutory NPPS is perhaps a little more modest in its application: it only requires contracting authorities to have regard to considering contributing to the UK’s climate target—but not to its interim carbon budgets or climate adaptation—and to considering identifying opportunities to enhance biodiversity. There are no specific environmental targets. With such a large annual spend on public procurement, this may be a missed opportunity for the Government to strengthen these provisions by instead requiring contracting authorities to have regard to actively contributing to specific climate and nature targets, rather than just considering contributing to them.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 75A in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for putting their names to this amendment.
This amendment is consistent with the remarks I have already made in Committee: that there should be specific reference to “social value” as being part of public benefit in order to provide clarity to public bodies, companies and social enterprises; and that social value should be embedded in the procurement process through the appropriate guidance and reporting requirements for public bodies, which this amendment concerns.
This new clause would be added to the Bill mandating the Government to provide “guidance” to the public sector about “how to implement social value”. The Committee is aware that this is of great concern, given that the public policy—the legislative framework—is there for social value, and yet there is no mention of it in the Bill and no mention of how it might be implemented or how it might work with the procurement regime. I hope that we can resolve this matter between now and Report.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 71 in this group, which is a simple probing amendment seeking to understand why the Bill exempts contracting authorities from having regard to the national procurement policy statement for contracts involving frameworks or dynamic markets. I can find no explanation, in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes or elsewhere, why such arrangements should not be covered by the terms of the national policy statement, but perhaps the Minister will be able to give a simple answer.
A large number of construction-related public projects will be procured through frameworks and dynamic market contracts. A framework is an agreement with suppliers to establish terms governing contracts that may be awarded during the life of the agreement. The Government themselves acknowledge in the Cabinet Office’s Construction Playbook that framework agreements, as a means of longer-term strategic collaboration in construction, can provide the best medium through which procurement and contracting can deliver transformational improvements.
Last December, the Cabinet Office also published Constructing the Gold Standard: An Independent Review of Public Sector Construction Frameworks, based on an independent and objective review commissioned from Professor David Mosey of King’s College London. To quote the then Cabinet Office Minister:
“This review recognises the potential of frameworks as a powerful engine-room for implementing Construction Playbook policies that include strategic planning, integrated teams, continuous improvement and the delivery of better, safer, faster and greener project outcomes.”
The review states that the Civil Engineering Contractors Association
“identifies over 1,660 public sector construction frameworks procured between 2015 and 2019 with an aggregate value of up to £220 billion.”
Given that the national procurement policy statement will seek to define strategic priorities and set the parameters for better public procurement in line, I hope, with the gold standard prescribed by the review, why should contracting authorities be exempt from having regard to it in agreeing the terms of frameworks?
A similar question arises in relation to dynamic markets. At Second Reading, the Minister stated:
“The new concept of dynamic markets … is intended to provide greater opportunity for SMEs to join and win work in the course of a contracting period.”—[Official Report, 25/5/22; col. 929.]
Again, it is not clear to me why the terms of the national procurement policy statement should not also apply to dynamic markets—although I am quite prepared to believe that I may be missing something.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have several amendments in this group: Amendments 69, 70, 76 and 79. It was interesting to hear the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about hospital food. She may not know that I am president of the Hospital Caterers Association. I must come to its rescue: it does a fantastic job, given the budget it is given. What she may not know is that in the Health and Care Act there is a section which mandates Ministers to set standards for hospital food, following the hospital food review. The issue will be whether there is enough resource with which to fund the standards that Ministers will set. As part of this Bill, the noble Baroness might like to look at amending the Health and Care Act to ensure that there is consistency of approach, because she has made a very important point indeed.
We are continuing this debate about the relationship between the Bill and sustainability and environmental outcomes, and the Minister has been responding. His first response was at Second Reading, when he accepted that the Bill does not include any specific provisions on the target to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, but he went on to say that contracting authorities will be required to have regard to national and local priorities, as set out in the national procurement policy statement.
The problem is that the existing national procurement policy statement, published in June last year, is full of ambiguity. If I were a procurement director, I would find it very difficult to find my way through all these objectives, some of which are in a tension with each other. I think the Minister’s response will be, “Ah, but that’s the flexibility we want to give to public bodies to make their decisions themselves”. The problem is that in translating that you still come back to the point that the Government are not, at the end of the day, prepared to use procurement sufficiently to ensure the implementation of their sustainability and environmental policies.
Paragraph 10 of the national procurement policy statement sets out:
“Contracting authorities should have regard to the following national priorities in exercising their functions relating to procurement. The national priorities relate to social value; commercial and procurement delivery; and skills and capability for procurement.”
Additionally:
“All contracting authorities should consider the following national priority outcomes alongside any additional local priorities in their procurement activities: creating new businesses, new jobs and new skills; tackling climate change and reducing waste, and improving supplier diversity, innovation and resilience.”
Paragraph 11states:
“Achieving value for money in public procurement remains focused on securing from contractors the best mix of quality and effectiveness to deliver the requirements of the contract, for the least outlay over the period of use of the goods or services bought. But the Government wants to send a clear message that commercial and procurement teams across the public sector do not have to select the lowest price bid, and that in setting the procurement strategy, drafting the contract terms and evaluating tenders they can and should take a broad view of value or money that includes the improvement of social welfare or wellbeing, referred to in HM Treasury’s Green Book as social value.”
Paragraph 12 states that the award criteria can be incorporated
“for comparing final bids and scoring their relative quality, to encourage ways of working and operational delivery that achieve social, economic and environmental benefits”.
This includes tackling climate change and reducing waste; contributing to the UK Government’s legally binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050; reducing waste, improving resource efficiency and contributing to the move towards a circular economy; and identifying and prioritising opportunities in sustainable procurement to deliver additional environmental benefits, for example enhanced biodiversity, through the delivery of the contract.
Paragraph 13 makes it clear:
“Public procurement should be leveraged to support priority national and local outcomes for the public benefit. This Statement sets out the national priorities that all contracting authorities should have regard to in their procurement where it is relevant to the subject matter of the contract and it is proportionate to do so”.
But here is the rub. Paragraph 15 states:
“Taking additional social value benefits into account effectively is a balance with delivery of the core purpose of the contract. Contracting authorities should ensure that they do not ‘gold-plate’ contracts with additional requirements which could be met more easily and for better value outside of the contract compliance process, particularly where legislation has already determined that such provisions do not apply, for example by imposing requirements in the Equality Act 2010 on the private sector that are only meant to apply to the public sector”.
Paragraph 14 says:
“There should be a clear link from the development of strategies and business cases for programmes and projects through to procurement specifications and the assessment of quality when awarding contracts. This is in line with Green Book guidance which makes it clear that the procurement specification should come from the strategic and economic dimensions of a project’s business case, and that commercial experts should be involved in the development of the business case from the start”.
The question I would ask is this: if you were a finance director or a procurement director in the public sector, what would you make of it? One has to see this in the context of having been through a decade—in fact, longer than a decade—of austerity where short-term fixes are much more common than longer-term sustainability investments.
I turn to the NHS, where I have some experience, and where I could certainly point to some really good examples of sustainability policies. In theory the intent in the Bill, as I see it, is to place greater emphasis on wider value than lowest price. But what this ignores, certainly in the NHS context, is the financial and economic reality that exists on a day-by-day basis. In an environment where savings are demanded in-year and budgets set annually, the overpowering financial incentive is to achieve cost improvement programmes. These savings filter down through the NHS financial system and become a target for finance directors and procurement directors who generally report to the finance director. While I am sure that if we had some finance directors in front of us, they would say that they strive to focus on long-term value, this requires a less tangible and measurable saving than the fact that product A costs less than product B.
In an NHS environment that is financially driven, targeted and appraised for striving to deliver savings targets in-year, and where the most measurable saving is lowest price, it is clearly going to be challenging to move away from that. This experience is probably reflected across much of the public sector; indeed, other parts of the public sector would probably say that the NHS has had it easier. Those of us in the NHS would of course say, “That’s because we need more money”, but the fact is that if the NHS is finding it difficult, other sectors are going to find it very difficult indeed.
My amendments are simply aimed at seeing sustainable development principles incorporated within the national procurement policy statement and the Wales procurement policy statement. At the end of the day, there really is an issue here, is there not? Whatever procurement policy is set out, public authorities will have challenging decisions to make. My own view is that, because of the way in which this has been put together, and potential future national procurement policy statements, public bodies are going to be left with very ambiguous statements where they do not quite know what they are expected to do. The Minister says, “Ah, but that’s flexibility”. I say that it undermines the wider goals towards which our procurement policy should be driven.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I apologise; this is my first appearance on this Bill as I missed Second Reading. I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I have put my name to her Amendment 75A; I equally put my name to her Amendments 47A and 52A, which also go to the issues of social value and social enterprise.
I should note that I am a member of the APPG for Social Enterprise. Last year, I chaired an inquiry into the performance of social enterprise during the pandemic; we reported at Christmas last year. The outcome of that was to highlight the remarkable performance of social enterprise during the chronic conditions of the pandemic. However, it also highlighted how little understanding of social enterprise there was in government, particularly in Westminster but also in local government. We discovered that this was not as common Wales or Scotland, because social enterprise and social value are built into the fabric of their public procurement, which is so much better than what we have in England. I just wanted to make that point briefly. Amendment 75A is a means of addressing this issue and ensuring that local government is familiar with the role of social value and the purpose of social enterprise.
Before I sit down, I will just endorse and support Amendment 66 from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. I do a lot of work with the South West Food Hub on the absolutely critical need for the procurement of good, healthy, locally sourced food, so I give this amendment my solid support.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, public and parliamentary debate on the national procurement policy statement is a very important aspect of this Bill. So is the relationship between Clauses 11 and 12. The Minister will have noted the consensus view across this Committee that clear principles and objectives should be included in the Bill—that is, primarily in Clause 11. We still hope that we will return on Report with appropriate language to enshrine
“in law the principles of public procurement”;
I have taken that from paragraph 27 of the Government’s response to the Transforming Public Procurement consultation, which they now seem to have forgotten. That document also states that 92% of those consulted were in favour of the proposed legal principles; it is therefore unacceptable that they have disappeared from the Bill as presented to this House. I cannot understand why the Government have abandoned their response, having undertaken an extensive consultation of that nature.
At present, the Bill leaves articulation of the principles of public procurement almost entirely to the Minister in post at the time, with the completed document to be laid before Parliament and subject to the negative procedure if time is found within the 40-day period to debate it. That is clearly inadequate. It stems from a resistance to parliamentary scrutiny and accountability that has been characteristic of the Johnson Government and, in particular, of Jacob Rees-Mogg in his various ministerial roles. However, it is not compatible with the principles of parliamentary sovereignty or the conventions of our unwritten constitution. I will do the Minister the compliment of assuming that he has always been unhappy with this approach to executive sovereignty and will be happier if the next Prime Minister returns to proper constitutional practice.
I have Amendment 75 in this large group, which seeks to ensure that a review of compliance with the national procurement policy statement takes place within three years, noting in particular how far it has in practice protected and promoted the interests of small suppliers, social enterprises and voluntary organisations in that period—a matter that concerns noble Lords across all parties in this Committee. I support the intentions of many of the other amendments in this group, from the insistence of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that such a policy statement must be published on a regular basis to those that insist that it should cover a specific range of issues including social objectives, concern for the environment and measures to combat climate change.
Many of us would consider including climate change and sustainable development concerns as particularly important when some candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party are playing to climate change deniers on their party’s right. The Minister’s dogged resistance to putting any closer definition of the principles and objectives in the Bill makes the quality and regularity of this statement all the more important.
Good government requires a degree of continuity, not rapid switches of emphasis and guidance every time Ministers or Prime Ministers change. I remind the Minister that under our single-party Conservative Government since 2015 we are now about to embark on the fourth Prime Minister—four Prime Ministers in seven years under the same party. Some major departments of state are now on their eighth or ninth Minister. That is not continuity. Continuity and a degree of consensus are what contractors to government want, and that is more likely to emerge from cross-party debate in Parliament informed by wider public attention and contributions from stakeholders in the sector. That would promote greater stability and continuity both when Governments are in power for extended periods and when Governments change. Stability and a degree of continuity are what contractors want to see in their relations with government.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for my late arrival. I will be brief. Amendment 65 in my name and the consequential Amendment 546 seek to put more detail in the Bill in relation to the national procurement policy statement. I shall not rehearse all the arguments that have been made but simply say that the issues highlighted by Amendment 65 are enduring and long-term goals of government. There is a need to see that they are continuously integrated into government policy-making, as the noble Lord who spoke before me just highlighted. We need to have clarity if we are going to make transitions happen in our economy that make it fit for the future. It is entirely appropriate that the Bill should set out specific guidance for the policy statement on these long-term, transitional issues. All procuring parties need to have clarity of purpose set out for them with no doubt. I agree that the continued resistance to this signals something that we should be very concerned about, because it indicates a degree of deviation from accepted policy in other parts of the Government and across all parties. We would like to see something in the Bill and would very much welcome discussions with the Minister on this topic as there is a strong degree of consensus on this issue.
I also strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which would make it a requirement that the statement be published rather than there being merely a power. It seems entirely correct that that should be changed to make it a duty. I am also in favour of Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Part of the reason I was late is that I was at a meeting discussing a response to the Government’s food strategy. There are some very important things in that strategy. We need levers with which they can be delivered. You cannot simply make policy statements and expect things to happen. If the Government are seeking greater reliance on British-grown, healthy, nutritious food, the procurement process is the way to do that, and we must see more clarity on that in the Bill. I fully support that amendment.
I also support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We as a Parliament should be more included in the process through which the policy statement is derived, and I fully support her amendment that seek to improve the process by which we scrutinise and agree the statement.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I have waited until the latter stages of this debate before intervening, for the simple reason that my Amendment 78A deals with totally different subjects from everything else that has been debated. I overwhelmingly agree with the comments made in the general debate, but I will not follow them through at this point.
I will speak briefly to my Amendment 78A, which is included in this rather diverse group. It relates to what I might call the “Welsh clause”—Clause 13. I was glad to hear the comments of the noble Earl a moment ago on the way that policy is being unfolded in Wales. That point has arisen on a number of occasions, in various debates.
We have already heard from the Minister that there has been close co-operation between the Welsh and UK Governments in reaching an agreed approach and wording, reflected in this Bill. That being so, it is surely of fundamental importance that this clause is not distorted or undermined by later legislative steps taken by this or any future UK Government. This amendment, if passed, would require agreement by Senedd Cymru to any proposed changes to this section. That is not an unreasonable proposition, given that the clause relates solely to Wales and is itself predicated on an approach of good will and co-operation. All that is needed by this amendment is a straight majority of Senedd Members present and voting.
In the spirit of co-operation in which Senedd Cymru, the Labour Government and Plaid Cymru have approached this matter, I invite the Minister to accept this amendment.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I agree with him, but I will take us back to the issues that have mostly been covered in this group. There are six amendments to which I have attached my name and I am sure the Committee will be relieved to know that I am not going to speak to them all.
I will speak chiefly to Amendment 61 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to which I have attached my name. It was very kindly introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, although it was not backed by her. I will now attempt to present the argument in its favour. I stress that the intellectual work on this has been done very much by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, but, when I saw the amendment, I thought it was so important that it needed to be picked up.
The purpose of this amendment is linked to the description of the national procurement policy statement in Clause 12, which is
“setting out the Government’s strategic priorities in relation to procurement.”
Wrestling with all the government amendments and the complexity of this Bill has been challenging for the small Green group, but I understand that there are no government amendments to change “procurement” in Clause 12(1) to the technical term “covered procurement”. It is the Government’s intention that their strategic priorities should apply to all public procurement, including below-threshold procurement, light-touch procurement, international agreement procurement, and defence and security contracts.
As noble Lords have been talking about a lot in this group, the first part of this clause is the achievement of targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Environment Act 2021. I posit that there are good reasons to put statutory obligations such as these in a list of strategic priorities; if they are not included, they are effectively deprioritised, which would be potentially damaging to the achievement of targets that have been mandated by Parliament, with very strong cross-party support. To pick up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, these are things that have been agreed but need to be delivered on.
On that point about delivery, I refer to the report two weeks ago from the Committee on Climate Change. In what has to be called the strongest of language, it spoke about “major policy failures” and “scant evidence of delivery”. Through this procurement, we need to see this urgent delivery.
In introducing this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, suggested that this was a list of pet clauses, but the first elements here, on the climate targets and the Environment Act, are clearly not pet clauses. We have covered proposed new paragraph (b) about the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 at length, so I will not go back to that territory. I admit that proposed new paragraph (c) on innovation and competitiveness is not the wording I would have chosen and might perhaps fit in that category, but there is an important fourth point here with proposed new paragraph (d) on
“the minimisation of fraud, corruption, waste or the abuse of public money”.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, this has become a fascinating discussion, particularly when linked to the previous group on Clause 11, as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said. I rise to support what I think is the most important amendment in this group: Amendment 60, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. If the wording is “may” rather than “must”, all the subsequent amendments are irrelevant, because the Government do not have to produce a national procurement policy statement.
We need to press the Government further on the framework, beyond the four issues in Clause 11, that needs to be laid down in this statement because very few people, if any—particularly not the Minister—have discussed this from the perspective of business and those who will be making significant investments in contracts to try to ensure that public value is delivered. They take signals over the medium to long term about where to invest. These signals are really important in terms of business planning and those businesses being able to make long-term commitments to the public sector.
Both Ministers keep coming back to saying that things are in different parts of different legislation in different parts of government. We have been told that the whole purpose of this Bill is to make public procurement simple, particularly for small to medium-sized enterprises. I do not know many small to medium-sized enterprises that have a department that can wade through different public sector Bills to work out what the signals are and what the company needs to do to make secure, good bids for public sector procurement. If the Government are minded not to amend Clause 11, they have to write a very detailed outframe of the national procurement policy statement to make those signals so business can make the right decisions—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
Does the noble Lord accept that you need to do that as much for procurement directors as for the businesses? With his experience of the NHS, how does he analyse what the current procurement statement actually means? I think it is very confusing.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I particularly did not use the prism of public sector procurement professions, because I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, had already made the case for the NHS, and others had made it for different government departments and professionals. I was trying to point out that there is a different aspect to this. This is about helping business by making it simpler for it to get involved in procurement, particularly small to medium-sized enterprises. That is the Government’s desired aim. A lack of detail in Clause 11, along with the fact that the national procurement strategy statement may not be done, makes that really difficult for business.
I come back to the view that everything here helps not just procurement professionals and government but businesses, particularly small to medium-sized enterprises, to be successful. It is really important that the Bill contains a co-ordinated and codified approach to the Government’s strategy on public sector procurement, and that it is not left to myriad different policies and Bills, for the sake of business being able to negotiate and navigate what is at the moment the very complicated field of public sector procurement. If the Government do not take up many of the amendments about the environment, food and social value, I assure the Committee that their aim to simplify public sector procurement, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, will not happen.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I just wanted to add something to my amendment; I thank Members of the Committee for their support. I have very little time for Brexit, as probably everybody knows, but when the French attempted to do this, they were stopped under EU rules as it was to do with restrictive trading. Now that we are out of the EU, we have a chance to produce a fantastic procurement Bill that favours small and medium-sized enterprises, local procurement, local health and local sustainability. If we do not take that chance, frankly we will have missed one of the great opportunities that Brexit gave us.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I wish the noble Lord, Lord True, well. I hope that he feels better than he did. I will speak to Amendment 68 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hayman, and Amendment 80 in our names and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I recognise that there has been a plethora of really good amendments that we support; it would be impossible to go through everybody’s amendments, but I am particularly pleased to see those in the names of my noble friends Lady Thornton and Lord Hunt.
I praise the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, again for the brilliance of her “may”s to “must”s and “must”s to “may”s. I feel for her, because I do that sort of thing all the time. The change of one word is astonishingly important. I recognise how difficult it was for her to move the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which changes “may” to “must”, when all of her amendments to later parts of the Bill change “must” to “may”. I can see the split in the Conservatives between those who wish to see greater market involvement, the Minister in the middle with his socialist bent, and the others seeking to restrict the role of the state.
Our amendments, particularly Amendment 68, which builds on Amendment 74 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, are about the process, which is particularly important. But first, to pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, Amendment 60 from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is crucial, as otherwise the rest of the amendments are pointless. We will have the most brilliant national procurement policy statement that is not published and is not mandatory. I agree with all the points and comments that have been made about environmental principles, the very important points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, about food, what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said about Wales, and all the different things that everyone has mentioned, but the Government are not required to publish the statement.
The first question the Minister needs to answer is: what has happened since June 2021, when the Government published the national procurement policy statement that can be found on their website and the accompanying note that says they will legislate to ensure that when people procure, they must have regard to the statement? The Government stated that they would provide a legislative vehicle that would ensure that the national procurement policy statement was adhered to by business, or whoever the contracting authorities are. Yet, in the Bill, there is a legislative vehicle of sorts, but it is nowhere near what was envisaged in June 2021. Why has BEIS or the Cabinet Office changed its mind between what was going to be required in June 2021 and what is now in this legislation? I am pleased that there is a legislative vehicle, but the changing of “may” to “must” by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely fundamental and crucial, because it will require all these other things that we have discussed over the past hour—so ably and with great effect, I think—to be in the Bill.
I just say this, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, will say that it is a mixture of Lord Coaker the socialist, other liberals, Greens and goodness knows who else—some wet people on his own side and so on. He will say it is completely and utterly ridiculous and dismiss it. However, I am a bit of an anorak and I look at what the Government publish and what you can find if you look on the internet and google things. The Government very helpfully provide all sorts of information. The letter of 7 June that the noble Lord, Lord True, had from the Constitution Committee was published; helpfully, so was his response of 27 June. The serious point that I make is that all the points that have been made in Committee about changing “may” to “must” and the mandatory requirement that many of us think is essential are supported by the Constitution Committee. The Minister will know that, because he was written to on 7 June by its chair, my noble friend Lady Drake.
I will not read the whole of the letter, just the final paragraph:
“The Committee would be grateful for clarification as to why the statement of priorities is not mandatory, given that it is considered important enough to require consultation and Parliamentary approval. Further information you can provide as to the justification for this approach would be welcome.”
In other words, the cross-party Select Committee is saying to the Government that they have got it wrong. In Clause 12(1), it should not be
“A Minister of the Crown may publish a statement”;
it should be that a Minister of the Crown “must” publish a statement. The Select Committee agrees with the amendment that has been tabled, and so I think do a large number of this Committee. The Minister, however, has already made his mind up because, on 27 June, he wrote back to say that the Government do not agree. For the benefit of the Committee, it is important for us to understand why the Minister thinks that the movers of these amendments, such as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and those of us who support them are wrong and why he wrote the letter back on 27 June to the Select Committee chair, my noble friend Lady Drake, explaining why she was wrong. I think that is really important.
Lord True (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. This has been an extremely interesting and thought-provoking debate, and I thank noble Lords for it.
There have been various strands in this debate, one of which is the last one alluded to by the noble Lord. There appears to be a suspicion in some minds about whether this lies in the may/must thing and whether there will be a national procurement policy statement. We have published a draft statement, which I will come back to later in my speech. I will not read any of it out, because the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was kind enough to read out some of it—although I do not think that he quoted this specific bit—about
“contributing to the UK Government’s legally-binding target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050”.
I know that noble Lords are saying, “Oh well, yes, but, et cetera”—
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The Minister referred to that document as a “draft statement”. My understanding is that it is a non-statutory document, which is something slightly different. Is it a draft of what we are going to get later this year?
Lord True (Con)
This document was produced at one stage of the process of working towards this procurement legislation to illustrate what the national policy statement might look like. I will come on to the question of consultation because that was a second theme and ask in the debate. It was clear in the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, about how Parliament will be involved in the process and the hope that Parliament will be able to influence the process in an effective way. I have heard that call and will reflect on it.
The third strand takes us back to where we were before. Noble Lords are seeking to put in primary legislation constraints on what a procurement strategy might and should contain. Having been taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, in the debate on the previous group about being diffident about amendments that say “must have regard to”, all the amendments in this group, bar those that are applying the thing, are “must” amendments. They are a tighter straitjacket on the potential procurement statement than what we had before in terms of what is proposed to go into primary legislation, so I am instinctively less likely to be attracted to them.
For the reasons that we have debated at length—that there is a difference between insight and knowledge, that some people want to tie a lot down in primary legislation and that the Government are arguing for flexibility—we sadly cannot accept any of the amendments in this group. Amendment 60, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley—the may/must amendment—would require the Government to publish a national policy procurement strategy. We have shown, in earnest, what we might move towards, and we have drafted Clause 12.
However, any procurement policy should be aligned with wider government objectives and, as such, the publication of an NPPS is a decision based on the strategic policy priorities relevant to the Government at that time. Our feeling is that we should not seek to bind a future Government—that may be of a very different complexion to ours—to publish a specific document. Therefore, we think that changing the drafting of Clause 12 from “may” to “must” and mandating the statement in this manner would not be appropriate. However, I have listened carefully to what has been said, and it goes into the box of satisfying Parliament that it will have an opportunity to have influence because we are a parliamentary democracy, and Parliament should have influence. That is a fundamental faith that I hope is shared by all of us who have the honour of being Members of Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, raised a point about statutory versus non-statutory. I believe that I said—but somebody behind me said that perhaps I did not—that it was not necessarily statutory but the paving, if you like, was included in statute. The current NPPS is non-statutory. If I gave the opposite impression, that was not my intention, but obviously we are talking about the future here. It is there to show what a statutory NPPS might look like in the eyes of the Government. I hope that I have clarified that.
Similarly, Amendment 546, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Worthington, Lady Young and Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Verma, provides for Clause 12 to be brought into force immediately upon the Act being passed. Again, this amendment seeks to ensure that, in one sense, the things that people want to happen will happen quickly. I hear strongly what my noble friend says about small businesses and the need to reach out and help innovators and the creatives and, on the other hand, to get an NPPS before the public and into operation.
As my noble friend Lady Verma and others will know, it is currently envisaged that there should be a period of six months after the Act is passed before it comes into force, which will allow for consideration and discussion, and for training and learning about implementation. In that light, there are certain difficulties in the proposal to bring the NPPS in on the very first day. I can assure her that the contracting authorities will be required to have regard to the NPPS and embed it in their own organisations. If it is mandated to be on the day the Act is passed, the process may not work as we currently envisage it, but I have heard what has been said in the Committee about the concerns people have on the process and will take that away to colleagues. At the passing of the Act—the point mandated in this amendment—the new regime would be yet to be fully implemented, and we are allowing this period for familiarisation.
The other strand in the debate, as I have alluded to, goes back to our previous group on setting specified strategic priorities in primary legislation. The range of topics we have heard has been very wide—the Government profoundly agree on many of them—and some were very detailed. I know of the passion of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, on food matters and am frankly horrified to hear that Coca-Cola is paying for its product. You would have to pay me to have a tin of Coca-Cola, I can tell you. However, the set of details in the proposal could potentially be quite onerous, and the noble Baroness’s objectives are secured or sought in other legislation and activities. I will come back to this later in my remarks.
The range of amendments in this group shows that there are many different priorities. It is precisely for that reason that we believe the contracting authorities should have a range of flexibility and that some of these matters are potentially better detailed in the NPPS than in primary legislation. But I understand why, through these amendments, noble Lords are trying to express their concern on the matters that they wish to have put in. For example, Amendments 61, 65, 69, 70, 70A and 79, in the names of a number of noble Lords, refer to the climate change proposals and net zero. As I have said, these are in the current non-statutory document. While I recognise the importance of this, it is absolutely correct in our view that public procurement needs to be focused on achieving value for money.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, read out parts of the current draft and said that there is a dichotomy and a balance here. Yes, we admit that there is a dichotomy and a balance to be reached but we maintain that it would not be appropriate to include wider policy objectives in primary legislation. Each procurement is different and, as I have said before, what is appropriate for a large one is not necessarily appropriate for a small one. It is always important that policy priorities are included in individual procurements only where they are relevant to the subject of the contract, in our submission. That is to avoid making procurements unduly complex and difficult, particularly for smaller or new entrants and innovators, to comply with.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I have just one more question. It is about periodicity. From the point of view of a contractor, it would be unwelcome to have too frequent changes in the public policy statement or too long periods in which the statement is not revisited. If I were a contractor, I would want to know when a new statement might be coming.
We have a relatively strong convention that strategic reviews of foreign policy and defence take place every two to four years or at the beginning of each Parliament. Would the Minister consider whether there needs to be something in the Bill to prevent new Ministers, when they come into their department, nine months after their predecessor took office, having their statement instead, which would be quite chaotic; or a Minister who had been there for seven years deciding that he did not want to have anything to do with it? Some encouragement for a regular period of ministerial statements might be a positive aspect for the Bill.
Lord True (Con)
As so often, the noble Lord makes an important point. I was charmed by one aspect of his arguments on continuity, when he complained that the Conservative Party kept changing Prime Ministers. I thought he was one of the main cheerleaders for a change in Prime Minister, so he cannot, in the immortal phrase, have his cake and eat it.
There is a duty in the Bill as drafted for a Minister of the Crown to keep the national procurement policy statement under review. It is not in the Bill—noble Lords have not been particularly receptive to the argument I put forward, although the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has shown his eagerness to get his hands on the levers of power and use them—but the Government’s intention, with great generosity, is that it should be possible for a review of the NPPS to be undertaken in each Parliament. If one made a period of eight years or whatever statutory, then a new or different Government coming in would have to task primary legislation to make that change. That is the kind of structure we have been trying to operate in. Part of the reason the Bill has been framed in the way it has is to leave flexibilities, some of which your Lordships do not like and some of which at least one of your Lordships does.
I turn to Amendment—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The Government have put some objectives into legislation, such as the climate change targets. What we are saying is, for goodness’ sake, where that happens, link this Bill to the other pieces of legislation. Surely it all fits together then.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I remember well when we were debating the then Climate Change Bill how important it was to include a list of conditions that needed to be taken into account when setting the climate change budgets, including economic competitiveness and all sorts of other things. All we are asking for here is to have a reciprocating set of policies to ensure that the same things happen the other way around. I do not mean to be provocative, but there is a purpose for having a Government, and it sometimes feels as if the people in government do not really want to be there. If you are in government, you have levers, so use them.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
On a serious note, I add the example of pension schemes. The Government have laid a series of responsibilities on pension schemes to have regard to matters such as climate targets. The Government have accepted the principle of doing it this way and the Minister seems to be ignoring that.
Lord True (Con)
In the real world, we are dealing with a Bill which relates to contracting authorities. The counterparties to contracting authorities are would-be suppliers. The more one lays a duty on contracting authorities to do something, the more a small business which is seeking to enter the procurement process will have to come forward with pages and pages of compliance documents. Noble Lords may think that is not the case. On a personal note, my wife, who is far greater than me, runs a small business. When she started, the compliance requirements were about an inch thick, but now they are much thicker. The danger is always that, in the desire to do good, one ends up creating barriers to entry.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Is it not the case that small and medium-sized enterprises are facing these requirements from other quarters? I am thinking of a meeting I attended of the northern Country Land and Business Association where we heard from the banking sector that no farmer would be able to apply for a loan unless they could show their carbon budget. We have talked about food, as one area. This is going to be the reality of doing business. These will be pre-existing things, so this would simply ensure they are taken into account.
Lord True (Con)
I hear that but I must say this: it is sometimes quite extraordinary to listen to noble Lords. You would not think that it was this Government who amended the Climate Change Act 2008 in 2019 to introduce the target of a reduction of at least 100% in the net UK carbon account by 2050. The other parties had every chance to do that but did absolutely nothing. I am then lectured in this way about the Government not putting in the small print of this particular piece of legislation a target for which, to be fair, this Government legislated and, frankly, this Prime Minister pushed strongly. Procurement Policy Note 06/21 already sets out how to take account of suppliers’ net-zero carbon reduction plans in the procurement of major government contracts. Included as a selection criterion is a requirement for bidding suppliers to provide a carbon reduction confirming their commitment to achieving net zero in the UK by 2050. It is there in that procurement policy note.
Amendment 71 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would require contracting authorities to have regard to the NPPS in respect of contracts awarded from the framework and/or a dynamic market on every occasion. The NPPS applies to both the setting up of a dynamic market and the awarding of a framework agreement. Contracting authorities will therefore need to apply it when establishing conditions of membership that suppliers need to satisfy in order to participate in a dynamic market; when undertaking a competitive tendering procedure to award a framework; and in setting the contract terms and conditions that apply to the framework. We believe that this is sufficient for the purposes of ensuring that the policy priorities are fully reflected in government contracts, but I will look carefully at the noble Lord’s remarks.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
I thank the Minister for that answer and for getting to it at the third time of asking, by which point I was almost bursting with excitement as to what he was going to say. I am not entirely clear why the Bill seems to take frameworks and dynamic markets out altogether but I will study what the Minister has said and endeavour to understand. I thank him for getting there in the end.
Lord True (Con)
Well, I did try to get there but I had an intervention, then another intervention. It would be discourteous not to respond to—or be provoked by, as some may feel—the odd intervention. Is that not the give and take of debate, which is what our blessed Parliament is all about? If I have given the noble Lord incorrect advice, I will correct it, but what I have read out is the legal advice that I have been given.
Amendment 78A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, provides that a Minister of the Crown may not introduce a Bill in either House of Parliament to amend or omit Clause 13, which relates to the Wales procurement policy statement, unless, as the noble Lord explained, Senedd Cymru has resolved by a majority of those present in voting to approve it. This is an uncongenial part for the noble Lord: the effect of this amendment would be to fetter the power of this and any future Parliament. The Government therefore cannot accept this amendment. However, as I mentioned earlier—he was kind enough to allude to this—we respect the devolution settlement and the competence of Wales on this matter. I have placed that and the degree of co-operation we have with the Welsh Government on the record in Hansard. That due respect for the devolution settlement is something that the Government aspire to see continue in this case, but we cannot accept the lock that he requests in the amendment.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am grateful for and accept the integrity with which the Minister is putting that forward and the spirit in which he stated the difficulty that there would be with my amendment. None the less, he will be well aware that there are other forms of amendments that could be put forward, possibly on Report, to ensure that there is the necessary consultation and discussion before any changes in legislation take place. That form of words has appeared in other legislation. Could I invite him to consider that between now and Report? I think that that would be a good indication for those in Cardiff.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, obviously my right honourable friend will consider everything in his engagement with the Welsh Government. If the noble Lord wishes to bring forward an amendment, I will also consider and respond to it. By the way, I was not waving at my officials or my absolutely brilliant colleague; one of those wretched moths was just about to fly into my ear and prevent me hearing the noble Lord’s charming and persuasive words.
Further amendments cover compliance, reporting requirements and review. I know that this is an area that the Committee is interested in and will probe as the Bill goes forward. Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, provides for a compliance review within three years, with a particular focus on small businesses and social enterprises. I fully understand the importance of social enterprise. The noble Lord is not in his place any more but I myself created social enterprises when I was the leader of a local authority; I think that their contribution to our national life is immense.
I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to breaking down barriers for small businesses and new entrants in supply chains. We had a good debate on that on Monday; my noble friend, among others, made very strong points. Our position is that, although we agree that compliance in this respect is important, it would not be appropriate to legislate and place additional burdens on contracting authorities for this. Small businesses and other suppliers will continue to have access to the Public Procurement Review Service, which will form part of the procurement review unit, to raise any concerns that they have in respect of contracting authorities’ compliance with the Bill, including the duty to have regard to the NPPS. The Bill also provides the Minister with the power to investigate these cases. I am sure that this will provide small businesses with good recourse to challenge non-compliance with the NPPS but we have undertaken to give further consideration to and engagement on the interests of that group in relation to small businesses; I will add the noble Lord’s suggestion to that engagement.
Finally, we return to the question of social value, which was addressed in the previous group. Amendment 75A would require the Secretary of State to provide guidance to contracting authorities on how to implement social value in line with the NPPS. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was kind enough to read out the current draft document, where social value is fully represented. As I argued in the debate on the previous group, we believe that this amendment is not necessary. The Government and the Government for Wales will publish procurement policy statements containing their priorities, which all contracting authorities must have regard to when carrying out a procurement or exercising functions related to it. As these priorities may change from one NPPS to another, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to specify on the face of the Bill that guidance on a given issue must always be produced.
Amendment 80, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, concerns the inclusion of a new clause for requiring carbon reduction plans from suppliers for contracts above £5 million. I have already referred to a procurement note but, as I have mentioned, we do not see this type of criterion being suitable for inclusion in the Bill. While central government has policies for this on complex procurements, the amendment would be a burdensome addition to the workloads of contracting authorities across the UK and could potentially inhibit new entrants.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Excuse me for interrupting the Minister but I do not understand what he just said. Amendment 80 would make mandatory what the Government have already said procurement is required to do. Procurement Policy Note 06/21, which the Government have published on their website, is titled:
“Taking account of Carbon Reduction Plans in the procurement of major government contracts”.
All the amendment does is clarify the legal status of 06/21, which is the Government’s own policy. Given the line the Minister has taken, I would be parading 06/21 as a good example of what the Government are doing. That is all this amendment seeks to change in the Procurement Bill. The Minister may need a note on this—I appreciate that—but that was the purpose of this amendment. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify what he has just said in reference to Procurement Policy Note 06/21, which we have included in the explanatory statement as the purpose of Amendment 80.
Lord True (Con)
I deliberately referred to Procurement Policy Note 06/21. It is something that the Government have done; however, the line I am taking and the position of the Government is that we do not wish to encrust the Bill with statutory requirements. I am glad that the noble Lord opposite follows the policy—I reminded him of it as I was going through my speech—but, if I yield one, I will yield 125. It was kind of the noble Lord to say that he was pleased that the Government published Procurement Policy Note 06/21 but I wish he would be satisfied.
I recognise that Amendment 80 replicates the £5-million threshold but we think that taking this policy forward would potentially be a burdensome addition for SMEs, which are required to produce and maintain such documents—not only if they are small SMEs but if they want to be part of a consortium for a larger government procurement project. Despite what the noble Lord said, I do not believe that this changes the overall position of the Government that we should not add to the Bill, to primary legislation, the encrustations that he requests.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry to pursue this. Procurement Policy Note 06/21 helpfully has some frequently asked questions at the end. One asks when it should be applied. It says that the note
“applies to all Central Government Departments”.
What does that mean? Does it apply or not? Is the Minister saying that it applies to them but the Government do not really mean it and departments can choose whether to do it? What is its status? Is it worth the Government putting in their own documents that it
“applies to all Central Government Departments”?
They might as well just say, “Do it if you want”. What is the purpose of publishing it if it is very loose and can apply only if the departments want? I do not know.
Lord True (Con)
That is the point. Currently, 06/21 refers to “Central Government”, as the noble Lord said, but his amendment applies to “all contracting authorities”, as I read it. If that is not the case, I will stand corrected and we will write a letter to explain that it applies to everybody, as he proposes. I am advised that his amendment goes further than the current procurement arrangements but, if that is incorrect, I will write a note.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that. It is helpful. If I get a letter back saying that the amendment goes further than 06/21, with that information, I can change the amendment before Report or be satisfied and not need to. It would be very helpful of the Minister to clarify that in a letter; I wonder whether he might think of sharing that with other Members of the Committee.
Lord True (Con)
Yes, I hope that letters that are sent out are shared with other Members of the Committee and, if not, I will make sure that they are. I would not want to encourage the noble Lord too much in the hope, because the Government’s position is that we do not think it is advantageous to encrust the primary legislation with the range of aspirations that we have heard from many sides in this Committee. The noble Lord can have another try, but I cannot promise that it will be different. But I will write to him and circulate the letter anyway.
I respectfully request that these amendments be withdrawn or not moved.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we have had a very wide-ranging, and rather long, debate on this group of amendments. I will start with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 61, on the list of strategic priorities. As I predicted, the Minister heard various lists of different kinds of things that noble Lords wanted in the Bill. Let me say that I was wholly convinced by my noble friend’s explanation of why they should be encrusted—as he put it—in the Bill, but I suspect that I am not representative of the Committee in that regard.
In respect of Amendments 63 and 64, my noble friend helpfully said that the Government would share the draft of a national policy statement as part of the consultation process, which I think clarifies that aspect.
I turn to the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 60—the may/must amendment. My noble friend the Minister argued for flexibility for the longer term; other Governments may not want to issue such statements, and I completely accept that. What I did not hear from my noble friend was that this Government commit to publishing a statement under this clause. I would have hoped that, at least from the Dispatch Box, the Minister would commit to publishing the statement, having included Clause 12 in the Bill. He talked about the timetable for the introduction of the Bill and the six months of learning process, but I did not hear what happens to the policy statement. I hope that he might reflect and perhaps give clarity on that in writing or at a later stage.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government have the lead amendment in this group, and I look forward to hearing the comments of fellow members of the Committee. Although there is a large number of government amendments in this group, most of them are consequential, so there are actually seven points in the government amendments, which I will express as briefly as I can.
Amendment 83 to Clause 15 is a consequence of Amendment 93. It clarifies in Clause 18 that the authority’s requirements and award criteria are two separate concepts. The amendments make it clear that, to be awarded a contract, the supplier’s tender must satisfy the contracting authority’s requirements and be the most advantageous in terms of award criteria.
Amendment 94 to Clause 18 is technically a consequence of Amendment 126. Amendment 126 amends Clause 22 to make it clear that the contracting authority may set a number of award criteria against which it will evaluate tenders or may set only one criterion. That has led to consequential Amendment 113 to Clause 19.
Amendments 111 and 114 clarify the drafting to confirm that Clause 19(6) is talking about exclusion by reference to intermediate assessment of tenders in Clause 19(5)(b) and that the timing of assessment may vary.
Amendment 134 confirms that Clause 24 applies to the process to become a member of a dynamic market and a process for the award of a contract under a framework, as well as competitive tendering procedures under Clause 19. This has meant moving the clause to later in the Bill, and it will be under Chapter 6, “General Provision about Award and Procedures”. Amendments 137, 140 and 145A are all consequential.
Amendment 135 simply amends the term “terms of a procurement” to “procurement documents”. I know that noble Lords are rightly concerned about definitions. This is to ensure the clause operates effectively for the award of contracts under frameworks and for applications for membership of a dynamic market. Amendments 136, 138, 139, 142 and 143 are all consequential.
Amendment 145 expands the definition of “procurement documents” in this clause to cover documents used for frameworks and dynamic markets. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Newlove) (Con)
My Lords, I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak remotely.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I start with my usual apology that the rules for remote contributors mean that I will be commenting on amendments that have not yet been spoken to by their authors. I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 528C, which has been signed by my noble friend Lord Scriven, to which I will return.
I support Amendments 101A, 528A and 528B which set out the arrangements for procurement, taking into consideration low-income countries and ask that particularly during a public health emergency, not only a pandemic, they should meet certain criteria that are higher than usual.
The World Health Organization’s report, The COVID-19 Pandemic: Lessons Learned for the WHO European Region, recommends as its fifth area for action:
“Strengthening procurement systems, supply chains, operational support and logistics”.
The reason why that it is one of the key recommendations is, I am afraid, the chaos that happened in the early months of the pandemic and the frankly shameful behaviour of some of the wealthy countries which disregarded the fact that Covid was a worldwide virus and that all countries needed access to key goods and services to deal with it—whether PPE, kit for testing, or vaccines as they came on stream.
This Committee is not the place to go into the detail of that; I suspect that most Members of your Lordships’ House will have it fresh in their memories from the last two years. However, I hope that the UK pandemic inquiry will look at our Government’s behaviour, including the taking of vaccines from the vaccine fund COVAX, which was designed specifically to support countries that could not afford either the development or the cost of vaccines in those early days, and, in particular, the blocking of a TRIPS waiver for intellectual property, which prevented low-income countries manufacturing their own vaccines. These amendments would ensure that any future Government must reflect carefully on their role in helping low-income countries have fair access to the tools that they need to manage any major future health emergency.
Amendment 528C is a probing amendment that seeks to remove the provisions in Sections 79 and 80 of the Health and Care Act for NHS England to have its procurement rules set by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care using a statutory instrument. On earlier occasions in Committee, I asked Ministers a series of questions to which I really hope we will receive answers today. Prior to this, each response from the Dispatch Box, in essence, laid out the differences between the arrangements under the Bill and those in Sections 79 and 80 of the Health and Care Act, which we know already. I will not repeat the details of the likely problems that this will cause in the complex interface of what is and is not covered by the Health and Care Act; it certainly is not as clear-cut as the sections would imply. Much more fundamentally, the reason I have tabled this amendment is to try to elicit answers to the two following questions.
First, why should a body such as NHS England, which procures contracts for £70 billion a year of taxpayers’ money, have procurement rules that are not consulted on widely or taken through the same scrutiny available under the legislation process that this Bill—for all its failings and problems—must continue to go through? During the passage of the Health and Care Bill, no Minister seemed to be able to explain why, and the same is true for this Bill. The £70 billion was specifically for NHS England. The total NHS departmental spend on health in 2019-20 was in excess of £160 billion, so I suspect that the real clinical and associated spending is significantly higher than the £70 billion I quoted. It is the Government’s largest budget after social protection—that is, benefits and pensions—yet the Health and Care Act sets out a procurement regime that is much less visible and accountable than that proposed by the Government in this Bill.
Secondly, is it appropriate that procurement arrangement processes for such a large amount of taxpayers’ money should be determined by a Secretary of State using Henry VIII powers? Not only is this process much less transparent, and it cannot hold Ministers to account, but the capacity is there for a future Secretary of State to change the procurement process much more quickly than under the processes of this Bill. It was helpful during the passage of the Health and Care Bill that the Government bowed to the strong report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said that at the very least it must be upgraded to be subject to an affirmative procedure. But frankly, Members’ suspicions were aroused by the original proposals that it should be subject to a negative procedure.
During the passage of the Health and Care Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said:
“We are grateful for the input of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in advising us on this. In summary, these regulations will allow the NHS to procure healthcare services in a way that reflects the reality of those services without unnecessary bureaucracy and with the ultimate goal of providing value for patients, taxpayers and the population in the vital health services they need.”—[Official Report, 3/3/22; col.1028.]
For the last three and a half days, we have been debating in detail unnecessary bureaucracy and the ultimate goal of providing value for taxpayers, clients and the population in the vital public services they need. I am still struggling to understand why the second-largest public spender in this country is able to use this unaccountable and untransparent procedure. I hope that the Minister will specifically explain to the Grand Committee why this route was chosen for the NHS. If the Minister cannot answer this, will he meet those of us who are interested— I have already asked him twice for meetings—so that we can discuss this prior to Report?
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendments 120 and 129A in this group. I will also speak to Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, and my noble friend Lord Best’s Amendment 131. Perhaps Amendments 119 and 120 should have come up on Monday, when we were discussing SMEs.
Amendment 120 seeks to address the barriers faced by smaller providers and charities through specifications that disqualify or discourage them from bidding. These typically stem from process taking precedent over purpose, or from narrow or mistaken interpretations of procurement rules. Lloyds Bank Foundation research has found numerous examples of disproportionate thresholds being imposed—some of which we heard about on Monday—including requiring suppliers to demonstrate income unrelated to the size of the contract being tendered for, requiring evidence of having previously delivered contracts much larger than the one tendered for, or unreasonable insurance requirements.
Excessive requirements at the pre-qualification questionnaire—PQQ—and invitation to tender—ITT—stages can also act as significant barriers. To cite one example: a youth association applying to be added to a framework of suppliers linked to the troubled families initiative had to complete a 49-page PQQ and 99-page full tender. Greater clarity is needed about what a proportionate approach looks like.
My Amendment 120, which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has also signed, seeks to add a requirement for contracting authorities to include consideration of the impact of conditions on the ability of a broad range of suppliers, including smaller businesses and charities, to access public contracts as part of their assessment of proportionality. Without this, there is a danger that smaller providers will continue to be disqualified on technicalities or by arbitrary barriers, even where they are well placed to deliver the service or are already doing so.
I have also added my name to Amendment 119 from the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, which would allow for conditions requiring suppliers who seek to participate in a contract to be
“signatories of good standing on the Prompt Payment Code”.
All too often, we hear from small businesses of the Prompt Payment Code being honoured more in the breach than the observance, even by businesses that have signed up to it. Making adherence to the code allowable as a condition of participation seems an eminently sensible way of giving it stronger teeth and I hope that the Minister, who has been so responsive in his willingness to look seriously at many of the good ideas proposed by members of this Committee, will look at this one as well.
Amendment 129A to Clause 22, which is in my name, seeks to ensure that the advantages of flexibility in setting award criteria are not undermined by post-award negotiations or other price and cost uncertainties which could affect, or even invalidate, value-for-money considerations used in awarding contracts. To avoid this, the amendment requires the contract to include
“an objective mechanism for determining price and cost after contract award and before the goods, services or works are supplied.”
Only through such a mechanism for confirming value for money being put in place at the time of a contract’s award is it possible to secure maximum supplier contributions to improving value and reducing risks, including through the early appointment of specialists. This is an aspect of early supply chain involvement and having an objective post-award process to achieve the benefits associated with it.
To give an example, those benefits were illustrated by the innovations, cost savings, reduced carbon emissions and local business opportunities agreed by the Ministry of Justice with the supplier and specialists engaged on its Five Wells prison construction project after their appointment and before commencement of work on site; this project featured as a case study in the Construction Playbook. So I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment carefully as a way of ensuring that value for money commitments are met in the procurement of any goods, services or works.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I have three sentences on my very tiny Amendment 122A. It asks the Minister to explain to the Committee why, on this important clause on award criteria, there is nothing to commit the Government to create additional public value, in line with their specific priorities—whether on P&O or school meals. It genuinely asks the Minister to explain that to the Committee.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lansley has three amendments in this rather diverse group. The first is Amendment 118, which adds another requirement for tender notices under Clause 20. It would require the tender notice to provide a period during which potential suppliers can ask questions and get answers, which would then be shared with all potential suppliers. This procedure is often used in practice and it has advantages for both contracting authorities and potential tenderers, in clearing up any misunderstandings. For potential suppliers, it can clarify whether it is worth the time and effort of tendering. It allows suppliers that are not already familiar with a contracting authority to get up to speed. This would be particularly helpful for SMEs, as it would provide a relatively low-cost way to establish whether bidding for a contract is right for their business.
I have a slight concern that the amendment’s requirement to share answers with “all potential suppliers” might be onerous, but this is a probing amendment and I hope that the Minister responds positively to the idea behind it.
My noble friend’s second amendment is Amendment 123, which amends the provisions of award criteria in Clause 22. Under this amendment, the award criteria must enable innovative solutions to be offered in meeting the purposes of the tender. This returns us to one of my noble friend’s themes for this Bill—namely, that public procurement must foster innovation. It is much easier for a public procurement to specify the detail of what is to be delivered than the objectives or purpose of a contract, but good procurement would positively encourage innovative solutions, because innovation is the key to unlocking value for money for the public sector. I hope the Minister agrees with the aims of this amendment, as well.
Lastly, my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendment 149 seeks to amend Clause 26 by creating another reason for excluding suppliers, where no good reason is offered for a low tender price. The “most advantageous tender” rule in Clause 18 does not require the acceptance of the lowest-priced tender, but that will often be the outcome. This amendment is designed to provide encouragement to contracting authorities to understand why a tender price is abnormally low and to eliminate those that are lowballing on the basis that they gain a contract and then, later, find some way to negotiate up the price. This unfortunately happens in real life, sometimes.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to two amendments in my name. I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Verma, Lady Boycott and Lady Parminter. At this stage in Committee, we have had the debate about why we feel this Bill is lacking specificity, does not provide sufficient guidance and is a missed opportunity, so I do not propose to rehearse those arguments. I think that, if the Bill were different, we would not be seeking to amend Clause 22 on award criteria in this way. It is evident that we are trying to convey our concern that we need more guidance on these important long-term targets that need to be embedded in the procurement process.
I ask the Minister whether, under his interpretation of
“the subject-matter of the contract”
in Clause 22(2)(a), a contracting authority can set criteria that specifically relate to the public good that derives from environmental benefits that relate to the things we have put into our amendment. If that is the case, we have a workable solution. If it is not, we need something else in the Bill. To be clear, my question is: in setting award criteria under Clause 22, can a contracting authority put in specific, measurable criteria that relate to the wider public, environmental and social good?
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 124A, which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is involved in other parliamentary duties at this point. She asked whether I would speak to it on her behalf, and I am pleased to do so.
The amendment specifically relates to the need for all contracting authorities to be required to ensure that the award criteria include environmental impact considerations. This, of course, is a provision which stands in its own right in the general context but also specifically relating to Scotland. It is worth noting that the genesis of this amendment comes from the Law Society of Scotland and, as such, we should take very good note of it. The society emphasises that for Scotland, procurement legislation is devolved, as we know, and that the regulations applicable to Scotland—those which have been transferred into Scots law from EU directives—include the Public Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2015, the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 and the Concessions Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016.
In fact, the Scottish devolution settlement specifies that all procurement matters that are not specifically reserved under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 are devolved unless, as always, the UK Parliament tries to modify them, subject to the Sewel convention. As we all know, use of the Sewel powers can be extremely controversial at times. The Scottish Government have flagged up their opposition to such intervention by the UK Government in the context of the Bill.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Green Party is a partner in the Scottish Government, procurement regulations in Scotland have a number of environmental considerations built into them and the EU principles largely remain in force. It is not the case that UK contracting authorities with reserved functions will be subject to UK rules. For example, the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 are UK-wide, as I understand it, and that has a significance in this context.
This amendment seeks to make it a statutory responsibility for contracting authorities, in setting award criteria, to
“take account of the environmental impact of the award”.
This would place a parallel emphasis on environmental impact in the context of English or UK contracts, as is the case in Scotland. As the Law Society of Scotland has stated:
“It is important that the Bill does not lead to confusion in the UK for parties, given that different rules will apply in the UK market”.
Inevitably, given the devolution settlement, there will be occasions when legislation in Scotland and England differs for a variety of reasons relating to different values, circumstances or aspirations, but where there is largely agreement on public policy, as there surely is on the environmental impacts to be taken into account, common sense would dictate that words along the lines of Amendment 124A should be built into the Bill.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 124 and 127 in the name of the my noble friend Lady Worthington. As always, I return to the issue of food: the Committee on Climate Change reported last week that the public sector serves 1.9 billion meals a year. That is an unbelievably big responsibility and impacts on the environment, our health, how people co-operate socially, what we grow and agriculture. If we cannot have principles about the environment, public good and public health within this public procurement then it is really not fit for purpose because this is, I think, a massive area of concern to everyone in this Room.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 528C, which my noble friend Lady Brinton has already spoken to. Like her, I am a little perplexed about the Government’s view, according to the Minister, that public sector procurement should be based on value for money and that there should be a co-ordinated approach to public sector procurement so that businesses understand the rules in which they are working but also have flexibility, yet the health service seems to be excluded from that.
For the convenience and understanding of the Committee, we need to look particularly at Section 79 of the Health and Care Act 2022, which says:
“Regulations may make provision in relation to the processes to be followed and objectives to be pursued by relevant authorities in the procurement of”
services. Relevant authorities in this legislation are: NHS England; NHS England foundation trusts; an NHS trust established under Section 25; interestingly, a combined authority, which is a combination of local authorities; and a local authority in England. A relevant authority is not just an NHS body; it is a relevant authority if it is purchasing or procuring
“(a) health care services for the purposes of the health service in England, and (b) other goods or services that are procured together with those health care services.”
Ministers have said previously from the Dispatch Box that all that the provision applies to is the provision of healthcare services in England. They have not spelt out that it also applies to other goods or services that are procured together with those for healthcare services. If, for example, a care village was being procured where there was predominantly a capital spend on housing and where services for healthcare were to be procured at the same time, which set of procurement rules would apply? Would it be the rules within this Bill, those within the Health and Care Act, or a combination of both?
It is important that Section 79 of the Health and Care Act says that
“Regulations under subsection (1) must, in relation to the procurement of all health care services to which they apply, make provision”
for the following:
“(a) ensuring transparency; (b) ensuring fairness; (c) ensuring that compliance can be verified; (d) managing conflicts of interest.”
There is nothing about value for money, yet the Minister has said repeatedly at the Dispatch Box in this Committee that the Government’s view is that public procurement should be based on value for money. If that is the view of the Government—not of the Cabinet Office, but of the Government—why is value for money not in the Health and Care Act as a factor for public procurement of healthcare provision in England and other goods or services that are procured together?
There is a gaping hole which is not clear. It is so deep that I do not think the Minister can explain the contradiction between this Bill and the Health and Care Act in terms of procurement provision. So, particularly on joint procurement in something like a care village, which provision would apply? If the Minister cannot answer that very clearly from the Dispatch Box, I feel that this is going to come back on Report. Clearly, there is confusion not just in terms of legislation but for those businesses which wish to be part of a contract for a joint provision between health and other services.
My final question is this: why is it that combined authorities in a local authority in England are in the Health and Care Act but it says here that local authorities will be driven by the provisions in this Bill? Which one would a local authority have to adhere to in terms of the confusion that is around it?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make a point about proportionality. It arises under the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and runs through much of the Bill. In a sense, I am asking a general question but hanging it on the hook of Amendment 120. It is a point of some concern to small organisations; we are talking here about small charities and local voluntary organisations. In much of the debate, people have referred to businesses and enterprises, but this will also apply to local voluntary organisations and charities, which clearly do not have the resources or staffing to deal with the scale in the way that an organisation such as Oxfam, for example, could. They have their local job to do; to a certain extent, spending a lot of time drawing up a bid to provide a service will be a diversion from their work. Proportionality must have a role in assessing a contract. I am intrigued and ask the Minister to give some indication of an overall perspective on proportionality as it affects local organisations, charities and voluntary organisations.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, with apologies for missing some of this debate, I will speak briefly to my Amendment 129, which relates to Clause 22 and the incompatibility of subsections (2) and (5). Clause 22(2) states:
“In setting award criteria, a contracting authority must be satisfied that they … are sufficiently clear, measurable and specific”.
Clause 22(5) then sets out those “clear, measurable and specific” elements. In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), it is indeed specific: they deal with
“the qualifications, experience, ability, management or organisation of staff”
et cetera. However, over the page, Clause 22(5)(d) sounds as if the drafter was late, tired, exhausted and gave up. It refers to
“price, other costs or value for money in all the circumstances.”
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is not here to tell us how one might legally interpret “in all the circumstances”.
What we have drafted as an amendment is one that is as specific as paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) on what those circumstances might be. It sets out the standard phrases that have been used in the Government’s previous documents and draft statement. I merely suggest to the Minister and those behind him that paragraph (d) simply is not fit for purpose as it stands. The phrase “in all the circumstances” should not be in a Bill of this sort. It either needs to be cut or to be expanded to the sort of specificity that (a), (b) and (c) include. My amendment suggests what that might be.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords—oh, I have just thrown all my papers on the ground. Actually, I do not need them. I am holding my list of government amendments, which I used to follow the Minister carefully as he went through them all so that I did not miss anything he said.
I sincerely thank the officials, who have spent a long time bearing with me and my noble friend Lord Coaker, going through the government amendments carefully so that we properly understood the implications and which ones were tied together, if you like. Many of the amendments provide helpful clarification, so I put on record my sincere thanks for the officials’ time and patience. It has been very important.
I have a few amendments in this group. The first, Amendment 101A, looks to ensure that contracting authorities consider potential health contractors’ records of ensuring
“affordable access to their products in low and middle-income countries and to the NHS”.
Of course, this is in the light of the pandemic, because it covers consideration being taken in public health emergencies of the international concern around this and the impact on countries that are less well off than us. With these amendments, we want to increase access to vaccines, medicines and diagnostics by attaching conditions to health products and research and development contracts in order to facilitate global manufacturing, because that was clearly a problem recently during the Covid pandemic.
It is also about having assurances that taxpayers’ money is being spent according to socially responsible principles in circumstances like that. If you can attach conditions to public spending on health procurement and R&D to have greater access to health technologies globally, this can help to bring the health crisis to an end sooner. We know that many of the Covid variants came about in countries that have very low vaccination rates. So it is about looking out and upwards for the future.
There is already some precedent for attaching conditions to pandemic tools to improve access. Paragraph 84 of the Government’s 100 Days Mission report says:
“We recommend that governments should build in conditions into their DTV funding arrangements to ensure … access to DTVs at not for profit and scale, which is to be enacted if a PHEIC is declared.”
So we can do this if we want to. The pricing and timing of delivery are important for gaining more equitable distribution.
Many low-income and middle-income countries have been calling for more meaningful control over their pandemic responses. Of course, they cannot really do that if they do not have access and are not then able to manufacture their own vaccines, which is what many of them were calling for. Again, if you remove intellectual property barriers, you can do this, but we need to look carefully at how we would manage that. Perhaps the Procurement Bill is not the right place for this, but it is certainly the right place to have a discussion and debate about it and to look at how we can move things forward.
My other amendments are Amendments 528A and 528B. I am slightly confused about why we are debating these and Amendment 528C of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, at this stage, when the government Amendment 528, to which they relate, does not come up for debate until group 14. It strikes me that we are likely to end up having exactly the same debate all over again. The Minister may not have an explanation for that, but I apologise in advance that we will revisit this.
I will be brief because we will come back to this. As I say, Amendment 528A is again about affordable access for middle-income and low-income countries, and Amendment 528B is about requiring contracting authorities to consider a potential health contractor’s record of ensuring affordable access to its products. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, for supporting our amendments. We support Amendment 528C of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, but I am sure that we will have another debate on group 14, as I said.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for another interesting debate that I have enjoyed listening to. Some thoughtful points have been made. I must say at the outset that Ministers are responsible for many things but we are not responsible for groupings. We just get told what we must do. It would have been quite possible, through the usual channels, to agree to de-group those amendments and put them separately but, as we say, “Them’s the breaks”.
Notwithstanding the illogicality that has been pointed out, I will address what is before us. By the way, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for what she said about the official Bill team, who support us all in Committee on the Bill. I fully endorse what she said. Many of them are here to hear it; if they are doing their job, they will probably notice it in Hansard but, none the less, I will make sure that they do.
Amendment 101A, 528A and 528B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Amendment 528C, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, cover health and procurement, as we just discussed. I candidly acknowledge that, sometimes in life, there are minor frustrations. I know that the Committee is understandably wrestling with the issue. My noble friend Lady Scott—I am sorry, I always call her Jane—tried to answer the question asked by the noble Baroness on two occasions but I will come on to say what we have tried to do about this; indeed, I will now read out the answer that I have been given.
These amendments would significantly extend the rules in Clause 18 by imposing additional requirements on authorities to have regard to a range of health sector-specific issues when awarding contracts for the research, development or supply of health services or health products. As we have already touched on at various points in the debate, contracting authorities need to make procurement decisions on a case-by-case basis. It would not be appropriate to include wider policy objectives, such as those suggested, in primary legislation. This could jeopardise the achievement of value for money and make it harder for small businesses to bid for these health services and health products contracts.
Amendment 528C would override the healthcare procurement regulation-making powers set out in the Health and Care Act and make the Bill apply instead to all healthcare purchasing—the challenge set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The position is that the Department of Health and Social Care is currently preparing regulations, following public consultation, which will implement a new provider selection regime specifically designed for the procurement of healthcare services delivered to individual patients and service users. Obviously, noble Lords will have the proper opportunity to scrutinise and debate the implementation of these powers when they are laid in Parliament, through the affirmative procedure.
On the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the recent DHSC consultation on proposals for its new provider selection regime acknowledges the need for integrated procurement for health and social care services. Existing procurement legislation recognises and provides for mixed procurement approaches, and relevant details will be included in the DHSC’s forthcoming regulations and guidance. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise these under the affirmative procedure.
I know that noble Lords have said that they not entirely satisfied with this. It is the situation that clinical services for individual patients are with the health service. My noble friend highlighted—as I said on day three in Committee—that we would write to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on how the interface between the Procurement Bill and the health Act will work in practice, I reassure noble Lords that that is being prepared. We will seek to pick up many of the questions that noble Lords have asked on each day of the debate so far, in this area. That will be put before your Lordships before we get to group 14—I hope it is not group 13—or whenever we get to it. It is being done, but I have heard what noble Lords have said. I can tell the Committee that I am also writing personally to the Secretary of State for Health to seek further clarity on when the regulations will be available for scrutiny. I have heard the requests from your Lordships in this area.
I turn now to Amendment 118 tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, whose appearance varies today—I will not hurt him by saying it is improved today. This amendment would modify Clause 20 to require the tender notice to provide a period during which “suppliers may ask questions” and have the answer provided “to all potential suppliers”. Under the Bill regime, there is nothing preventing potential bidders asking for further information or clarification of matters within the tender notice or associated tender notice documents; in fact, this is standard practice in procurement procedures. There is a risk that including a specific provision to this effect might suggest that questions cannot be asked outside that window. We would not want to suggest that there comes a point at which interested suppliers can no longer ask questions of contracting authorities. With that in mind, I hope I have reassured my noble friend—when he comes to read this section—that the Bill already allows for the circumstances he wishes to see.
Amendment 119 and others relate to the Prompt Payment Code. Amendment 119 seeks to require being a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code to be used as a condition of participation in the award of a public contract. We are committed to ensuring prompt payment to suppliers. However, requiring that every potential bidder becomes a signatory to the Prompt Payment Code to participate in the procurement would be too onerous a requirement. Therefore, while we encourage suppliers to sign up to a Prompt Payment Code, we do not consider it proportionate for us to legislate for it in this Bill.
Amendment 120, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would extend the consideration of whether conditions are proportionate for the purposes of subsection (1) to include the accessibility of the contract to as broad a range of suppliers as possible. This is an abiding theme in your Lordships’ Committee. The primary purpose of Clause 21 is to ensure that the suppliers that participate in the procurement are capable of delivering the contract, but also that these conditions are restricted to only those which are needed to deliver the contract.
The noble Lord asked what we are doing to stop unreasonable requirements of SMEs and others, and I include in this broad range social enterprises and charities. As I say, the intention of Clause 21 on conditions of participation is to prohibit disproportionate or unreasonable requirements being put on contracts that would end up excluding SMEs. The authority must be satisfied that conditions of participation consider only the legal and financial capacity and technical ability of the supplier to perform the contract in question, and that there are proportionate means of doing so. We will look carefully at the noble Lord’s words. That is the intention behind Clause 21, but we will bear in mind what he said.
On the previous day of Committee, we discussed the importance of creating opportunity for SMEs and others. There was a broad ask from your Lordships. We think the clause as drafted helps with that, as conditions are pared back to focus on delivery. I have already committed to holding an engagement during the Recess about what more we can do to support SMEs. In the meantime, we consider that this amendment is not required, but we will give it some reflection. Is “reflection” a parliamentary word? It sounds like a word that one of the right reverend Prelates might use.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Will the Minister make it clear: when he says SMEs, does that embrace small charities and voluntary organisations, which I know are anxious about their situation under the process?
Lord True (Con)
Yes, my Lords, I believe I did say that. In parliamentary terms, I am reiterating what I said. SMEs cover, for the purpose of this, voluntary organisations, social enterprises and charities. I think I have made clear my profound personal belief that these are part of the vital warp and woof of our society.
Amendment 121, proposed by noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, aims to ensure contracting authorities take reasonable steps to verify that the supplier and any subcontractors are able to deliver the contract. Although we absolutely agree that contracting authorities need to do this in practice, we do not think it is necessary to add this provision into legislation, as the very operation of procurement is geared to this—the setting of conditions of participation, award criteria and evaluation processes, to name a few. While, as part of the Bill, we are improving supply chain visibility, we do not want to overengineer—noble Lords must have heard me say this too many times—legislative requirements for contracting authorities to investigate these matters in every procurement process as a box-ticking exercise.
Amendment 122A, which was proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and supported by others, would give the Minister the ability to exempt contracting authorities from the tests that must be satisfied when setting award criteria in order to allow policy priorities to take precedence to create additional public value. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee might have something to say about such an amendment if it were put forward by a Minister. It sounds very much as if certain rules need not apply in this particular place or contract. It certainly has a whiff of the dispensing power that the Glorious Revolution was designed to do away with, although I know noble Lords will say there is too much Henry VIII in too much legislation. So, in a technical sense it would be a difficult thing to do, but we think it would be undesirable.
We want all award criteria to be clear, measurable, relevant, non-discriminatory and proportionate to avoid unnecessary burdens on suppliers. We believe that this, together with our plans to publish a national procurement policy statement, which we debated earlier, and the requirement for authorities to maximise public benefit, will be sufficient. I have heard scepticism, but we believe that is the case.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
Perhaps he would care to consider whether paragraph (c) should be reduced in length, because if my suggestion would be too specific, then paragraph (c) is already much too specific, and we had better cut it down.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
Sorry to interrupt, but just to clarify, it seems to me that the reference to “maximising public benefit” in the Bill is completely and utterly superfluous and has no meaning. The Minister’s response has further confirmed that the only criteria that can really be taken into account are value for money and cost. We will need to return to this at Report, because it now seems very clear that this is not an accident or some kind of desire for flexibility; it is really saying that there is only one thing that counts, and that is cost—and in the short term.
Lord True (Con)
I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness. It is acknowledged from the other side that value for money is an extremely important criterion. It is one of the things in Clause 11. We have discussed mechanisms and we have had discussions about the national procurement policy statement, wherein, in the draft on the table, lie large numbers of things which the noble Baroness is seeking. It is frankly not the case to say that there is nothing in here other than value for money—that is not the Government’s submission to your Lordships. The Bill takes forward the change from the use of the term “most economically advantageous tender”, MEAT, to “most advantageous tender”, MAT. That is to reinforce the precise message that procurers can take a broader view of value for money than simply lowest price. We believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is not necessary.
Amendment 129A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would make it explicit in the Bill that contracting authorities must always include an objective mechanism for determining price or cost after contract award where and to the extent that value for money, but not price or cost, is evaluated when assessing which tender is the most advantageous. We believe that commercial practice and other provisions in the Bill mean that this amendment is unnecessary. It would be highly unusual for contracting authorities not to include an evaluation of price or cost when assessing value for money in their procurements. This is good commercial sense.
Further, contracting authorities are not free to act unbounded. The procurement objectives, including those in Clause 11, will apply. I do not think it is necessary to expressly legislate for it. We will, however, publish guidance to contracting authorities on evaluation. The noble Lord may well ask me when the guidance is to be published. He also asked how we can be sure that that guidance will bite further. It may be that I can come forward with further information after Committee.
I am sorry, I have been given a long speech—
Baroness Noakes (Con)
We would not mind if my noble friend made it shorter.
Lord True (Con)
I would be happy to. There were a lot of amendments. I do not want to break down and not continue, but I have about four more minutes to go. With the Committee’s permission, would my noble friend—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Would my noble friend like me to take over his speech, as he is coughing?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 131, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, would prohibit contracting authorities applying relative assessment methodologies for price, costs or value-for-money award criteria, with the aim of preventing “race to the bottom” behaviour by suppliers and helping contracting authorities achieve safe, quality and value-for-money outcomes.
The objective of the Bill is to make public procurement more flexible for contracting authorities and suppliers, not less. In deciding how to assess tenders, contracting authorities must be able to determine what is important to them and the best means of assessing this. In some cases, price may be more important than others and, in particular, price assessment methodologies may be more appropriate in certain circumstances. I must also stress that contracting authorities will be very aware of the need for safe outcomes and that those cannot be compromised. To reiterate, we will publish guidance on assessment to help contracting authorities decide how best to assess tenders.
Amendment 147, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would require a Minister, within three years of the Bill being enacted, to undertake a review of the impact of the rules on how contracts subject to a competitive procedure must be awarded. In particular, the review must assess the impact of the change from “most economically advantageous tender”, commonly referred to as MEAT, to “most advantageous tender”, commonly referred to as MAT. On the delivery of social value, and whether the needs of service recipients have been met under contracts, the change from MEAT to MAT sends a much clearer message to contract authorities that the contracts do not have to be awarded on the basis of the lowest price. I can assure the noble Lord that the matters he refers to are within the scope of MAT, where they are relevant to the contract being procured.
Amendment 149, tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley, would make explicit that contracting authorities may exclude a supplier where it has failed to explain satisfactorily why the price or cost proposed in its tender appear to be abnormally low. We discussed this point during a recent SI debate, and I welcome his contribution. I appreciate that tenders may appear abnormally low for a variety of reasons, some of which ought to concern contracting authorities. The Bill’s silence on this point is not intended to discourage authorities seeking to understand the proposed price and cost or interrogating suppliers where they appear to be abnormally low. Authorities are already under an overarching duty to award contracts to the most advantageous tender. This should be sufficient to allow for questions to be asked of suppliers about proposed price and costs, and authorities can structure their evaluation to ensure that tenders can be rejected where the authority has reason to believe a tender is abnormally low.
In summary, this Bill aims to deliver a simpler regulatory framework. It therefore does not include every possible action a contracting authority might wish to take in assessing the validity of tenders or awarding contracts. This approach is better than the existing EU approach, as it offers increased flexibility to design efficient, commercial and market-focused competitions, while reducing burdens for smaller firms. Therefore, I respectfully request that these amendments are not moved.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think this is a convenient point for the Grand Committee to adjourn on the Bill.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Vinson
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Ukraine
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they are having with NATO member states on developments in the conflict in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom continues to engage closely and regularly with our NATO allies as a key part of our response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary represented the UK at the recent NATO summit in Madrid at which NATO stated its unequivocal support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. At the summit, the Prime Minister also encouraged fellow leaders to increase their economic, military and political support to Ukraine and announced a further £1 billion of UK military aid to Ukraine. We will continue to act alongside our NATO allies to counter Russian aggression.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
We have on the one hand the brutal and unrelenting savagery of Putin’s army and, on the other, the inflexible commitment of Ukraine to a conflict which is already seven years old, where the only war aim is the total withdrawal of Russian forces. On what basis can the European powers justify indefinite spending on a war which is causing global inflation, insecurity across Europe and poverty at home, and which now threatens a winter with many people dying of the cold? When will wisdom and the need to negotiate trump wishful thinking?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is wisdom which ensures that we stand up united against anyone who aggresses in the way that Russia has. We are doing so with our European allies, the US and others. The noble Lord describes the conflict as one that is seven years old, but what is very true is that Crimea was annexed illegally; it is occupied illegally. We need to ensure that Russia stops this and the very issues the noble Lord alluded to, and it can do it now. Pull back and stop the war.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that the coldest winter that Europe—and, indeed, the rest of the world—could possibly experience would be if Russa were to win this vicious war that it started? This war cannot succeed in the way that Russia wants if the rest of the world is to move forward.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend, which is why united we stand.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, we believe that Russia needs to be defeated. But, as we are moving towards the Summer Recess, can the Minister say what wider scenario planning NATO is doing, beyond what is happening in Ukraine? August is often a difficult month. What is the FCDO doing to ensure that a Minister will always be in place over the summer?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s second point, there always is a Minister at the FCDO over the summer—as I was. Some of us cancelled our holidays to ensure that we were there. I assure the noble Baroness that, even when people take deserved holidays, there is always substantial experienced cover, as will be the case for this crisis and others. On the noble Baroness’s first point, of course we are working and engaged with our G7 and NATO partners. Later this afternoon, I will leave for The Hague to look specifically at accountability for the crimes that are being committed daily in Ukraine.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Russians are committing unforgivable war crimes virtually every day? Does he agree that any form of appeasement with that kind of regime is wholly unacceptable?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. This is why we are working with our key partners, and with 42 other member states on issues at the ICJ. As I said, I am leaving for The Hague to meet the prosecutors from the ICC and Ukraine to see what further assistance and support we can provide to ensure that crimes are documented, that victims get the hope they need, that Ukraine gets the support it needs and that we can bring justice.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister knows the Official Opposition’s position: we are at one with the Government on ensuring that Russia’s aggression is defeated and that any future negotiations must be led by President Zelensky—there is no alternative to that. I will be a little political with the Minister: last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we were committed to 2.3% defence spending and that Ukraine was a major cause of this. We now have a Chancellor saying that every department should cut 20%. I admire the Minister’s longevity in post, and I do not want to harm it, but can he tell us where that 20% cut will be made in the MoD and the FCDO? This matters in the fight for Ukraine.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will not need to wait too long to see what happens with the leadership of the Conservative Party and our country. There are some very able candidates for Prime Minister and leader of the party. But, on the more substantial point, the Ministry of Defence and the FCDO are fully equipped, engaging diplomatically and militarily. As I said, we have made an additional commitment of £1 billion in support and defence of Ukraine.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, as this conflict in Ukraine is unlikely to be over quickly, what discussions are Her Majesty’s Government and European colleagues having with the Government of Ukraine about a sustainable economic model for Ukraine, particularly in the agricultural sector and with regard to agricultural exports?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord raises an extremely important point. We are working closely with Ukraine and are one of the leading donors. Our total commitment is £3.8 billion, including £1.3 billion in guarantees for EBRD and World Bank lending to Ukraine. This is coupled with £220 million of humanitarian support. The noble and gallant Lord is right to draw attention to the food crisis. From a global perspective, an estimated 300 million people will suffer because of the war in Ukraine by the end of this year. We are looking towards working with key allies, including Turkey, to seek alternative routes to shift that grain from Ukraine.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, it is a national disgrace that our Armed Forces are not actually ready today for peer-on-peer war. Our commitment to the new NATO strategic concept in Army terms is an armoured division. The Chief of the Defence Staff has said that we will have an armoured division ready for peer-on-peer warfare with the right stockpiles and weapons in the 2030s, 10 years away. Does the Minister not agree that that is too long a timescale and that, at the very least, we should spend money today on getting our defence firms to produce equipment and weapons on a 24/7 basis to restock our stockpiles and provide weapons to the Ukrainians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As I have said to the noble Lord on numerous occasions, I agree on the principle that we need to be ready to ensure that we meet the challenges that we face. That is why we have been able to stand ready to support Ukraine with the support that we have extended, as the noble Lord well knows. Of course, he has made a number of points on the importance of spending now and investing now to meet the challenges of the future, and I am sure that is something that my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence have taken into account.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the unlawful and illegal invasion of Ukraine was carried out following an intention not to invade by such people as Lavrov and Putin, and it now continues with the world watching. It is good to see that allies are providing munitions, particularly precision long-distance artillery. Can the Minister—who I have to say is an excellent Minister—give the House an assurance that such critical support will continue until every Russian invader is removed from Ukraine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words. On the issue of Ukraine, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, summed it up very well. We stand united with Ukraine; it is right that Ukraine leads the efforts in terms of any discussions, including those on peace. We, as an ally, partner and constructive friend, stand strong in our support on humanitarian issues, on the economy and on the military. We stand with Ukraine in every sense. I wish to record the broad range of support across your Lordships’ House —indeed, across both Houses—in support of this central and key objective.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, when later today the Minister has talks with Karim Khan, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, will he talk to him about the use of starvation as a weapon of war, which is a war crime? Will he refer specifically to the burning of Ukrainian wheat fields over the past few days, as well as the blockading of the export of grain to countries in the third world, but specifically into famine-ridden countries that are already facing drought, locusts and the rest, in the Horn of Africa and east Africa?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I shall actually be seeing Karim Khan tomorrow, I think—by the time I get there it will be quite late. On the specific points, I have a bilateral whereby I shall be engaging with him on the very points that the noble Lord raises about the increasing level and spectrum of crimes that are taking place in Ukraine against the people of Ukraine, including conflict-related sexual violence. We will be documenting it—that is why the UK has led the way in ensuring that Ukraine’s own prosecutor, who visited the UK, is equipped not just with money and the technical support she needs but with the expertise, including that of Sir Howard Morrison, that is helping her directly in ensuring that those crimes can be documented so that we see successful prosecutions.
Cost of Living: Low Income Families with Children
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial support they have provided specifically for low income families with children to help with the increased cost of living.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, our £37 billion cost of living package is particularly focused on low-income households. Children living in families receiving qualifying means-tested benefits will receive the cost of living payment of £650 in two instalments. Households with a domestic electricity bill will receive the £400 energy bill rebate. We require at least a third of the current £421 million household support fund in England to be spent on supporting households with children. That fund will continue with a further £421 million from October, for which guidance will be announced in due course. The devolved Administrations have received separate funding through the Barnett consequentials.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, children, especially those in larger or lone-parent families, are at disproportionate risk of poverty. This has been made worse by a decade of social security cuts. Children in poverty are among those hardest hit by the cost of living crisis. Ministers stress that the latest help with the crisis targets those who most need it, yet, as the Children’s Commissioner lamented last week, children were overlooked—and not for the first time. What will the Government now do to ensure there is specific support —not discretionary support through local authorities but specific, as of right, national support for children—as the cost of living crisis worsens this autumn?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The Government’s position is that we have made money available throughout the cost of living crisis. We are doing extra things for children, such as free school meals and all the other holiday support payments. As it stands at the moment, I am not able to say if we will be doing anything further. As we have always promised, we keep everything under review and respond where we can.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the cost of living measures are more beneficial than uprating benefits?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
We are spending over £5 billion for qualifying means-tested benefits, which is around £2 billion more than the additional cost had the qualifying benefits been increased in July 2022 to 9% higher than the previous year. By delivering flat-rate payments at pace we can make transfers to over 8 million people, and 6 million disabled people. The IFS has said that government support means that, on average, the poorest households will be approximately compensated for the rising cost of living this year. The Resolution Foundation said that the May 2022 packages were highly progressive. There is support for what the Government are doing.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most effective ways that financial support could be provided to larger families would be to scrap the two-child limit on universal credit payments?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
The two-child limit on universal credit is the subject of much debate, and much angst for many people. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has a Private Member’s Bill going through Parliament, and no doubt that will be discussed in full. As I have said before, the Government keep everything under review.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
Is the Minister aware that children in lone-parent families are almost twice as likely to be in poverty than children in two-parent families? The evidence is overwhelming, as recorded in a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Does she believe that all children deserve a decent start in life and, if so, what measures will the Government be taking to ensure that these children do not suffer a double disadvantage?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Of course we agree. All young children should have a good start in life, even if their circumstances vary. I pick up on the point about lone-parent families that the noble Baroness raises. I have received a number of documents from Gingerbread, which is a real advocate for this and does a terrific job. One of the ways in which we can help is to make sure that people who should pay child maintenance actually pay it. I know there is a lot of criticism of the Child Maintenance Service, and I for one would not stand here and say it is perfect. But let me tell the noble Baroness that we are using enforcement powers, because that is one way we can get money to children who really need it.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, Loughborough University research shows that the temporary £20 uplift to universal credit helped reduce the number of children in poverty from 3.8 million to 3.6 million. That is a sizeable amount, without a shadow of a doubt. The report warns that the decision to end the uplift threatens to reverse this positive trend, and that in-work poverty has now become a major issue for many families. Does the Minister agree that the Government should be taking every possible step to reduce the scandal of child poverty, starting with restoring the uplift and raising social security by at least the rate of inflation, so that no child has to stare poverty in the face?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I think it was said by our previous Chancellor and many others that the Government cannot solve every problem. That does not mean that we reduce our efforts to do so. The £20 uplift was, at the risk of boring everybody, a temporary measure and has been stopped, but we will have the annual uprating of benefits and the Secretary of State will look at it in September this year.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, with the increased cost of living hitting many families who are continually trying to balance their finances day by day, just how did the Government arrive at these amounts for cost of living payments? Does my noble friend think they are enough?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I have listened to the questions today and there is a real swell of opinion that the payments are not enough—I doubt that we could ever do enough. The package of measures we have provided is designed to target support to those most in need. It will make a real difference and, I am sure, help people through these very difficult times.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I fully accept that the Government cannot solve every problem, but one of the problems is that they cut billions off the value of benefits and tax credits, which meant that we went into the pandemic and then the cost of living crisis with families unable to manage. The Government’s response, which is welcome, is to give exactly the same amount of money to a single person living on their own as to a couple with three children, even though their costs of energy, clothes, shoes and everything else are way higher. Does the Minister not accept that families out there are seriously desperate and need more help?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I accept that families are struggling and that some are desperate. We have tried to make the process of giving the money we are giving as simple and unbureaucratic as possible. That is why we are making the payments as we are, starting this week, I think. We hope to have them all done by the end of July.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister be precise about what families will get during the coming summer holidays, given that free school meals cease for most children next Friday?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
On free school meals, children will get what we have already announced. We are not proposing to increase free school meals rates to reflect rising inflation at the moment. They will get their holiday breakfast clubs and the support we have previously announced.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, in her initial Answer, my noble friend mentioned the household support fund, which gives valuable support to low-income families. It was due to close in September, but I think she announced that it will now be extended into October, which is welcome news. Can she give guidance to local authorities so that there is some similarity in the assistance given to low-income families and not a postcode lottery?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
It is correct that the household support fund has been extended until March 2023. The Government have kept it under review and extended it where possible and appropriate. The guidance for the household support fund is being written, and there will be a heavy emphasis on one-third of that money going to families with children.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister has a good heart. She says that she has a range of options which the Government are keeping under review. Can she share with the House which of those options she would like to see implemented?
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
We will have a new Prime Minister and anything could happen with jobs, so I will wait until then—before I get my P45. As soon as I can tell the noble Lord and the whole House what we can do, believe me, I will be the first one here to do so.
HS2: Speed Restrictions
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to avoid significant settlements, and consequent speed restrictions, on the route of the HS2 rail line in the area above the Cheshire salt mines north of Crewe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, HS2 Ltd has undertaken ground investigations to increase the understanding of geological risks associated with settlement. This work supplements examination of information from the British Geological Survey, historic boreholes, salt extraction operators and action groups. This information has informed the current design.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that helpful Answer. She will be aware that underneath the area where the line goes north of Crewe, there are caverns that are 200 metres high, and only 25% of the salt is remaining and the rest has been extracted. It has been settling for 100 years and probably will continue to settle for that length of time. What is HS2 going to do to ensure that the line remains straight and level, which is necessary for high-speed rail work?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, HS2 is well aware of what has happened underneath the Cheshire Basin, and I noted in my previous Answer that groundworks have been undertaken. I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord that that is not the end of it. Plenty more work still needs to be done. A full programme of ground investigations across the entire route will happen between 2023 and late 2025. HS2 is confident that the line can be built on this route at an appropriate cost.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, what has this ridiculous project cost to date? Is its construction continuing on time and on budget? Have they yet found a way of getting in and out of Euston station?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
A further update on the HS2 project will be laid before your Lordships’ House in October.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I draw the House’s attention to my interest as chairman of Transport for the North. Is it not the case that the Bill will have detailed consideration in Committee, which it is about to enter in the other place? This is the biggest increase in rail capacity in our country’s recent history, and the simple fact is that it will do more to increase capacity on our rail network than any other project currently being looked at by the Government.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The Bill for this leg of the HS2 project had its Second Reading in the other place on 20 June. As noble Lords may recall from the phase 2a Bill, which was before your Lordships’ House recently, it now goes into a very detailed process of petitioning, which is really important as it allows local people to raise detailed concerns about the project. Obviously, it is key that we keep as many stakeholders as content as possible.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, will make a virtual contribution.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
My Lords, I know from serving on an HS2 Select Committee how vital it is for the track to meet the highest standard, particularly in challenging areas like the Cheshire salt mines, to prevent perturbation of the timetable. With today’s announcement of railway speed limits because of concerns about the effect of hot weather on current tracks, is the Minister satisfied that the high-quality steel being used for HS2 will cope with the likelihood that climate change will lead to more regular and more extreme hot spells?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Of course, these are all considerations when we consider how the railway is to be designed and subsequently constructed. It is the case that where changes are necessary, HS2 is willing to look at them. For example, the 2016 route refinement consultation shifted the route slightly to take into account the salt mines in the Cheshire Basin. When issues come before us, we are able to make appropriate changes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the way things are going down the other end, these salt mines might prove useful. On the substance of question, the noble Lord, Lord McLoughlin, is right: this is a project to increase capacity; it is not just about speed. All the Government’s stop-go on this project has bedevilled it. It is about time they rushed ahead with it, got back to its original concept and had it going all the way up to Scotland.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
It is the case that we have to get this project right. It has to be delivered within a reasonable cost, and it must actually be deliverable. As I have said previously, the Government are always willing to look at better solutions for Scotland. For example, the union connectivity review concluded that the Golborne link would not resolve all the capacity constraints on the west coast main line, Crewe to Preston, and would therefore not provide the benefits to Scotland. We are taking that away, and we are working on more options such that we can keep Scotland really well connected.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. The Minister mentioned the Golborne link and threw doubt on its effectiveness. However, is it not the case that if we are to improve links to the north-west and beyond to Scotland, the Golborne link provides a very substantial improvement? As such, it is not going to assist levelling up in those areas if it is not part of the overall final scheme.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Sir Peter Hendy in his union connectivity review slightly begged to differ, and suggested that there are alternatives that would make for better journeys to Scotland. Nothing is off the table; that may mean new high-speed lines or improvements to existing infrastructure. Of course, any of the options brought forward would have to compare favourably with the Golborne link as originally planned.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the spiralling cost of the Great Western electrification programme is a perfect case study of the importance of transparency between government and industry to ensure industry’s preparedness to deliver complex infrastructure projects. Yet that link, the rail network enhancements pipeline, remains unpublished. Given that, how can we expect HS2 to be delivered on time and on budget when maintaining transparency with the rail industry is not a priority for this Government?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord has managed to combine many elements into one thing. I can reassure him that the RNEP document will be published shortly, which will reassure him about the Government’s commitment to investing in our railways.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, in November, the Government decided to terminate the eastern leg of HS2 in the Midlands rather than at Leeds, as originally promised. When they were criticised for abandoning their policy on the grounds that it would affect levelling up, the Government promised £100 million to look at alternative ways to run HS2 trains to Leeds. However, eight months on, absolutely nothing has happened in terms of even scoping this study. Is this yet another broken promise from this Government to the people of northern England?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Not at all. Work is of course well under way within the department as to how best to use the £100 million that we have set out to look at the options on the route to Leeds and to finally make some progress on a mass transit system for Leeds. However, one of the key things about the Government’s decision for our plans for high-speed rail in the future is to make sure that we get as close to city centres as possible. In the older plans, it was far too often the case that the train never got anywhere close to the city centre but now places such as Derby and Nottingham will benefit.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, the report of the Economic Affairs Committee of this House on HS2 predicted that the net result would be that it would run over budget and we would lose the necessary expenditure for east-west improvement of rail services in the north, which has come to pass. Given that the business case was based on the premise that there would be a need for more business travel and given that, as the Civil Service has shown, many people are now working from home, should the business case now be reviewed?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I reassure my noble friend that if there are changes to the budget or to the schedule, that will be put before Parliament in the six-monthly review. I slightly take issue about there being a lack of east-west investment from the Government. The £96 billion that we are investing in the integrated rail plan is a significant amount for east-west connectivity.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister as weary as I must admit I feel from time to time of endless questions about the difficulties and problems associated with building a railway? Some 180 years ago, the Victorians managed to put bridges over estuaries, tunnels through hills and build railways over marshland, and heaven knows whatever else, and we seem to be incapable of proceeding because we are worried about salt mines in Crewe.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I cannot recall 180 years ago, but it sounds idyllic. It is absolutely right that the Government should receive the correct amount of scrutiny, this is an enormous amount of taxpayers’ money, and we want the line built as soon as possible.
Tax Cuts: Fiscal Impact
Baroness Penn (Con)
Her Majesty’s Treasury does not produce fiscal forecasts; the independent Office for Budget Responsibility sets out its projections for the economy, including fiscal indicators, in the Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which will be updated and published alongside future fiscal events. This process includes certifying costings for and any changes to government tax policy. The Government keep all taxes under review and will set out any reforms at future fiscal events.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all that. With social care falling apart, the NHS teetering, abysmal UK productivity and skills, our Armed Forces underfunded and millions, including universal credit recipients, struggling with record food, fuel and energy costs as inflation surges, how on earth can Tory leadership candidates credibly outbid each other with tax cuts? Britain has suffered more than 10 years of savage Tory austerity, and now the Tories are promising even more, destroying any hope of kickstarting growth, currently the lowest in the G7. After a mendacious serial rule-breaker as Prime Minister, can we please have some honesty and responsibility from his would-be successors?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, all I can talk about is this Government’s record, rather than speculating on the future. That is a record of repairing the public finances, protecting jobs during the pandemic through the furlough scheme, delivering cost of living support worth £37 billion this year to help people, and investing in the future in skills, infrastructure, levelling up and cutting carbon from our economy faster than any other G7 nation.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, do the Government agree that our growth is forecast to be somewhere between 0% and 1% next year and our level of business investment is the lowest in the G7? Should we not be prioritising investment that leads to growth of at least 2% a year? Should we not cut taxes rather than have the highest tax burden in 70 years, which hampers growth and investment, including inward investment?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will join me in welcoming the better than expected growth figures that we saw today, but he is right we need to continue to invest in our economy. That is why we are investing in our future skills system and more in infrastructure across the UK, and we will continue to do so to drive growth in our economy.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the cruel inflation which has hurt so many families and so many businesses has delivered the Government a bumper windfall in value added tax, now estimated to be well north of £40 billion. Will she campaign to her friends in the other place and ask them to use that money to get rid of the increase in national insurance contributions, for the sake of individuals, but also of businesses, which need that money? Will she also ask them to keep the increase in the threshold?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I think my friends in the other place are doing a good job of campaigning themselves. My understanding is that, although VAT receipts are higher, the fact that individuals are spending more of their money on things such as energy, which have a lower rate of VAT, means that the latest OBR forecasts saw overall government receipts from VAT reducing in the next year.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the contenders for the Conservative Party leadership, which include the Chancellor, have promised tax cuts adding up to £235 billion, without any consideration of their funding or the consequences of such cuts. Will the Minister publish a list of the courses the Chancellor has attended on economic literacy?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the Government do not produce fiscal forecasts, the OBR does, and it produces forecasts based on government policy.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there would be widespread opportunity for cutting taxes for millions of people across the country if the tax base was widened, such as by taxing large online companies or being rather less generous on offshore taxation? There is also the potential for reform of council tax and business rates, which could bring in more revenue.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government have taken a number of initiatives in the areas that my noble friend refers to, including the reform of business rates and looking at an online sales tax. She is right that, as our economy changes, we must always look at how our tax system can keep up with it. On tax cuts, the most recent tax change brought in by this Government happened this month, the largest ever increase in a personal tax starting threshold, which took an additional 2.2 million people out of paying class 1 and class 4 national insurance contributions.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, the Government argue that rising inflation is a global challenge. However, the IMF and the OECD have warned that when put alongside comparable economies, the UK carries a much bigger risk of persistent high rates. This is bad for household budgets and consumer confidence. What is it about 12 years of Conservative control of the economy that has left us in this position?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord will know that it is international factors that are driving high rates of inflation, including supply chain disruption after the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. However, he is right that the UK has a combination of factors. It is more exposed to higher energy prices than economies such as the US and it has a tighter labour market than fellow European countries. These put us in a slightly different position. However, people should be reassured that the Government are absolutely determined to tackle inflation. We have a plan that will bring it back under control.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that the Government have been successful in repairing the country’s finances. However, at the end of April, the net public sector deficit stood at nearly 95.7% of GBP, almost an all-time high for this country. Of course, Covid accounts for part of that, but can she elaborate on how the country’s finances have been rebuilt?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness says that Covid accounts for part of that. The Covid pandemic caused the biggest recession that we have seen in a generation. The response was the biggest galvanising of government action, in both our healthcare response and our response to support the economy. We were in a position to do that because we had taken responsible decisions in the lead-up to that period. If we look at how we are coming out of that period, the public finances will be returning to a more stable footing.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, the three lockdowns during the pandemic cost the economy £370 billion, and that was without the added costs for Covid. The taxes on fuel and energy are not being passed on to the consumer when we are putting reductions in place. Can my noble friend pleased look into this, as the cost of bills and fuel for the transport sector is absolutely excruciating? This must be addressed urgently.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend talked about the impact of the lockdowns. They had a significant economic impact but also a significant social impact—for example, on children who were unable to go to school during those periods. However, our vaccine rollout meant that we could come out of that cycle of lockdowns earlier than many other countries. On her point about the tax cuts on fuel that we put in place to help with the cost of living, we have been very clear that they must be passed on to consumers. The Competition and Markets Authority has also been clear to retailers that this is the expectation.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Given that we still have many social security benefits based on contributions, can the Minister explain how taking people out of being able to pay the national insurance contributions does not, in the medium and long-term, affect their right to contributory benefits?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I can reassure the noble Lord that the threshold at which the tax is paid is different from that at which the credits towards contributory benefits are earned, so increasing the threshold where people are paying the tax has not affected their ability to accrue those rights.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister explain how the Government will reconcile tax cuts, which seem to be the subject for the majority of Conservative Party leadership candidates, with the pressing need to bear down on inflation and high costs?
Baroness Penn (Con)
It is possible to put more money into people’s pockets—for example, through the national insurance threshold rise—without having a disproportionate impact on inflation. Similarly, we have been able to make our cost of living payments while bearing in mind the noble Baroness’s exact point: we need to be careful of inflation as we make those policy changes.
Leasehold Reform (Reasonableness of Service Charges) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 13th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Leasehold Reform (Reasonableness of Service Charges) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Leasehold Reform (Reasonableness of Service Charges) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a leaseholder.
Sri Lanka
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given by my right honourable friend the Minister for Asia and the Middle East to an Urgent Question in another place on the state of emergency declared today in Sri Lanka. The Statement is as follows:
“We are closely monitoring the fast-moving and fluid political, economic and security situation in Sri Lanka. The Minister of State for South Asia has engaged directly with our high commissioner and the team on the ground. We encourage all sides to find a peaceful, democratic and inclusive approach to resolving the current political and economic challenges.
Sri Lanka’s political and economic challenges should be resolved through an inclusive and cross-party process. Any transition of power should be peaceful, constitutional and democratic, and I call on all parties to exercise restraint and refrain from violence.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that response. Sri Lanka is now facing a state of paralysis and desperately needs a Government with popular support to emerge from this chaos. There is a desperate humanitarian crisis and Amanda Milling said in the other place that our support is being channelled through multilateral institutions, without providing any details. My honourable friend Catherine West asked the Minister to outline the immediate support offered to Sri Lanka, including through engagement with regional partners such as India. Since no answer was given by Amanda Milling, can the Minister now provide one?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
As the Minister of State for South Asia, I have been engaging directly on this issue. We are working with, for example, the Red Cross on its disaster relief emergency fund and its operation in Sri Lanka. We are providing direct support, including essential medicine, first aid and psychosocial support. We are also working through various UN agencies, based on their assessments, with a plan launched on 9 June. The Humanitarian Needs and Priorities Plan called for $47.2 million to provide lifesaving assistance, and we are supporting that directly through the UN. The World Bank has also announced assistance of $400 million, which includes funds for medicines and medical equipment, and we are looking at that. I assure the noble Lord that, on the state of emergency, I have again today instructed officials to look at what bilateral support we can provide. I acknowledge his point and I am very much on it: we are seeing how we can engage constructively with India as a near partner and friend to Sri Lanka.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister on the need for a peaceful transition back to stability. While he and I were in Kigali—he was representing the UK Government at the ministerials at CHOGM—two Sri Lankan Ministers were in Moscow negotiating the purchase of Russian oil. Can the Minister expand on the practical steps the UK can take—both the direct support we can offer, and bilateral support through the Commonwealth—to ensure that Putin does not exploit the instability in Sri Lanka, because he certainly wants to?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s point about Mr Putin would apply in many instances. I met with Foreign Minister Peiris while I was in Kigali, specifically regarding the current state of play. He remains in position, notwithstanding the appointment of the Prime Minister as the acting President.
As I said in response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we are looking at how we can best channel our support through agencies on the ground. The UN is present, and we are engaging with other key partners. As the noble Lord will acknowledge, the UK is also looking at what has caused this crisis, which is an economic crisis. When I was in Sri Lanka and I met with the then Administration, I implored them to consider the importance of not just talking to the IMF but working through a specific plan. I believe that we have the fifth-largest quota share when it comes to the IMF, and we are working very constructively. Sri Lanka needs political stability, but the underlying cause and problem remains the economics. We are working with the IMF on that programme.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister have any evidence of increased tension between the Tamil and Sinhalese populations?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are certainly watching that space very closely. Communal tensions arise in any conflict where communities perhaps seek to assign blame to another community. We are also looking very carefully at pre-existing religious tensions. Although there have been raids into the presidential compound and the Prime Minister’s residence, we have not yet seen or monitored an increase in communal tension between the two major communities in Sri Lanka.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, Sri Lanka has a dark history of human rights abuses, the vast majority being perpetrated with complete impunity. Today’s fear, with the announcement of a state of emergency coupled with political instability, is that these terrible atrocities will begin again. What conversations has the Minister or any of his colleagues had with our partners about how we can avoid these fears being realised? On the issue of impunity, it appears that the Rajapaksa brothers are intent on going to the United States of America. Can we have some conversations with our American ally about whether the impunity they have enjoyed up until now will survive that transfer to the USA?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord talks about impunity regarding conflicts past, particularly the civil war. That is why the United Kingdom has led on Resolution 46/1 at the Human Rights Council. When I was last in Geneva, I engaged directly with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, saying that we would sustain our support for it. That remains an important issue, and I am sure it will be a point of discussion when the UNHRC returns in September.
As to the current situation with the previous Administration, including Mr Rajapaksa and other members of his family, countries will make their own determinations but we want the perpetrators of the civil war to be held to account. Equally, we want to ensure that the communities that suffered do not see the conflicts of the past occur again.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, the Minister must be aware of the serious allegations of corruption against Rajapaksa and his Government. What efforts are being made to extradite him from the Maldives so that he can answer the charges in the Sri Lankan courts?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will not comment specifically on the current situation with the previous President—we still await the final formal resignation. As to what will happen regarding his future, determinations will be made. At the moment we are focusing on the economic and political stability which will lend itself to whatever future inclusive Government are formed in Sri Lanka, to allow for full accountability for whoever needs to be held to account.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, how many British citizens are in Sri Lanka and are Her Majesty’s Government confident that they are all safe?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know from his own insight, we do not keep specific track of the numbers there, but we have a very strong Sri Lankan diaspora here in United Kingdom and many dual nationals. On Saturday I spoke to our chargé on the ground to ensure that we have the support in post for any increase in consular inquiries. There had been no increase, certainly up until Saturday. I also convened a meeting this morning to ensure that there is a specific plan regarding the humanitarian, economic and political support we can provide with key partners, but also the support we can provide to British citizens seeking to leave, as the noble Lord highlights. We have the experiences of Covid repatriation and other crises, which will ensure that, if and when required, we can mobilise the resources we need in Colombo and here in London to provide the support UK citizens might need.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, following on from the Minister’s answer to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, he said that people have to be held to account, but he also referred to countries to which the President might flee making their own decisions. There were rumours this morning that the President was intending to flee to the UAE. If the Minister does indeed think that people should be held to account, it is surely incumbent on us to engage with the country in question—be it the UAE or the US—to try to ensure that it is not seen as a safe haven that people can flee to and escape potentially being held to account in the way the Minister says he wishes to see.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness knows me well enough to know that when I say that people should be held to account, we would follow through on that. I am not going to speculate; there are a lot of rumours as to where particular people may seek to travel. Those are conversations to be had as and when we know the full facts, and then we will act accordingly.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the Chinese have had considerable involvement with Sri Lanka and, indeed, have effectively got control of a deep-water port as part of their belt and road initiative. Are we aware of any Chinese involvement—or any actions at all—in what is going on there at the moment?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s first observation, he is of course absolutely right. As with a number of other countries, Chinese infrastructure support—economic support—in Sri Lanka has in itself had a quite disabling effect on its economy. Regarding the noble Lord’s second question, I am certainly not aware of any specific engagement or involvement of that nature.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister give any insight into the extent to which the Armed Forces will be providing support and ensuring security on the island, as requested by the Prime Minister?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we have not looked at that specifically. What we have said, as I have already indicated, is that our focus is and must be first and foremost on the humanitarian situation. As I have said in previous answers to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, if at all possible that includes where, how and to what extent we can channel humanitarian support bilaterally, particularly food. Equally, the next important element should be political and economic stability, and that is what the Government are focused on.
Ambulance Services and National Heatwave Emergency
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer given to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons today.
“Our ambulance service performs heroics every single day, and I put on the record my thanks to every single one of them for all their dedication and hard work. We have a duty to support this vital service and give it the resources and support it needs.
The latest figures from the NHS in England show that ambulance service response time performance has improved month on month, and that ambulance hours lost are also improving month on month. However, we fully acknowledge the rising pressures facing the service, and there are three significant factors influencing these. First, bed occupancy is currently around 93%, which we would normally see around wintertime. We know there are high rates of Covid admissions in hospital—that is either people ‘with Covid’ or ‘because of Covid’—and that puts pressure on A&Es’ ability to admit patients. We are roughly running on void beds of around 1,200 and part of this is because of the 16% increase in the length of stays. We also have pressures of delayed discharges: they remain flat, but a significant influence. We also have record numbers of calls to the ambulance service—10,000 more today compared with last year—so there is significant pressure on the system.
We also have to be mindful of the weather in the coming days. We have the Heatwave Plan for England, which was published earlier this year, and the hot weather plans that NHS trusts are able to put in place. We have also been providing sector-specific guidance setting out the best ways to protect people who might be at risk. As well as this specific support for hot weather, we are doing everything in our power to support the ambulance system more widely to make sure that it has the resilience it needs. We have allocated £150 million of extra funding to respond to ambulance service pressures in 2022-23, and we are boosting the workforce too. The number of national 999 call handlers had risen to nearly 2,300 at the start of June, which is a considerable increase on the previous September, and Health Education England has been mandated to train 3,000 paramedic graduates nationally per year during 2021 to 2024. On top of this, we have invested £50 million in NHS 111 in England for 2022-23 to give this vital service extra capacity, helping us to reduce demand on the ambulance service.
I will be meeting ambulance trusts over the coming days to make sure that we have the capacity and the resilience not just for these important few days but for the winter months too. This is an important issue that we are taking extremely seriously, and we will keep the House updated as the situation develops.”
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, every ambulance service is on the highest level of alert. Just yesterday, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives spoke of the intense pressure on the system. This is not new. As the Minister acknowledges, a maelstrom of long-standing factors is causing massive delays, leaving ambulances stuck outside hospitals unable to transfer patients, staff shortages exacerbated by the spike in Covid and, on top of this, a heatwave generating more 999 calls. Can the Minister confirm whether further COBRA meetings are planned? How are the Government prepared for the impact of this heatwave on health and care services? What communications are planned to ensure public safety?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, there are well-established and well-practised co-ordination and escalation procedures in place to manage cross-system and cross-government impacts at all levels. These are activated when appropriate and on the basis of subsidiarity. UKHSA public health advice is being regularly updated and communicated for everyone to stay safe in the heat. As noble Lords will know, today the UKHSA and the Met Office have announced that all nine English regions will be under a level 3 heat alert from Saturday 16 to Tuesday 19 July. The heat alert system runs during the summer. Depending on the level of alert, a response will be triggered to communicate the risk to the NHS, government and public health systems. Advice and information for the public and health and social care professionals, particularly those working with at-risk groups, are provided, including both general preparation for hot weather and more specific advice when a severe heatwave has been forecast.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, delayed discharges account for more than 2.5 million lost bed days in NHS hospitals. With the greatest respect, organisational reorganisation will not deal with the gross underfunding of social care that means ambulances spend hours outside A&E. What are the Government going to do now to deal with the crisis in social care funding, which causes ambulances to wait outside hospitals?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as the noble Lord will know very well, we have put increased funding into our social care system, but we also have in place a national discharge task force to drive further progress and support regional and local system arrangements. That has membership from local government, the NHS and national government. Local health and social care partners are already standing up the use of additional action to support discharge and improve patient flow. The task force is looking at a number of interventions—for example, identifying patients needing complex discharge support early and ensuring multidisciplinary engagement in the early discharge plan. There is more support going into social care, but there is also a specific piece of work with the national discharge task force.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, have not the Government created the perfect storm? First, they cut the number of beds available, then they cut social care, then they do not plan for the number of doctors that we need, then they have Covid and now they have heat. What are the Government doing to address the long-term problem of hospitals that are underfunded and do not have enough beds, not enough GPs, accident and emergency units stopping functioning and the ambulance services being in crisis? What are the Government doing?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that the Government are responsible for Covid. The pressures that we have seen on ambulances have come since the pandemic; we were seeing a much more effective ambulance service prior to that. But we need to fix that so, as well as the specific action that we are taking to improve resources in ambulances, including more staff, more call handlers and more funding into the 111 service, we also have a long-term plan for the NHS that is putting record funding into the NHS. We have also created integrated care boards to ensure integration between health and social care in local areas.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talked about boosting the workforce and then she referred to the NHS training 3,000 new ambulance staff. How far does that go to fill the gap in retention and recruitment, what else is being done to boost the number of people we need to create a resilient ambulance service and when will we arrive at that point?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that, as well as additional training and recruitment, retention will be a really important part of the picture. The Government have put in place additional support save-line3for ambulance staff to ensure that retention continues. My understanding is that the target to train 3,000 paramedic graduates a year nationally between 2021 and 2024 will help the domestic paramedic workforce meet the future demands on the service. I also reassure the noble Baroness that ambulance staff and support staff have increased by almost 40% since February 2010.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Order of St John in Northern Ireland—and therefore St John Ambulance—and we do not have a heatwave. Can I ask the Minister: what consultations have gone on with volunteer ambulance services in England, of which there are several, what has been the result of those and how many ambulances are they prepared to put on standby in order to support the ambulance service?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I know that both the Department for Health and Social Care and NHS England have a strong working relationship with the organisations that the noble Viscount has mentioned. On the detail of that work in terms of the heat health alert, I will have to write to him.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, handover times at hospitals of nine hours are not uncommon and 26 hours is not unheard of. What are the Government doing to ensure that the other emergency services are working in co-ordination with the ambulance service to make sure that people who need urgent care are getting it?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I think there has been some co-ordination with other services looking at this issue. Of course, it varies from area to area and NHS England has focused its support on those areas that are struggling the most and account for the largest delays. We have talked about the taskforce to reduce delays in discharge, but the noble Baroness is also right that there is specific work going on to improve the handover process. We are looking to address the delays in every bit of the system that are causing delays up front to ambulance response times.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I recently had occasion to contact the ambulance service—10 days ago—and I was struck by the fact that none was going to be available for a considerable period of time. Do government statistics show a difference between the availability of ambulance services in rural areas compared to urban areas?
Baroness Penn (Con)
There are 10 ambulance service trusts and they have differing levels of performance. I acknowledge that across all those 10 trusts there is pressure on the system in rural and urban areas. Our focus is to provide specific support to those trusts that are struggling the most.
Lord Lexden (Con)
What have been the results of Mr Johnson’s promises to build new hospitals?
Baroness Penn (Con)
There is work under way in the NHS and the Department for Health and Social Care to deliver on that pledge.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, it is recognised that the difficulty with the handover to social care is one of the reasons for the problems faced by the ambulance service. The Local Government Association, of which I am a vice-president, estimated that there would be a £2.2 billion shortfall in funding for social care within local authorities. What are the Government going to do to address that challenging problem?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, as I said, the Government have put additional funding into social care. We have also allowed local authorities flexibility in how they approach council tax and their own local precept to support that funding. Funding is an essential part of the picture, as is better co-ordination. We can learn from those areas that are more effective at smooth discharge and ensure that best practice is shared across the country. There are some pilot sites both within the NHS and in social care to try to spread that best practice.
Legislative Reform (Provision of Information etc. Relating to Disabilities) Order 2022
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the draft Order laid before the House on 12 May be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Regulatory Reform Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Vere of Norbiton on the Order Paper.
Occupational Pension Schemes (Governance and Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 June be approved.
Relevant document: 6th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 July.
Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 13th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 View all Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 11-R-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (5 Jul 2022)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, as I and many other noble Lords have made clear on numerous occasions, it is a matter of great regret that we have been debating the contents of this Bill in your Lordships’ House. It would have been far preferable had the Bill been taken forward by the Northern Ireland Executive in the Northern Ireland Assembly, as was originally intended, but that plainly has not happened, which is why we have had to make progress on the important New Decade, New Approach commitments that the Bill delivers within this Parliament.
Since the Bill’s introduction into your Lordships’ House there has been neither a functioning Executive nor an Assembly, and that remains the case. It has therefore not been possible for the Government to seek a legislative consent Motion. My officials have been engaging with counterparts in the Northern Ireland Civil Service throughout the Bill’s passage and will continue to do so. I think I speak for the whole House when I say I hope that, by the time the Bill leaves the other place, such consent will have been given by a restored Executive and Assembly.
Motion
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as we come to the end of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House, I want to place on record my gratitude to all noble Lords who have participated in our debates upon it. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, who speaks with great wisdom as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister who helped negotiate the Belfast agreement in 1998, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, for their support for the Bill and their constructive and pragmatic engagement during its passage.
I thank all noble Lords from Northern Ireland for their detailed and insightful contributions. While some of them might not like every aspect of the Bill, and I am sure that their colleagues in the other place will continue to push the Government in a number of areas, I appreciate the collaborative and open manner with which they have engaged with me and put forward their arguments.
It will come as no surprise to many that I found the most enjoyable aspect of the Bill’s passage the debate on the Castlereagh Foundation, the establishment of which the Bill will enable. It provided us with an opportunity in Committee and on Report to discuss the great contribution that Viscount Castlereagh made to Irish, British and European history, not least as the architect of the Act of Union and a key figure in defeating the Bonapartist tyranny in the early part of the 19th century. In doing so, we have benefited immensely from the expert historical knowledge and wisdom of my noble friend Lord Lexden, who I see in his place and to whom I am especially grateful and have been ever since he took the bold decision to employ me 35 years ago.
Finally, I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lord Younger, my officials from the Northern Ireland Office, the Whips’ Office and all those involved in the Bill’s drafting for their hard work and support. The aim of the legislation is to implement important commitments in New Decade, New Approach, which, noble Lords will recall, led to the restoration of devolved government in January 2020. In remaining faithful to New Decade, New Approach, I am pleased that the Government were able to table amendments to the Bill and to make commitments in response to the debates we had.
As a result, I believe that the Bill is in a better state thanks to your Lordships’ scrutiny. Once again, this demonstrates the value of your Lordships’ House in examining legislation in detail. It is now over to the other place and, I sincerely hope, to a reconstituted Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, to continue and complete the work we have started in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the view of the Minister in the sense that the debates have been very good, informative and useful. They have also been informed from the point of view of many contributions from Members of your Lordships’ House from Northern Ireland, which enhanced the quality of the debate considerably. I thank the Minister for the very civilised way he handled this Bill at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report, and all Members of your Lordships’ House who took part.
The Minister rightly says that the Bill is based on New Decade, New Approach, which was an all-party agreement some years ago in Northern Ireland, and the Bill faithfully sticks to that agreement. There have been some improvements and, again, I am so glad that the Minister and the Government were able to accept those changes; for example, to how the Secretary of State’s step-in powers would be dealt with by Parliament. There were also changes, such as the Castlereagh Foundation, which originally was not in the Bill, and in the title of the commissioner for Ulster Scots to add the Ulster-British tradition. These came about because we had a good debate, and because these were sensible things to do.
I wish the Bill well. It is founded on the principles of the Good Friday agreement of equality, of ensuring that people have respect for each other, and of parity of esteem—which came up many times in debate. There is still an opportunity in the House of Commons for further changes to be made, so long as they are in step with the agreements made in Belfast. I wish it well on its legislative journey.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister and his Bill team for the constructive and positive way in which they have engaged with noble Lords on the Bill. I also thank my colleague Elizabeth Plummer in the Lib Dem Whips’ Office for her constant support and knowledge as somebody from Northern Ireland.
The Minister sets an extremely positive example—perhaps the gold standard—with his willingness to listen and make changes, as the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has said. It would be deeply welcome if a similarly constructive and listening approach were to be used for the two other Bills that have not yet reached your Lordships’ House: the legacy Bill and the Northern Ireland protocol Bill. It is unlikely, perhaps, but one can live in hope.
I have two final brief points, if I may. I believe that everyone, including the Minister, has agreed at various stages of the Bill that it would have been much preferred if the Northern Ireland Assembly had been dealing with this Bill. The Northern Ireland Assembly, with all its relevant experience and expertise in being much closer than many of us are here, would have been much better placed to deal with this legislation.
During the slightly unusual and turbulent period that we are going through, I none the less hope that the new Northern Ireland Secretary will allow the Minister to use his many years of experience to leave no stone unturned in helping to bring back a functioning Executive and Assembly as soon as possible. It is in no one’s interest, least of all the people of Northern Ireland, for this current stalemate to continue.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for all his hard work and dedication during the passage of the Bill. I am pleased that he and the Government have accepted the amendments to the title of the Ulster Scots/Ulster British commissioner and acknowledged the important role that the Castlereagh Foundation plays in research and exploring the shifting patterns of social identity in Northern Ireland.
Without wishing to add to the Minister’s workload over the Summer Recess, I ask him whether he would consider looking at two important issues in the Bill, as it makes its way to the other place. First, I believe that the proposal for the Secretary of State to overrule the Northern Ireland Assembly sets a dangerous precedent. Secondly, it needs to be made clear that, although the two commissioners have different functions, they should have equal weight in those functions so that the unionist community can be given an equal opportunity to complain through its commissioners across the spectrum of their function. I hope that these points will be given full consideration when the Bill reaches the other place. I thank the Minister again for all of his advice and work.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, we are grateful to the Minister. A Minister being prepared to be flexible and listen to people makes a difference. But I gently correct the noble Lord, Lord Murphy: the Bill and the agreement did not have all-party support. My party does not support New Decade, New Approach and never did, and we consequently never supported this legislation. Unfortunately, it will ultimately become a grievance factor for people. Certainly, it should have been dealt with not here but in Stormont. The Assembly is now heading towards six months without a functioning Government, in unprecedented economic circumstances —and winter, when things will bite even harder, is approaching. As each day passes, it is a matter of great regret that we find ourselves in this position.
This is no reflection on the Minister or his team; it is merely a fact. New Decade, New Approach, which led to the restoration of the Executive, was flawed anyway. But we have to move on and see how we can concentrate minds and get the institutions re-established so that we can help to protect as many people in the community as possible from the surge in prices and the suffering that I have no doubt will emerge in the winter. Sadly, we are still in this limbo.
Could the Minister ask his right honourable friends in his department to step up activity to ensure that we can get the institutions replaced? No process whatever seems to be taking place—yet huge national issues are at stake. I thank the Minister for his flexibility, but I assure him that we have a long way to go.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and his team for introducing the Bill. I also thank my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen, his team on the Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Obviously, as an Irish language enthusiast and as someone who studied it up to O-level and attended the Gaeltacht on several occasions, I want to see the Bill implemented as quickly as possible. For me, it represents parity of esteem and the necessary equality of opportunity.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that the Bill should have been dealt with by the Northern Ireland Executive presenting it to the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is vital that those institutions, and all the institutions of the Good Friday agreement, are up and running as quickly as possible. I appeal to those preventing this taking place to act immediately to put the Assembly, the Executive and the other institutions in place, because that will be in the best interest of the people of Northern Ireland, who are suffering from high inflation and high energy and food prices.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, that the other Bills need to be resolved: the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill and the legacy Bill. Several outstanding issues need to be resolved, but they need to be resolved on an equitable basis, based on equality and parity of esteem.
Finally, I thank the Minister for agreeing to meet Conradh na Gaeilge, the Irish language organisation in Northern Ireland and hope that can take place shortly, so that they can discuss the need for an Irish language strategy to put in the Bill, perhaps in its passage through the other place, and a time limit on the Secretary of State’s powers. The members of that organisation can embody those issues much better through their articulation as people who are enthusiasts. I do not make that by way of a political point—they are Irish language speakers in the truest sense of the word. Once again, I thank the Minister.
Restoration and Renewal
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal
That this House
(1) reaffirms its commitment to preserving the Palace of Westminster for future generations and ensuring the safety of all those who work in and visit the Palace, now and in the future;
(2) notwithstanding the Resolution of 31 January 2018, welcomes the report from the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions proposing a new mandate for the Restoration and Renewal works and a new governance structure to support them;
(3) accordingly endorses the recommendations set out in the Commissions’ report; and
(4) in consequence, approves the establishment of a joint department of the two Houses, under the terms of the Parliament (Joint Departments) Act 2007.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of the House of Lords Commission, I ask the House to endorse the Joint Commission report for a new mandate for the restoration and renewal programme, and to approve the Motion before the House today. Before I turn to it, I should like briefly to comment on the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. He rightly highlights that sitting behind this Motion and the new mandate is the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. That Act was the product of careful consideration and scrutiny by both Houses, and the noble Lord played an active part in our discussions. Your Lordships will recall that Section 2 of the Act sets out a number of important considerations to which we wanted the sponsor body to have regard in exercising its functions. I want to make it clear that those considerations will not be amended by the proposed secondary legislation.
The noble Lord has picked out three in particular, relating to the important points of the accessibility of the Palace and any temporary location; public engagement during the works; and the need to ensure that benefits from the works are available throughout the United Kingdom. Regardless of this amendment, the Motion before us does not override those requirements of the 2019 Act. The full list of matters that the client function must have regard to remains in place. The new parameters from the commissions are supplementary to the provisions in the Act; they do not replace them. This point is set out in paragraph 22 of the report, and I reiterate it now for the benefit of your Lordships’ House. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment at the appropriate point.
Before I move on to the substantive Motion, I put on record our thanks to the sponsor body—to Sarah Johnson and her team—for the considerable work that they have done to date, and to the sponsor board, particularly those from your Lordships’ House who have given time and effort in their active participation as members of it. I look forward to hearing contributions from several of them today.
The commissions have reiterated their shared commitment to preserve the Palace of Westminster for future generations. It is our collective duty as custodians, and our responsibility to all who work in and visit it. It is a duty that we do not take lightly, which I hope will be demonstrated in what I set out today. Noble Lords may ask why a new mandate is needed when we and the other place in 2019 passed the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act, and gave effect to decisions made by both Houses in 2018, when a set of resolutions was approved about the governance and delivery of the programme. The answer is that we are in a very different situation today than we were then.
When we made our decisions in 2018, the best guesstimate we had was a programme costing £3.5 billion, with a decant period of around six years. Those were the figures in the independent options appraisal, provided in 2014. Those figures were only ever indicative estimates and not based on extensive surveys or design work, but they were the figures before your Lordships’ House at the time.
A lot of work has been undertaken since. Detailed surveys of the condition of the Palace have begun and more will be undertaken over the coming months. Detailed work has also taken place establishing the requirements of the two Houses, both for the end-state Palace and for a potential decant period. As a result of this work, earlier this year the sponsor body published initial estimates of its essential scheme option. It estimated the cost of R&R to be between £7 billion and £13 billion; that the work would take between 19 and 28 years to deliver, with a full decant of the Palace of between 12 and 20 years; and that the work would not begin until 2027 at the earliest. This is a very different proposition from that presented back in 2018.
Of course, two years after the outbreak of the Covid pandemic we are facing an incredibly challenging fiscal environment. We are responsible to the British taxpayer for the effective use of public money but at the same time we are responsible to the British public for safeguarding this historic building for future generations. We are merely its custodians, entrusted with this building for the time being. It falls on us to make decisions that will affect future generations of both parliamentarians and the public. These duties must be weighed carefully.
In 2018, it was thought that an independent body was best placed to act on behalf of Parliament, to set the priorities and to guide this project, but once up and running this operational model has not worked as effectively as we hoped. In the light of this experience, an independent advice and assurance panel was set up to advise on a new approach to the works and governance. The panel consisted of individuals with proven track records in major projects, picked specifically for their expertise. They have provided an excellent report on the current situation and proposed the next steps that both commissions should take to best fulfil the duties which fall upon us.
The governance structure envisaged in the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 drew upon precedent from other large-scale programmes. However, as the panel points out, Parliament presents a complex and varying array of stakeholders that is without parallel in other large-scale programmes. A programme of this scale will span multiple Parliaments, bringing with it further complexity.
Although the panel found that the concept of an independent sponsor body was reasonable in theory, it recognised that valid concerns were raised about how it worked in practice. In particular, the sponsor body was seen as operating in a way that was too distant from those who use this building the most. That perception was strengthened by concerns that there had been insufficient engagement by the sponsor body with Members of your Lordships’ House, as well as Members of the other place, and that insufficient engagement was a mutual failing.
The arm’s-length nature of the sponsor function has caused issues as the programme has developed. In the light of the fact that we as parliamentarians are accountable for the decisions—whether for money spent or choices that determine the future of the Palace—the commissions have concluded that to continue in this way is not the best approach to make this project a success.
The proposal before noble Lords today is that the governance of the programme is brought back into Parliament and integrated into the existing governance framework within which we operate. Both commissions agreed that this is best the way to ensure that the programme responds to our needs and changing political circumstances and requirements. The governance structure must, in the words of the panel, be able to
“anticipate and adapt to changing demands”.
It must be one that is resilient and enduring. By bringing the governance closer to where ultimate accountability for decision-making lies, we can achieve that aim.
Today presents an opportunity to reset the direction of the programme, and it is one which we in the commissions are determined to seize. We all accept that we need to step up our engagement and leadership in this area. The proposals before your Lordships’ House today are for a revised governance structure and a new approach to the works, prioritising safety and ensuring that works can start sooner. I will briefly address each of these points.
The Motion today would result in integrating the governance of the programme into existing parliamentary structures through the two commissions; a structure that will be responsive to the requirements of Parliament, and one that is engaged with and accountable to it. The new structure will see the sponsor body abolished and its functions under the restoration and renewal Act transferred to the two corporate officers, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the House of Commons, who will become the statutory duty holders.
The proposed new in-house governance will consist of two tiers: a client board and a programme board. The client board—in effect the two commissions acting jointly—will advise the corporate officers on the overarching strategic direction and make recommendations to the two Houses, which will remain the ultimate decision-makers for this programme. The new programme board will act with delegated authority from the client board and bring together parliamentarians, officials and external members with relevant programme expertise. The programme board will be the main forum for the programme. It will meet to resolve critical strategic choices and priorities, select options and resolve trade-offs and disagreements as needed to finalise the strategic case, which will ultimately be brought forward for both Houses to decide on.
The staff of the sponsor body—around 35 people—will be brought in-house to form a new joint department, accountable to the corporate officers, delivering the strategic case and working in tandem with strategic estates and other departments. This new joint department will be known as the client team.
I emphasise that there is no intention to change the role of the delivery authority, whose purpose is to develop proposals and ultimately deliver the works on the Palace. It will remain an independent body, bringing extremely valuable technical and commercial expertise and experience to the programme. We will have a closer and more direct working relationship with it following these changes. I take this opportunity to thank the delivery authority for all its hard work.
The independent panel has sought to meet the core challenge that this programme faces: the need to make decisions today for a project that will not be completed for decades. We are being asked to judge on the basis of our current needs and requirements, and current economic and political circumstance, what should be provided to our successors, who may face a quite different world and have different expectations and ways of working. However, unless we make a decision about our destination and engage constructively with it, this project will never get off the ground.
The independent panel’s proposal, which both commissions endorse, is to accept that challenge head-on and determine a long-term vision for the programme, which will enable the development of a strategic business case, but at the same time to accept that the delivery strategy for the works is not entirely fixed and will be reviewed periodically, enabling us to take account of changes when necessary and adjust course when developments require. This is the right path for us to take: planning for uncertainty but not allowing that uncertainty to deter progress.
In line with our primary commitment to safety, your Lordships’ House is being asked to endorse a revised approach to the works which puts safety first. Four areas will be the initial priority for the works: fire and safety, building services, asbestos and building fabric conservation. I hope noble Lords will agree that these are sensible and urgent priorities to focus on. The joint commission report sets out parameters to guide the works in this development phase, calling for a wider range of options and different levels of ambition to be considered, to ensure maximum value for money. This will include consideration of approaches that might minimise the period during which the Houses have to vacate the Palace.
In line with our commitment to maintaining the safety of all who work in and visit the Palace, we support the recommendation of the independent panel to take a pragmatic approach that allows for safety-critical restoration works to be commissioned and undertaken before the strategic case has been approved. While the 2019 Act allows for restoration works to be undertaken only once the proposals have been formally approved, that does not stop our teams doing essential maintenance and repair and other safety-critical work before the main Palace restoration works begin. The commissions are keen for restoration works to start sooner and deliver greater value for money through better integration with other critical works happening across the estate.
The Motion before your Lordships’ House is to endorse the recommendations of the joint commission. Secondary legislation will be required in due course to give effect to some of these decisions. Options will be reviewed and a strategic case will be presented to both Houses by the end of 2023. Today, no decision is being asked for on either the costs or specific delivery approaches of R&R. Members of both Houses will be consulted on proposals and will have opportunities to engage with these matters in due course.
On the issue of decant, your Lordships’ House is not being asked for a decision today on how, where, when or for how long the House will be temporarily accommodated during the R&R works. That is a decision for another day. I ask noble Lords also to note that there is no proposal for or against any specific option for temporary accommodation during the works presented in the commissions’ report. Let us take that decision at the right time, when we are informed by the strategic case.
In conclusion, the commissions propose a new way forward, one which allows us to balance our requirements as a working legislature with our responsibility to take fiscally prudent decisions and our stewardship of this historic building.
It is incumbent on us, in both Houses, to show leadership and take difficult decisions. Both Houses and commissions must, going forward, stand by the decisions we make, and make them work. I look forward to working with noble Lords from across the House to do just that. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett
“As an amendment to the above motion, at the end insert:
“(5) reaffirms its commitment that the client function for the Restoration and Renewal programme, in the form of the new joint department, must have regard to
(a) the need to ensure that—
(i) any place in which either House of Parliament is located while the Parliamentary building works are carried out; and
(ii) (after completion of those works) all parts of the Palace of Westminster used by people working in it or open to people visiting it, are accessible to people with disabilities;
(b) the need to ensure that the Parliamentary building works are carried out with a view to facilitating improved public engagement with Parliament and participation in the democratic process (especially by means of remote access to Parliament’s educational and outreach facilities and programmes); and
(c) the need to ensure that opportunities to secure economic or other benefits of the Parliamentary building works are available in all areas of the United Kingdom.”
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving the amendment in my name on the Order Paper, I wish to indicate a debt of gratitude to all those who have strived to find a way forward, from the original Joint Committee back in 2016, the sponsor board and the sponsor body to the staff at every level who have done their best to try and move this on over the last six years.
Many people will have read Mr Barry’s War—and if you have not, I recommend it—which indicates why I am concerned, and why I believe others should be, in relation to the Motion. I shall not like other Members today oppose the Motion, because I understand the politics behind it, but as spelt out in Mr Barry’s War, it was precisely the constant political interference in decision-making, back in the late 1830s, that messed up the original construction that we are endeavouring to protect today. I say to the Leader of the House, and I will come to the comments at the beginning of her speech in a moment, that we need to learn from history rather than live in it. We need to understand what went wrong years ago when restoration and some form of renewal were undertaken and to take into account the wise words of those who struggled then to get the seat of our democracy, our Parliament as it was emerging as a democracy, into a fit state—for them, for the 19th century and now, two more centuries on, for the 21st century.
I say that because the noble Baroness the Leader of the House referred to paragraph 22 and the new mandate. It is not just the mandate that concerns me. It is the level of ambition, and the understanding of where we are and what we need to do. There are those of us who would like to see, in a sensible and rational fashion, a complete review of how this Parliament operates, and its relationship to our wider democracy, which is deeply under threat—I do not mean just from the chaos emanating from Downing Street; I mean the vision that people are talking about in the western world, about how fragile our democracy is at the moment. I refer to the interesting and wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, over the last few days. We live in a very fragile environment.
The image of what we are trying to do, in putting the building right, needs to be matched by what we should be doing in putting our democracy right. At the centre of the democracy are this House and the other House. Unless we link the participative democracy in the community with the representative democracy in Parliament, and we take seriously how the construction and reconstruction of this building can contribute to that, both in its imagery and therefore its example, but also in its outreach which is mentioned in my amendment, we will get this very badly wrong.
I believe, as do many others—in fact, two amendments were put down in the other House yesterday and then withdrawn—that we need an ambitious programme that will lead us to a situation where, in 50 years’ time, people will be proud of this generation rather than asking the same old question: “Why didn’t they have the foresight to get it right? Why did they pass it on to us to botch up what they botched out in the first place?” That would be a terrible outcome.
What happened earlier this week in the Chamber of the House of Commons, when water came through the roof and the House had to temporarily adjourn, is almost a metaphor. I will not make any remarks about the new definition of drips in the other place because it would be deeply offensive, but honestly, that indicates both the urgent action we need, which the noble Baroness spelled out, and an understanding of what we are trying to achieve in putting it right.
I come to my amendment—noble Lords will forgive me if I run slightly over time. The reason why I am both concerned and so emotional about this goes back to the summer of 2019, following the joint scrutiny committee on the Bill on which I served. Incidentally, I thought that would be the most boring period of my parliamentary and political life, but it was not: it was an eye-opener, including the ridiculous arguments, which were eventually unlocked by then Leader of the Commons, the right honourable Andrea Leadsom, that a car park at the Ministry of Defence could not be used for temporary buildings and materials. We have staggered from one calamitous nonsense to another. It is important that, even with what I think is a flawed way forward, we try to get it right.
One thing that really got me all those years ago was the fact that when the original Bill, which became an Act in 2019, came to this House, it mentioned access for people with disabilities. It talked about access to the building, but it did not talk at all about access within it and therefore the functionality for either parliamentarians or those working in or visiting the building who by necessity would need to get around. That is why, along with the outreach function of making democracy work for the people out there and not just for the people in here, I was so keen to ensure that the amendments before your Lordships today were placed in the Bill in 2019. Such was my keenness that, over the Summer Recess—I pay tribute to the Ministers who were dealing with this at the time and who were prepared to give their time through that recess—I could not be there on the day that my cousin Abigail was buried because I needed to be here to ensure that those amendments were put forward and carried. That is why I am emotional about this.
I ask the noble Baroness not to take it for granted that everyone agrees that access and other key issues will be taken into account in years to come, unless we are crystal clear. I quote, for instance, the words of noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, on 16 May this year on this subject—I have given him notice that I would do this. He said:
“But the reality is that this building’s problem is services, not access or modernisation.”—[Official Report, 16/5/22; col. 245.]
Of course the problem is services, the plumbing, the wiring and the fabric of the building falling down. However, it is also about people—that is what this building and this Parliament are all about.
I would like to have it reinforced by the noble Baroness that nothing in this Motion precludes the implementation of the 2019 Act. Incidentally, the new mandate and the process which she has described are based primarily on ridiculous timescales and estimates of the cost; I say that having had 50-odd years in public life and having seen estimates like this before. We have moved from the ridiculous estimate for the Scottish Parliament, which underestimated grossly what it would cost, to grossly overestimating what it would take to get this right. For instance, the £13 billion that went adrift in fraud, which led the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, to resign at the Dispatch Box, should be compared to the likely cost of making sure that we have a Parliament fit for the late 21st century.
I do not want to hold anyone up. I tell the Whips that I will of course concede this evening, so nobody needs to stay on a hot summer night. But I expect and hope that the Minister will reinforce what she said at the beginning, because otherwise we will drift into a world where future generations will sincerely believe that we let them down.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader for moving the Government’s Motion and for her introduction to the joint report of the House of Commons and House of Lords Commissions. I also thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for moving his important amendment on the key principles of accessibility and public engagement going forward, and I thank the noble Baroness for her reassurances to him in her speech.
As the House will know, my noble friend Lady Smith has long been a passionate advocate for the visionary, strategic and structured management and delivery of the programme for the restoration of the Palace as set out in the 2019 Act, and she will sum up for us later. She and I worked closely on the then Bill on behalf of these Benches, and I note that many other noble Lords who were also heavily involved in that, and who are highly committed advocates, are also speaking today. They will share our deep frustration at the position we are now in. Nevertheless, we have obligations to meet and we must move forward.
Under the 2019 Act, we all thought we had established restoration and renewal governance structures and accountability that were vital to the safe and efficient execution and delivery of such a huge and complex project. By passing the Act, MPs and noble Lords accepted the necessity for the arm’s-length sponsor body to oversee the entire project, provide the expertise needed and avoid the constant political interference, changing objectives and moving goalposts that was greatly feared would happen under an in-house delivery alternative. It also meant full acceptance of the extensive analysis and costings that had been undertaken, showing clear evidence of the overwhelming safety, security, logistical and practical reasons why full decant of both Houses to alternative venues during the works was absolutely necessary and the only viable and realistic option in terms of overall costs and minimising project delivery timescales.
Sadly, the argument for a continued presence—primarily of MPs—and remaining in the building, like latter day Miss Havishams, has still not been laid to rest. A decision on whether to decant is not now to be made until after the intrusive survey work is completed and there is greater understanding of the condition of the House and the work that needs doing.
We also know that persistent attempts to revisit the basis and scope of the programme began pretty much as soon as the sponsor board started its work. The Lords’ spokesperson on the body, the noble Lord, Lord Best, who I am pleased to see is in his place and will be speaking later, has made clear his view that it has been hampered from the outset by political interference and has not been allowed to get on with the job Parliament gave it to do.
However, despite the regrettable changes to the established managerial and delivery structures and our disappointment at the stage we are now at, the House will know that, yesterday, the Commons supported this joint report produced by the two commissions. We strongly urge our Members in a free vote to support it today. We recognise that the joint report is now the only show in town—the only way to keep moving forward the vital restoration work that must take place on this wonderful building. It is the only opportunity we now have to try to make sure that the urgent and vital works that are needed are proceeded with in as coherent and managed a programme as possible, and the only way to get the essential House of Commons buy-in.
It is of considerable comfort that the joint report fully acknowledges the huge challenges and scale of the work that has to be done and outlines the key initial priorities of essential work that must be addressed to prevent the building falling into even further decay: on fire and safety; building services; asbestos elimination; and on the building’s stonework and framework.
The noble Baroness has set out the new structures and arrangements under the joint report, and I will not repeat the details. The sponsor body is disbanded, and the much-reduced numbers of expert staff that we have succeeded in retaining from it will be transferred to the new joint department of the two Houses. We will have a new in-house client body, advised by an independent panel of experts.
The Public Accounts Committee’s report on what has or has not taken place since the passing of the 2019 Act, and on the new mandate—surprisingly not referred to by the noble Baroness the Leader—raises a slew of key questions for her on how it will all work. I will come back to those later.
First, I pay tribute to the role played by our representatives on the sponsor body and draw the attention of noble Lords to their contributions in last year’s Grand Committee debate in November, on the parliamentary sponsor body’s 2020-21 annual report and accounts, led by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I commend it to noble Lords. It is a master class in the management of major renewal and construction management, with contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and from my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles and the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, both of whom have extensive experience of managing and delivering large-scale construction and building projects —on NHS pricing and procurement in the case of my noble friend Lord Carter, and on the 2012 Olympics in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton. The detailed analysis of the sponsor body’s accounts by our Finance Committee chair, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, was particularly insightful and informative in the light of the PAC’s subsequent observations.
My noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, are both speaking today, but it is worth placing on record the view of the noble Lord, Lord Deighton, that full decant is
“the only truly viable option which would produce the best value for money for the taxpayer.”—[Official Report, 16/11/21; col. GC 58.]
He also stressed the inescapable fact that for any total budget for renovation, three-quarters of the costs would be for the necessary core engineering work—a key factor that the Government must remember when the key priority areas are being planned and budgeted for.
My noble friend Lord Carter warned that:
“Without a decision, or if the decision is to kick the can down the road, we will be faced with a catastrophe at some point.”—[Official Report, 16/11/21; col. GC 64.]
This is a warning that we have heard many times and which no doubt will be repeated today. It is reinforced in the escalating media coverage on the state of the Palace, such as in the recent Observer article, “Britain’s Notre Dame?”, with some very graphic pictures of the decaying basement and antiquated engineering and plumbing works.
The steady but extremely slow-moving work of the sponsor body on the intrusive surveys and drilling down into the buildings and courtyards has urgently to be stepped up so that the maximum work can be achieved over the Summer Recess. I serve on the Services Committee, under the excellent chairpersonship of my noble friend Lord Touhig. We have spent a great deal of time over the past two years combing through detailed sponsor body reports on the urgent works needed and the proposed surveys—what they will cover, how they will work and what they are designed to find. My noble friend Lord Blunkett will be pleased to hear that this included ensuring that all the accessibility issues while the work takes place are fully addressed.
Can the noble Baroness the Leader assure the House that the surveys are going ahead at full steam on the priority areas of work over the summer, so that we know what we are starting with and the viable costs? The PAC report calls for this particularly in respect of determining what the asbestos removal plan should be and the safety of remaining in the Palace while these works take place.
The PAC report makes for some pretty sober reading, recognising of course the realities of the post-Covid financial environment. However, it contains no real surprises to most of us: the colossal sums wasted; the loss of the critical professional skills built up by the sponsor body to develop the business case for the programme funding and undertake the specialist construction and technical work; and the delay and prevarication that has resulted in the start date for major works being pushed back by many years, up to 48 or even 76 years under some worse-case scenarios. The PAC pulls no punches on these issues and on the increasing risks that the delays have caused.
Can the Minister comment on three of the issues that it raised? First, the PAC calls for a clear plan and structure on how the short-term risks to value for money and to avoid nugatory expenditure and further health and safety incidents will be managed. What timescales are envisaged for this extremely urgent area of work? Secondly, given the lack of time to consider other options for going forward and why the 2019 Act structures have not worked, how will the performance and governance lessons be learned in the delivery phase for the new arrangements? Thirdly, how will transparency and accountability to Parliament be managed in the future? What are the plans to report regularly to Parliament and its various committees on progress, potential costs and risks? How will the independent expert advice needed to support decision-making be truly independent and objective?
In conclusion, and despite the many unanswered questions from the Public Accounts Committee and that I am sure that will be asked by noble Lords today, I come back to where I started. The joint commission report on a new mandate, and the Motion before the House, must be approved. It is the only way forward to meet our obligations and to preserve and develop this wonderful building—the only show in town. Comfort can be drawn from the joint report’s undertaking to start the safety-critical works as soon as possible. There are definite signs of optimism in the first stage engagement survey of 20,000 members of the public, which shows strong support for the preservation and renovation of the Palace as the heart and centre of our democracy. This is a very welcome development and it must not be squandered.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, it is not just the effect of the heat that makes the prospect of this debate so dispiriting; it is the fact that we are having to have it at all.
The blunt reason for it is that there were a small number of people in the Commons, led by the former Leader of the House, whose romantic notions of the sanctity of the Commons Chamber made them unwilling to accept the clear and incontestable view that the cheapest and quickest way of making this building fit for the future was to have a full decant. This view has never had any substantive support in your Lordships’ House, and the commission has been clear throughout that a full decant was by far the best option. By requiring the sponsor body to investigate the case for a continuous presence, this minority view caused confusion and delay. When the sponsor body then produced its estimates earlier this year of the cost of going ahead and the time required, the figures looked so ridiculously large, particularly in respect of continuous presence, that their credibility was brought into question. That, in turn, undermined the credibility of the sponsor body itself.
That is why we have the current proposals before us. They are the answer to the question: if not the sponsor body, then what? The principal and obvious concern they raise is the one raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the reason the sponsor body was established in the first place: that the aim was to take the overall management of the programme away from Parliament itself. This was partly because of the experience of the 19th century rebuilding of the Palace, which was beset by parliamentary meddling, extending the process and making it much more expensive. It was also because more recently, Parliament has not shown itself to be overly adept at managing capital projects effectively and efficiently. I have a lot of sympathy with those arguments.
There are, however, at least some reasons to believe that the proposals before us today might work more effectively than what has gone before. First, the two commissions, Commons and Lords, will jointly play a continuing part in the oversight of the project. The key word here is “jointly”. Until three months ago, the two commissions had not had a joint discussion on the issue at all, because the Commons refused to do so. If we had worked together throughout, it is highly unlikely that we would have reached this impasse. Hopefully, a commitment to joint working and a continuous strategic oversight by the commissions working together will ensure the continuing political support for the process that clearly has not been present to this point.
Secondly, there is a broader recognition that more delay is unacceptable and that all the politicians involved in the programme board should be committed to making a success of the project. While Members of your Lordships’ House who served on the sponsor body did indeed do a noble job, there were some whose attitude helped to undermine its effectiveness. This new approach should mean that that does not happen in future. Thirdly, and related to that, as a result of broader political changes, the very few individuals who have caused so much damage to the programme are unlikely to be involved in any significant way in the future.
We have gone a long way backwards in terms of what R&R will look like. It had been agreed that there would be a full decant. It had been agreed where both the Commons and the Lords would go in the meantime, and preparatory activity was under way. Although some valuable work, such as the intrusive surveys, are going ahead this summer, beyond that nothing is now decided.
I have always supported the full decant and the temporary relocation of your Lordships’ House to the QEII conference centre. The original proposals for this were almost certainly too lavish, and the use of new technology over the pandemic has shown how we can make the relocation operate with rather less disruption than originally planned. For example, we could reintroduce electronic voting on the estate so that those with offices in Millbank do not have to spend a huge amount of time moving between their offices and the conference centre.
As to what we do in the Palace itself, I support the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, very strongly. I hope we will also look at other changes, such as covering some of the internal courtyards to enable facilities for Members and visitors. As the restoration of the Bundestag showed, there are great benefits in being imaginative.
One common argument against doing the project properly now is that it will cost billions at a time when the country simply cannot afford it, given all the other pressures on the public purse. This argument simply must be rebutted. First, failure to act decisively runs the risk of a serious fire or health incident, and the country would hardly look sympathetically at us if our endless dithering allowed such an eventuality to happen. Secondly, even on the quickest timescale this is a multiyear project. Expenditure in any one year will, by definition, be a fraction of the total cost. The highest rate of expenditure that is likely to be incurred, even if all goes well, will not happen for a number of years, by which point I hope the current economic crisis will be well behind us. So at no point will this project have a significant impact on overall public expenditure or the Government’s ability to spend their money where they deem it necessary to do so.
The key challenge now is to identify and appoint the political members of the programme board. They need to be fully committed to the success of the project and be prepared to spend a very significant amount of time and energy ensuring it. We will be asking a lot of them. As the first step in bringing sanity, speed and substance back into this project, we should support the proposals before the House. There is no other viable alternative and we simply must not tolerate further delay.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, alongside the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Deighton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, I am a board member of the restoration and renewal sponsor body charged with implementing the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. I act as the spokesperson responsible for reporting to your Lordships’ House on behalf of the board. I am grateful to the Chief Whip and the usual channels for allowing me to speak for a couple of extra minutes. However, the opinions I express today are my own.
I have to say that the whole exercise, since the creation of the sponsor body and the attached delivery authority in 2020, has been deeply frustrating. There is a straightforward reason for this: our client, for whom we were required to deliver a full scale R&R programme, including the decanting of both Houses while major works were undertaken, has not been committed to the project. The client role has been represented by a House of Commons Commission that has not accepted the brief.
The approach of the House of Lords Commission, with leadership from the two Lord Speakers over this period, has been entirely positive. The Lords side agreed the mandate set out in the 2018 resolutions and the Act, and accepted, albeit reluctantly, that a move, probably to the QEII conference centre, would be necessary. But from the Commons, it has seemed that there has been a constant effort to kick the can down the road, specifically to resist all proposals for temporarily decanting the Commons from the Palace. This tension came to a head in March with the decision from the House of Commons Commission that the comprehensive programme should be halted, and the sponsor body dismissed. In essence, the new position—now incorporated into the Motion before us—comprises two significant changes.
First, instead of a full-scale R&R programme, as originally envisaged by the Act, the delivery authority is being asked to bring forward a selection of more modest propositions for works that could be undertaken end to end. This avoids committing to a very large sum, which is hard to face up to when public funds are tight. It is also implied that this will make possible the continued presence of the Commons in the Palace throughout the restoration, even if the Lords must move out. The details of this changed approach need clarity urgently, otherwise the delivery authority—which is continuing its extensive preparatory investigations with intrusive surveys during the forthcoming recess—will face a prolonged hiatus, with all the dangers of losing more staff and of substantial nugatory expenditure.
An extended sequence of major repair projects will probably cost far more in total and take far longer—and, of course, risk a major disaster in the meantime. All that aside, the approach will simply not work when it comes to the extraordinary challenge of the basement beneath our feet. Last week, I paid another visit to the basement’s frightening scene: the tangle of intertwined sewerage pipes; miles of electric cables internet wiring, gas pipes, steam pipes and chilled water pipes; the newly installed fan to suck out smoke from the frequent small fires which stands idle because it stirred up the asbestos; and the inaccessibility of key infrastructure now behind layers of more recent installations. This part of R&R represents well over half the total cost and does not lend itself to being one of a series of smaller projects. Sooner rather than later, the complete upgrade of all the services in the basement must be faced. It is very hard to believe this can possibly be done sensibly, safely and economically with the Commons staying in situ.
The second change from the position prior to March 2022 concerns the governance structures for our R&R. This is the real focus of the Motion before us. Despite its governance performance being deemed exemplary by the relevant external bodies, the sponsor body is to be disbanded as soon as possible, with new in-house board arrangements as outlined by the Lord Privy Seal.
Should we accept or reject this Motion? I see three reasons why we should not oppose the proposed changes. First, the abolition of the sponsor body is a fait accompli. The process of dismantling the current structure has already gone ahead. Our excellent chief executive, Sarah Johnson, is leaving imminently and senior staff have already gone. Progress towards bringing the planned business case for Parliament to consider in 2023 has been discontinued and work on the QEII decant ceased months ago. It would not make sense to try to return to the position before the abrupt stop to our work back in March.
Secondly, I recognise the case for stopping the programme’s progress now because, if matters were to proceed as planned for a parliamentary decision this time next year, the House of Commons might well simply reject the sponsor body’s propositions and the whole of R&R would be set back indefinitely. It may therefore be best to stop now rather than continuing to spend money for another year before crashing into the buffers in 2023.
Thirdly, even though proposals for new arrangements for R&R sound very much like the can being kicked further down the road, I think they are worth a try. What they could do is remove the ongoing hazard of a client that does not really want the project to progress. If the new arrangements engage Parliament’s representatives more closely, with genuinely joint working between the two Houses, creating a greater sense of ownership of the brief and putting the deliverer and the client on the same side, it might at last resolve this inherent problem.
I feel sure that those of us who have served on the sponsor body will happily move on, and I am delighted that the majority of our highly capable and committed staff will form the team for the new in-house body, but a serious change of approach is required from the leadership of the Commons commission. The aversion to a decant has to go and I am encouraged by the view widely expressed in the Commons yesterday that a decant of several years should be accepted.
The client role must now be exercised with absolute clarity and there must be a proper recognition that the restoration and renewal of the Palace as a safe, sustainable and accessible building, fully in accord with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will be enormously costly but incredibly worth while. The total cost may be around £10 billion, spread over 15 years or so, although the rising annual spend of £150 million on maintenance will be saved.
Those in the Commons who are apprehensive about their electorate’s disapproval of such spending may draw comfort from the sponsor body’s consumer research, published last week, which shows that the wider public are hugely proud of this internationally recognised and iconic Palace and desperately want it fully restored. We should remember that all this spending supports businesses throughout the UK with contracts, jobs, apprenticeships and skills.
Because the new arrangements are a fait accompli, because they spare us a doomed outcome next year and because there is a chance that the new governance will at last achieve the commitment to the project that has been lacking, I accept the Motion before us. Let us get on with it.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am certainly not inclined to quarrel with this Motion, nor the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. At the same time, I feel that we are seeing no more than a further twist in what is already an overlong tale. The risks attributed to further delay are mounting and I cannot understand why more people do not recognise that fact. There is no guarantee that a grave incident can be averted. I pay tribute to all those of our staff engaged in minutely looking after this Palace to ensure that no unfortunate incident is allowed to spread and become a total disaster.
It is also now to be recognised—this has already been said in the debate—that a total decant from the Palace is the means of achieving lowest cost and shortest displacement. When a few years ago we sought the views of the Austrian Parliament, which was faced with a similar situation, it was ahead of us but the message it gave us at the time was: “You must get out of the building before you can carry out the repairs and the restoration satisfactorily.”
Staying on, as Peers and Members of Parliament did after 1834, proved a total nightmare. It has been graphically described in Caroline Shenton’s book Mr Barry’s War, and I am relieved that I am not the only person to refer to that volume. I think it should be made compulsory reading.
Even now, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Best, there are colleagues, maybe some of them entirely well meaning, who demur about what should be done. There is talk that, “They will not allow us back into this building”. That is a very odd idea; if the public are willing to see a very large sum of money spent on its restoration, they will not take too kindly to Members of Parliament and Peers who then say, “We don’t like it; we’re not going to use it”. There is some worry about whether an MP will be disadvantaged if his or her time is so short that they do not get to serve in the Palace of Westminster, because proceedings are taking place elsewhere. I find that a very strange way of looking at matters. To be a Member of Parliament should be seen as being about the honour and the privilege—not whether the upholstery is to your liking.
There is, as just referred to, the worry about the cost. Members of Parliament, looking to the people who elect them, worry about the sum of money being embarrassing when other difficulties are taking place throughout the country. The fact is that the evidence points to the public as whole caring more about the preservation of this building than they do about its inhabitants and we should realise that the British people have great pride in this iconic building. It would be seen by them as a total disaster if we did not attend to matters.
There are bound to be some cost overruns, as far as I can see. If the intention is to have a Parliament building on this site but updated for the likely needs of the next 100 years, inevitably there have to be some changes—some modernisation. Facilities for women would not be a bad idea. There is a classic quote from Lord Brougham, who said, on the question of whether seating capacity for ladies should be provided in the Commons part of the Palace, that
“ladies would be infinitely better employed in almost any other way than in attending the Debates of that House.”—[Official Report, 17/7/1835; col. 679.]
Of course, ladies did not even have the vote at that time, so this Palace was ill designed to look after that basic equity.
In our new arrangements, we must ensure that handicapped people are better able to use the facilities of this building and play a part in whatever way they seek. There need to be improved reception facilities for the greater number of visitors that we seek to attract to the Palace. It is an absolute scandal that at present we leave people in the open air, in queues, trying to get in. They can roast, freeze or be drenched. It is not the way that they should come to Parliament and get their first impression of it.
We need more space for meetings as we are taking on more and more issues and Members wish to congregate to discuss these things. All-party groups have swollen to, I think, more than 600 by now and it is very difficult to get facilities within the Palace at the moment. I quote again from Caroline Shenton, who said of Charles Barry and all he had to put up with:
“Battling the interference of 658 MPs, plus Peers, press, and Royalty; coaxing and soothing his collaborator, Pugin; fending off the mad schemes of a host of crackpot inventors and assaults from the egos of countless busybodies intent on destroying his reputation; and coming in three times over budget and 16 years behind schedule, its architect eventually won through—after countless setbacks and rows.”
It seems to me that some of those people roam this building like ghosts, reminding it constantly of what they wanted, not now recognising what is needed.
Let us not ignore the lessons of history; let us learn from them. Let our overriding purpose be a handsome Palace on this site, updated to allow our parliamentary democracy to flourish for many decades ahead.
Lord Carter of Coles (Lab)
My Lords, I support the new mandate because clearly the existing arrangements are not working. In fact, they have been a shambles.
I have had a ringside seat as a member of the sponsorship board. I have watched with great interest as the board tried to be true to the 2019 Act while facing the Government and the House authorities working to a totally different agenda. We therefore had stasis with no progress. It was sad to watch both parties spending a great deal of time talking past each other and spending money trying to prove different points, none of which had any grounds.
We could change the governance structure. The old adage is, “We have failed, we have reorganised and we have tried again”, but we must hang on to the fundamentals of the great challenges that we face. It will be interesting to hear in the response how we intend to organise to ensure that we are sticking with the things that we decide to do. There have always been three great challenges: what to do, how to do it and what we are prepared to spend on it. We have to get those questions nailed down. The delivery authority will bring forward proposals on that which will undoubtedly be well worked up.
When these great projects start, there is widespread consultation and everyone is asked what they would like. You build up an enormous wish list; I think the noble Lord, Lord Newby, described it as luxurious while others have described it as gold-plated. You inevitably end up with a long list of desirable things, and anyone involved in great projects knows that that is the moment when you have to edit. You have to seek to build a consensus about what you want to do and that has notably failed to be done. One of the most critical elements of the new structure will be to get people to sit down and agree what they are going to do. Will there be compromises on aspects such as access or security?
Are we really going to build something in here fit for the 21st century? We might want to consider the wisdom of trying to put a 21st-century future-proofed building into a mid-19th-century shell. That will cost a huge amount of money; maybe we should think a little around the edges of that.
On the question of how, other noble Lords have referred to what to do about full decant. That has been a subject of disagreement, the question that has most poisoned the progress of this scheme. We know that the two bookends were full decant at one end and significant continued presence at the other. The delivery authority is going to look at different proposals but—to dwell for a moment on continued presence—many of us who walk around the building, including underground, will realise how hard it will be to rebuild this thing if it is occupied. The estimates are that the most money we could spend, given the constraints of the building, would be in the low hundreds of millions a year. We cannot spend any more money if people are in the building. We might therefore end up with work lasting for 30, 40 or 50 years, and in that time there would be noise and dust as well as discomfort, not only to Members but to staff and visitors.
We therefore need to see a much more flexible approach—some form of decant. This will not work without decant to some degree. Again, though, we come to the central point: we need to get an agreement. We have had position-taking on this that has lasted years and people have not come together to get an answer. With the new arrangement, it is critical to sit down and decide, first, what we are going to do; secondly, how we shall do it, and settle that; and, thirdly, to settle the money.
I wondered the other day whether, when the joint commission came forward with its number of £3.54 billion for the scheme, if it had known at that point that the figure would be nearer £10 billion or even £13 billion, it would have proposed it. Other noble Lords have referred to the public being in support of this proposal, but we need to be aware of the climate. With Covid around the corner, would people have said, “We are prepared to spend £10 billion”, at that point? We need to find out what it costs—and find out quickly—but we can do that only when we know what we want to do, and we have dithered. Having found that out, we know the cost. We then come to the question of affordability: can we afford it and are we prepared to spend it? That is where the Government come in. We cannot plot our way forward in this unless the Government come forward very clearly and say what they are prepared to spend and what they are prepared to commit to spending in years A, B, C and D. We need to get that very clear.
It is right to have a reset. We need a new degree of pragmatism. Things are going to change continuously. I would be very keen to hear what the governance oversight arrangements are going to be. How will Parliament know? What are the milestones? What are we expecting to be delivered and when? How are we going to keep our eye on that? Reassurance will be critical but above all, like other noble Lords, I believe the key now is to use the reset to get speed into this. We are living on borrowed time, and it would be very sad if we did not take this opportunity to get on with things a great deal faster.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord has just said about the Government and their role. One of the more misleading statements in the general debate so far—not in this debate this afternoon, but outside—has been that it is all a decision for Parliament. That is patently not the case. If Parliament was to make a decision on financial spending which went over the accepted limits, then it is a pound to a penny that the Government would intervene; there is no doubt about that whatever.
As it is, over the last eight years, government Ministers such as Mr Rees-Mogg have not thought twice about intervening in the debate of Parliament. Even more to the point, Governments can take decisions which limit the action of Parliament. If we take the issue of a decant of Members—I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said about Members working while it is going on, and I do not want to argue the case because he has done it so well, as have others—the obvious place is the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre.
However, the former Secretary of State, Mr Gove, whose department ran the centre, said bluntly—rather like a 19th century mill owner—that this was not acceptable to him and that the House of Lords should not go to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre but hundreds of miles away. We have a position where a Secretary of State—here yesterday and gone today—appointed by a Prime Minister who is still here today but gone tomorrow has vetoed the most sensible proposal for a decant of this House, if it ever decided to go that way. I hope that the Leader of the House in replying to this debate will say if the veto on the Queen Elizabeth II Centre is still part of the Government’s policy—or was it just Mr Gove’s policy and not the Government’s? It is rather a crucial question. If we cannot go to the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, that limits where a decant could go.
I cannot resist saying in passing that I am puzzled by a process that has a commercial conference centre run by the Government and not the private sector. I see that my old friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, is here. We worked together very early on in the Thatcher Government in transport. We found a company called National Freight Corporation, which included a removals company called Pickfords. We came to the conclusion that you did not need a nationalised removals company in this country. I do not think its abolition as such has caused any controversy with any known political party.
In my position as a—what am I?
Lord Fowler (CB)
In my position as a Cross-Bencher, I think that it is a very odd position for the Conservative Party. I do not believe that it is in our national advantage. I gently say that it might be better for the Government to go down the privatisation route in this area rather than in one or two others that they seem to support.
That brings me to my second point about the joint report. Frankly, I did not find it to be the clearest exposition of the case or the clearest piece of writing. I give one example, from page 6:
“The Panel recommends that the parameters ‘should be augmented by clear evaluation criteria’ which are designed to support option assessment, and key trade-offs which will need to be made to arrive at a progressively shorter list of possible options for the works. These criteria should take account of longer-term perspectives and link to the programme’s end-state vision and intended outcomes.”
I am sure that that is persuading people around the country to be in favour of this report, but I am not altogether sure that it persuades me. There is much in the joint report about generalised vision but precious little about some of the real issues, such as the real cost of eight years of work—carried out prior to what is now called a “new mandate”—that we are turning our backs on.
Thirdly and finally, after the Great Fire of 1834, to which the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, referred, various efforts were made to agree a rebuilding plan, and it took 30 or 40 years for it all to be agreed. We should learn from that. I am concerned not just because of the complexity of the task but because of the many interests, including the Government’s and government Ministers’, all intervening at the same time. Unless we are very careful, we are likely to face exactly the same kind of indecision and delay as they did in the Victorian times—we have certainly done that in the first eight years. So far, we lack both leadership in this project and a determination to stay on the plan.
I agreed with the spirit and almost every word of what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said, but I was not encouraged when the Leader of the House said that it would take “decades” to complete this project—I think I quote her right. Is it really going to take decades? If it is, we are in for a certain amount of difficulty. We need to get on with this; we should decide a plan and stick to it, rather than having the kind of debate and discourse that we have had over the last eight years.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that I speak for all of your Lordships when I say that I am very fond of this building. My affection has grown as a result of having been a member of your Lordships’ Finance Committee for over four years. This gave me the opportunity to clamber all over its structure, up both Victoria and Elizabeth Towers, and on top of and underneath Westminster Hall, inspecting stained glass and other windows, all to investigate excellent works that were in progress, or which had been completed and had appeared in the accounts. It is fair to say that, in large part, notwithstanding all the scaffolding that we can see, the outside of the building is in pretty reasonable condition. I am not going to rehearse the comments already made by so many noble Lords about the internal conditions, other than to continue to highlight the difficulties attached to the unknown quantity of asbestos and the state of the cellars and basement—a tour of which should be obligatory for all able-bodied Members of both Houses. Lastly, there is the situation regarding fire hazards, whereby, as your Lordships know but can chillingly be reminded, there is a requirement for 24-hour fire marshals, who detect one fire a month on average in this building.
So my interest in R&R has developed a personal focus, and my two questions for the Leader of the House are these. What real progress has been made since 2016? How much money has been spent on R&R to date? With regard to the first, I have seen a disappointing lack of focus on an operational level, which on occasion has led to a manifest waste of money without accountability. By way of an example, a management consultancy study was initiated to explore the design and cost for a floating dock on the river to facilitate the transport and unloading of building material that was forecast to be needed for R&R. This was done without prior consultation with the river authority, which when asked said that it had not granted permission for such a structure. Another example is the laying of an electric cable at Millbank House, infinitely more costly than necessary and with a much greater time delay than was forecast because the correct permissions had not been sought at the right time from Westminster City Council. Those are small examples, but they illustrate the disquiet that some of us feel as we inch forward slowly on this endeavour. Has anyone really thought through how and within what timescale world heritage site authorities, historic building conservation officers and the council will work together on whatever grand plan the proposed new joint commission will come up with? What likelihood is there that they will concur with whatever plans are proposed in any event?
The stop-go history of R&R to date tells its own story of obfuscation, just now so eloquently put by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Best. His speech should very much echo in our collective memory. For my part, having a passing knowledge in my professional life of the hiring and firing of people, I recently tabled two Questions with a view to finding out how much these comings and goings have cost in terms of personnel costs, both full time and agency. The first was to the Senior Deputy Speaker regarding R&R costs paid for by your Lordships’ House since 2014, the answer to which is £58 million, with staff costs at £7.5 million and contractors at £51 million.
The second question was to the sponsor body and the delivery authority, to ask what their costs have been since they were established in April and May 2020. I am glad that your Lordships are sitting down, because the answer—in a six-paragraph reply—was that for two years, between 2020 and 2022, the figure was £212 million, of which £33.5 million was salary costs and £151 million related to contractor costs. I know that contractors are expensive, but what do we have to show for this investment? Any reference to long-term value to be gained from design and survey work, programme delivery, and project and programme management is debatable, since within a very short period of time all costings and designs become redundant and need to be reworked. Within that figure, £11 million was spent on work assessing and preparing decant locations. Is that really what it cost to direct us toward the Queen Elizabeth II Centre as a location option for this House?
Since we are pretty much back to where we started, my questions to the Leader of the House are these. First, should your Lordships have confidence that the new mandate for the R&R programme will bring about the cessation of what to date has proved to be in large part an egregious waste of money? Secondly, will its success or otherwise remain dependent on the whim of the Commons? I fear that history will not be kind to us if we continue to procrastinate and fail to make a decision before an accident occurs in this marvellous building. I echo in very large part the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I am surprised to hear myself saying that. What pleasure there is comes from having more transparency in the past hour about what has been going on and what is likely to happen than we have had in any document or debate to date. It has been exceptionally helpful to hear the devastating speech from the noble Lord, Lord Best, and to hear from my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain. There are so many questions being lined up for the Leader of the House. I am sorry she will have such a limited time to reply, and so we look forward to her letter.
In deciding on the future of this building, we will be judged to have been derelict in our duty. What we have heard this afternoon is that vested interests seem to mean that we are incapable of acknowledging the consistent evidence that it is more expensive, more dangerous and will take far longer if we insist on staying in this building, for whatever period, than if we faced up to the realities of a full decant. That is what the evidence has been telling us for four years. That is what we voted on in 2019. That is what the work of the sponsor board, as we have heard, was geared to when collecting evidence as an expert, independent body. That is what we thought we would stick to. We thought we had a plan, but we have had a handbrake turn instead. Far from planning for certainty, we seem to have created even greater, indefinite uncertainty.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others have said, in February this year the sponsor board came forward with figures. Those figures were unacceptable and took the commission by surprise: parameters of £7 billion and £13 billion, and a decant period of 12 to 20 years. The sponsor board also produced two other scenarios. First, that the Commons stay put in the building—probably in this part of the building, while we would be evicted indefinitely—at a cost of between £9 billion and £18 billion. Secondly, that we all stay put in the building site, at a cost of £11 billion to £22 billion, and facing the ludicrous prospect of work taking 76 years. That would be daunting to even the youngest of the hereditary Peers. There would be significant parliamentary disruption, with longer recesses and no parliamentary recall.
In response to this unwelcome evidence, the commission shot the messenger—what else could it do?—losing all the skills and the knowledge that had been accumulated. Now we have a situation where politicians and parliamentarians will be firmly in charge, but at least, as has been said, the commissions of both Houses will work together. That is a definite improvement. This is a scenario that Barry and Pugin recognised in extraordinary detail immediately in having to deal with what Bagehot called the interference of politicians—it came close to killing one and really did kill the other. They were trying to design the Palace; we are trying to concentrate on saving the Palace, and the future and functions of Parliament.
The current—although possibly very temporary—Leader of the House of Commons seems to think that the answer lies in some sort of Shavian superhero; what he calls a star architect, who will be brought in to reconcile the irreconcilable. Parliamentarians would work in a dangerous building site for decades, rather than budge.
The building is dangerous: we have had 13 instances of falling masonry in recent years—the most recent being the north face of Westminster Hall. We all know that it is dangerous, and not least because it suspends the Commons. Yesterday, with masterly timing, a leak suspended the Commons. Removing asbestos has already proved to be dangerous to our staff. Experts outside this House tell me it would take at least two years just to remove the asbestos. Does the Leader of the House agree with the trade unions that
“the ongoing viability of the Palace of Westminster as a safe workplace is at stake and … anything less than the full decant envisaged under the Act would put that at risk”?
I would appreciate a clear answer to that at the end of the debate.
The temporary sprinklers in the basement may hold the worst fires at bay but they cannot prevent them all, and they will cause further damage. They have cost £140 million to install and will be ripped out when something permanent is put in. That is only one of the eye-watering examples of waste revealed by the PAC report a few weeks ago—the latest in a long line of devastating audits on lack of transparency, failure of accountability and waste.
I will put some specific questions to the Leader of the House; the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Carter, have answered many of them, but I still think I ought to put them to her. Why precisely did the commission propose dissolving the sponsor board? What did not work? Does she accept the sponsor board’s evidence that not decanting the House fully will be more expensive and dangerous and take longer? Are the two alternative scenarios set out and costed by the sponsor board still on the table? Does she agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that what is proposed now will not work? Can she explain why she thinks it will? Can she expand on the Leader of the House of Commons saying yesterday that, notwithstanding the need for an agreed end view, there should be “opportunities for periodic review” to
“allow the programme to adapt to changing fiscal, societal and political contexts”?—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/22; col. 275.]
Does that not mean a licence for political interference?
Put that together with the evidence that the House administration has a poor track record of project management and I have little confidence that we know what we are doing. However, I believe we have to support this, for the reasons that have been explained, because there is no alternative and we can see some improvement.
The commission now has the great challenge of showing real leadership and reconciling what is desirable with what is necessary. If we are going to be stuck in this limbo indefinitely, we face the risks of catastrophic failure, as people always do when custodians of heritage buildings fail to act in time. We will be accountable to not just this country but the world. UNESCO is looking at us extremely closely; it wants a plan to secure the building and protect its heritage, on a realistic timetable. At the moment it does not have that; if it does not get one, we will face the shame of being blacklisted as a world heritage site.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I find it difficult adequately to communicate the sense of frustration that I feel at the way these matters have been handled. In 2011, together with my opposite number Sir David Beamish, I commissioned the original condition survey of the Palace. I felt passionately that we could not be another generation of stewards who passed up on our responsibilities for this wonderful building; it had been only too easy to do, year after year and decade after decade. David and I agreed that this had to stop.
The principal conclusion of that survey was that doing nothing was not an option. Now, more than a decade later, we are still unable to escape from Groundhog Day. Still beneath our feet is that horrifying basement, so vividly and frighteningly described by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and which I very early on christened the “Cathedral of Horror”. Certainly, there is no reason to change its name now.
I supported the original R&R governance structure on two main grounds: that parliamentarians would be unable to resist interfering with the delivery of the project, as happened for decades when the Palace was being built; and that Parliament is not good at taking executive decisions—and why should it be? Now, it seems, everything is to be put back into the melting pot.
I spoke in the debate on 6 February 2018, at the end of which your Lordships concurred with the House of Commons in recognising the
“clear and pressing need to repair the services in the Palace of Westminster in a comprehensive and strategic manner to prevent catastrophic failure in this Parliament”.—[Official Report, 6/2/18; cols. 1916-17.]
The two Houses agreed that the only option was a full decant, and that the right governance model was a sponsor board and delivery authority. Now we are back to square one—or possibly square minus one. I do not feel strong enough at the moment to revisit the arguments about governance, nor those about the likely cost. My concern is with the immediate practicalities, which I hope the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be able to address in her reply.
First, let us suppose that there is what the 2018 resolution of both Houses called a “catastrophic failure” of services. It might be caused by fire, flood, power outage, asbestos escape, whatever. If there were a major incident, it might well mean that the Chambers and perhaps large areas of the Palace were unusable for a long time. Let us also say that, instead of the vague possibility of such a failure, the very vagueness of which has been such a comfort over recent years, the disaster happens tonight—for the sake of argument, at about 11.30 pm. What happens tomorrow? How does Parliament continue its work? I hope there are good answers to these questions, but I fear I do not know them.
It is worth remembering, too, that there are already a large number of projects under way on this crowded and constrained site, and it is a credit to those who plan and carry out those works that the effect on day-to-day business has been minimised.
The first paragraph of the Motion before us emphasises the need to ensure the safety of all those who work in, and visit, the Palace, now and in the future. It is one thing to express such a commitment but quite another to fulfil it. We may think that we carry some collective responsibility for these matters, but legally they fall to two people only: the Clerks of the two Houses, who under the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Act 1992 are the corporate officers. Those of your Lordships who have been corporate officers, in whatever contexts, will be only too well aware of the unforgiving nature of the law in respect of corporate responsibility. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 concentrates the mind wonderfully—it certainly concentrated mine. It is for a corporate officer, and for him or her only, to decide whether an organisation can discharge its duty of care and, if not, what remedial action to take.
In a parliamentary context, that could mean deciding that part of the Palace was too hazardous to allow access to. That could not be overruled by the commissions of the two Houses, and it might have a very significant effect on the transaction of parliamentary business. I would simply observe that in terms of hazards—multiple hazards—we are living very close to the edge. We can be lucky only for so long, and if we are not, national and world opinion will not be kind to us.
When I spoke in the February 2018 debate, which was just about a year before the Notre Dame fire, I suggested what I described as,
“a highly plausible scene … on a hot summer’s evening, with both Houses sitting late to finish business before the Recess. One of the too many minor fires, which we are told occur each year, swiftly becomes a major fire and spreads rapidly because of the lack of completed fire compartmentation. The electricity supply goes down completely. A huge demonstration which happens to be taking place in Parliament Square means that the emergency services cannot get to us quickly. There are hundreds of casualties and possibly fatalities.”
I asked:
“How do we feel about continuing to carry that risk…?”—[Official Report, 6/2/18; cols. 1972-73.]
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House emphasised the need to proceed more quickly with safety-critical works, but I would say—adopting Lenin’s words, “everything is connected to everything else”—that it is quite hard to complete safety-critical works within the wider context of building restoration. You cannot do it properly without doing it as a single exercise.
I shall finish on a less pessimistic note. I endorse the aspirations of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. As chairman of the fabric advisory committee of a cathedral, I am very well aware of the shortages in the many heritage crafts that will be needed for the restoration and renewal of this world-renowned building and the desirability of these being found from all parts of the country. I am glad that it seems accepted that R&R should be supported by a heritage crafts academy, which partly through apprenticeships will support the skills needed and thereafter will stand as a permanent public benefit.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I remind your Lordships of my registered charitable interest as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education, which has some national responsibilities for vocational education and apprenticeships, and I shall return to apprenticeship in one moment. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has mentioned this aspect of R&R.
With other noble Lords, I believe we must accept these proposals for restoration and renewal. I have much to do in my life with the repair and restoration of historic places, and the one thing that we know about working on heritage buildings is that the unexpected happens. What look to be straightforward and relatively swift tasks very soon turn out to be complicated, slow and delayed ones, and it is rare that the opposite happens. I think, as my noble friend Lady Evans has said, we must have processes which anticipate and adapt as we go along.
I have two, brief observations: one of them cautionary, the other a request. Annexe A of the joint report says that it will be essential to ensure that,
“lessons from previous project activity are embedded in future project activity”.
I think that is what noble Lords have been asking for throughout the afternoon. There is one particular reason that I want to outline for that, and that is that the number of men and women in the country who are skilled and experienced in the leadership, management and delivery of great projects, such as this one, is not infinite. During the coming decade, there will be large number of huge infrastructure programmes in the United Kingdom, many of them connected with the supply of energy, both conventional and green, and which current world conditions will demand of us. They will require exactly the kind of people that the restoration and renewal of Parliament will need. It is sad that we now have, out there, a reputation for vacillation, and that may not make us attractive employers. As page 27 of the report suggests,
“confidence within Parliament has been lost to … an extent”.
If that is so, it will certainly be lost outside Westminster and we must now regain it by clear, unambiguous plans for the future, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, made clear to us in his speech.
Secondly, in the last few years—and I hope the noble Lords will find this rather more encouraging than some of the issues we have discussed this afternoon—I have been in discussions with the delivery authority staff, and I want to pay tribute to them for all their professionalism and hard work, in difficult circumstances during the last few years. We have been designing, in embryo, what has now been called the Palace of Westminster apprenticeship scheme. Briefly, it suggests that restoration and renewal should provide a superb opportunity to showcase apprenticeships of every kind. As well as heritage crafts, which have already been mentioned and are in danger of disappearing, there are many which will lead to permanent, important employment opportunities for such as architects, surveyors, builders, electricians, safety engineers, plumbers, stonemasons, carvers, painters and those engaged in a host of other skills. I am delighted to say that the delivery authority’s contracts over a certain sum will now require firms to employ an appropriate number of apprentices on or off-site. The scheme will offer employers the opportunity to register young people at the start of their apprenticeships and to report when they have successfully completed them. They will then receive a small medal, based on a Victorian example showing the Palace from the Thames, to remind them of their work on this historic site, which we want them to be proud of and remember. There are likely to be around 50 or 80 of these young people every year, and we hope that some of your Lordships will meet them.
This House knows that there is a serious skills gap in this country. Whereas large national businesses are good at training the young, small and medium-sized firms often find it difficult to do so. The incentives are too few and the bureaucracy complicated. Alas, the numbers of trained and up-to-date lecturers in vocational colleges are falling each year. If this country is to be competitive, then things must improve. This scheme, in a small but visible way, will help, and I commend it to your Lordships for approval.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, I very much regret the situation that we find ourselves in today. I served on the sponsor body until the last general election, with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and others, and it is worth remembering that one of the reasons the sponsor body was put in place was that it was based on the backdrop of the successful delivery of the Olympic Games in 2012. It was very much based on the way the Olympic sponsor body was set up, to get on and do the job.
There is no doubt that this project will be vastly expensive and no Government, be they Labour or Conservative, will want to commit that kind of money to it. I look at the Elizabeth Tower as it is today. What a fantastic example of restoration that is. Yes, the costs overran, but the Elizabeth Tower is seen as a symbol of the United Kingdom around the world—it is absolutely prominent. While it was being prepared, it looked awful. In fact, when most people go past the Palace of Westminster today, they think we have started restoration and that we are committed to doing it. We are doing not restoration but repair, because in places the building is falling down.
I understand why we are where we are today and the sensitivity about the whole decant. When I spoke in the other place on this matter, I made the case that one of the large infrastructure projects that I saw commenced when I was Secretary of State for Transport was the rebuilding of London Bridge station. That was four years of sheer hell because it was still being operated. If you look at it today, everybody says what a fantastic job has been done, and likewise with some of the other restorations that have taken place.
The simple fact is that restoration is incredibly complicated and very difficult to do. I very much sympathise with what the commission has been saying. However, one suggestion I would like to make at this point is that perhaps we should think in the future of giving the planning authority to the Commons so that it can get on with the job. I fear that there will have to be a decant. Nobody really likes the idea that some of the works that need to be done, certainly in the basement or the cellars, will require it, but it will be impossible without it. Parliament used to have a three-month Recess and sometimes a lot of the building work was done in it. That is now seen as impractical and something that we will not go back to. I do not think we should—there might be a desire for it but I would certainly not like to see the headlines in the papers. I can say that today because I think the headlines in the papers tomorrow will be of a different nature. Therefore, I do not think we will go back to that position. Now, however, the whole Palace is almost like a building site; that is not to take away from the very difficult jobs that a lot of people do in and around the building, trying to maintain it.
I should like to see us give ourselves our own planning permission and to see 24/7 working once we start that basement work. We could get access via the river; that could be one way of overcoming the problem. Some of the things that the sponsor body has been attacked for coming up with were never its plans in the first instance. The whole Richmond House idea was not something that the sponsor body did; it was told that it had to do that. Sometimes I feel that elements of the sponsor body have been unfairly criticised for coming forward with proposals that were not originally theirs—the body was told that it was necessary to do them.
The noble Lord, Lisvane, aptly summed up the challenge to us. It is a huge challenge. I understand why the Leader of the House and the commission have come forward with today’s proposals, and that is why I will support them tonight. However, this is an incredibly special building, not just in the United Kingdom but in the world, and we need to make sure that it is looked after and maintained to the highest possible standards.
Part of the reason we are in the mess we are in is that past Governments have not wanted to do any of this work. There has to come a time when we are on the front foot, saying why it is right and necessary to do it. I hope that the Leader of the House can reassure us that this will not lead to even longer delays. If we get longer delays, one day there might be a catastrophic incident and then people will say, “Why didn’t you do this before when you knew about it?” We did know about it but, at the moment, we are not acting.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords that I chair your Lordships’ Finance Committee and therefore sit on the commission. In those roles I have become more involved in the discussions around R&R in the last year or so, but I stress that today I am speaking entirely on my own behalf.
I wholeheartedly support the Motion in front of us today and the changes being made to the governance of the R&R project. We have heard quite a lot of doom and gloom so far and I am sure we will hear more, so let me try to put a more positive view on things, if I can.
First, I will say a word on what the proposal is, and what it is not. This is not about prejudging the end result—what options will be chosen, whether we decant or not, the level of accessibility and so on. Those decisions are for the next stage, once the delivery authority has done its job in providing us with a range of options. This proposal is about how we get to that point and ensure that we are able to take the right decisions. I am sure that some will think we already know what the options are, but really, we do not. No intrusive surveys have yet been carried out—they are, at last, happening this summer—and only very limited options have been considered. Like most noble Lords, I expect that a full decant or at least some decant will be required. But again, that is not a decision for today.
I thank our representatives on the sponsor body board. They have worked extremely hard to get us to this stage and, frankly, their task was pretty much impossible. They deserve our sincere thanks. But the existing structure was flawed and, frankly, not working. The sponsor body was created in part to put R&R at arm’s length from Parliament and to remove the politics from it. That failed. It was not the fault of the sponsor body but we ended up with the two Houses of Parliament taking opposing positions. The whole thing became, frankly, rather Brexity, split between “decanters” on one side and “non-decanters” on the other, rather than trying to find imaginative solutions to the problem. One of the great positives to come out of this new situation is that the two Houses are now working much more closely together. Personally, I have been encouraged by the amount of common ground we have had in our joint meetings.
The sponsor body was also meant to be the “critical client” for the delivery authority but, in reality, I am afraid that it has become its de facto communications arm. This has been most evident in the poor control of expenditure, as the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain, previously raised. The combined expenditure of the sponsor body and the delivery authority to date has been well over £200 million—I think the noble Lord said £212 million—which includes incredibly high expenditure on corporate overheads and consultants and, in particular, extraordinary levels of expenditure on IT. The sponsor body itself has been paying between £5 million and £7 million a year to a big four accountancy firm just for the business planning. As I say, the intrusive surveys are only now kicking off, nearly two years later than planned. Most of the work done has been desktop analysis and modelling rather than genuine “sleeves rolled up” investigation.
The structure also created a very “them and us” situation. Our in-house teams, who probably know more about this building than anybody else, have not been sufficiently involved in the R&R process so far. This reset should ensure much closer collaborative working—it is already achieving it. However, we should be looking at how we can improve the situation, and I believe that this reset creates some real opportunities.
First, we have heard comments, and I am sure we will hear more, about kicking the can down the road. I have a more optimistic view. There has been a tendency to defer decisions on important work simply because it will be part of R&R. Part of that is to avoid nugatory spend, but part of it has simply been “It’s simply too difficult to make that decision now: let’s park it.” We now have the opportunity to bring some of those elements forward, especially where they relate to safety and risk, and I very much hope that will happen. I urge the teams to give us tangible examples of that as soon as possible.
Secondly, I hope we will now see a fundamental change in approach and mindset. So far, the way it has worked is that the sponsor body and the delivery authority come to us to ask how we want things to look and then go away to investigate that scheme. To me, that is the wrong way round. As Members of this House, none of us are experts; we do not know what is the art of the possible; and we do not really understand the state of the building. Of course, we know the broad parameters of where we want to end up—safety, accessibility and fitness for purpose as a home for Parliament in the future—but there are many ways to achieve that. To prejudge the detail before we have the options is the wrong way round. In this, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter: we should not set the endgame before we know the situation and before the delivery authority has imaginatively come up with what we need to do.
We need the delivery authority to do the work, including the surveys—which should have been done two years ago—and come back with a range of options that will allow us to take an informed decision. We must also test some of the articles of faith that have emerged that are not always entirely based on fact. One I hear regularly is that the building is falling down faster than we can maintain it. I see no evidence of that anywhere and, when I asked for it, the sentence was taken out of the paper.
This requires much greater imagination and creativity by the delivery authority. Let me give your Lordships some examples. One reason the costs are so high is the assumption that everything should stay the same. First, we must remove all the services out of the basement and then we put them all back in the same place. That has huge time and cost implications. If it is possible to do it differently—to install services in a different location—we could do those two things in parallel, or even avoid the first step by leaving what is there. We do not have to remove it if we do not have to replace it there.
We have also been overly cautious over heritage constraints. I am quite pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, is not following me, because he might choke at this point. Of course we need to preserve this amazing building, but not in aspic. Buildings evolve, as this one has since it was built. We should look seriously at options that would reduce costs and, potentially, make the building a better home for Parliament, even if there are heritage implications.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, mentioned glazing in the courtyards, and I agree. My example is lifts. Putting improved accessible lifts in current locations is very difficult, time-consuming and expensive. An easier solution might be to put them up the outside of the building in the courtyards, where no one can see them. That is easy and cheap, but has not been considered so far. That is just an example—it may not be workable—but I am asking that we think more creatively to save and improve this building. The current proposals would see a 20% reduction in usable space for the £7 billion to £13 billion we are talking about. Where is the imagination in that? Where is the out-of-the-box thinking? I am sure we can do better.
The new governance structure will help, with more co-operative working between the two Houses—it already is. It should allow some work to be accelerated and, I hope, will encourage greater creativity of thought, hopefully leading to better proposals for the Houses to agree. I am completely behind the proposed changes, and I urge noble Lords to accept them.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not share the noble Lord’s optimism, having listened to and participated in debates over the past 10 years. When I hear the term “sponsor”, it appears to me that this whole thing probably should have had a sponsor’s name in the traditional style. British Leyland would probably be the most apposite sponsor, given how the whole thing has been managed and handled.
I am a bit nosy, and when I was first elected to the other House, I had the curiosity to ask random members of staff to show me around until I knew my way around everywhere. They were always quite surprised that anyone was asking them anything. A few years ago, I did a tour of the Victoria Tower. The gentleman who kindly showed me round had worked there for 44 years, and he showed me every nook and cranny. It was fascinating. At the end, I asked him how many Members—we are talking about the Commons here—had actually visited and looked around. He said, “Two.” I thought perhaps he meant two that week or two that month. No, it was two in his 44 years. Anthony Wedgwood Benn had previously done so with a camera crew; I was the second that he was aware of in that entire 44 years. When Members of the House of Commons cite their great knowledge of this building, my experience is that they know not what they talk about. They have not been around. They talk about a fantasy of the little bits that they follow, the little routes they go through.
The reason I have no optimism is that, having once had the privilege—sometimes the burden—of being elected, I know that their timescales are rather shorter and, therefore, decision-making is easier to put off because someone else can do it in the near future. But we have had a decant: two years, in essence, of a decant of pretty much the entire building. Can anyone demonstrate, since we undecanted, that governance of the country has improved or that our decision-making is better than it was? I put it to the House that, at a minimum, our decision-making was as competent when we decanted, pretty much en masse, as since. Indeed, when one looks at some of the alcohol-related allegations made about the other House, it has perhaps been rather worse—certainly for the Government—given what has happened since.
I did an international conference a few years ago in the Bundestag with the German Government. I had President Steinmeier, Chancellor Merkel and the leaders of all the main parties there. It was appropriate for various reasons that it be held inside the new Bundestag. But there was a bit of a difficulty, because I learned in many meetings over there that, when they rebuilt the Bundestag—their R&R—they did not rebuild it as was. They got rid of most of the meeting rooms. In essence, I had to have a conference in a corridor in order to be able to have a conference inside the Bundestag; it was the only place available. It was quite extraordinary. They went to great efforts to assist. It was on anti-Semitism, so there was a symbolism to why they wanted it inside the Bundestag, and so did I. But they had moved all their facilities outside—they did not rebuild and restore what was there.
I see precisely the intention. On the timescales, once there are major engineering works, they will take whatever time they have. That will cost the bulk of the money; of course, they must be done. Of course, the building will have to be decanted for however long, however many years.
But that leaves the rest. All these curious corridors and steps up and the offices that are there—do we need them all in the same way that they have been perceived to be there in the past? Do they all need broadband enabling, for example? Modern design is much more about the wi-world, as I believe it is called, with desks in open-plan and people going in to use a facility with their laptop—we can all have laptops, if we wish, now. That is where the world is already at. We could choose to be that. We are very peripheral, but it is symbolic.
Why would we keep different catering departments? Would we not rationally have one catering facility? As to whoever is agreed to use it whenever, I am not sure—we could occupy many hours on who, where and when—but why not run it as one, plan it as one and rebuild it as one? What do we need two Libraries for? Just because there has always been— I am sure there have not always been, but for the past 50 or 100 years there have been two Libraries.
I appreciate that for some Members of the Commons, these things are sacrosanct and we should not go anywhere near the so-called traditions, but this place has evolved over, essentially, 1,000 years in a vast array of different ways. I would be in favour of going back to the days when we said, “Let’s go to York”. It would be far more convenient for me and far more pleasurable, and it would be good for the health of us all. That is a debate I will not recreate, because I will not win it; but let us not just stay as we are. Based on the timescales, some of this place could be a semi-museum, which would be perfectly appropriate. Let us get to the core of the issue.
My final point for the Minister concerns corporate responsibility and liability. Who precisely will be responsible for corporate manslaughter if we do nothing? Which individuals will accept responsibility for the future public inquiry when there are deaths here because nothing has happened? Who will take that liability for corporate manslaughter? It is rather important that we know.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Mann. I too would like an answer on the corporate manslaughter issue.
This is a ridiculous building. I speak as a former archaeologist of prehistory. It is modern Victorian kitsch. I do not understand why we hold it in such reverence, particularly now that it is falling apart. I have a lot of respect for the past, but I also respect what it teaches us, which is that things do not and cannot stay the same for ever. Societies, organisations and governments move on, develop and become quite different. I realise that that is unwelcome news for some, but over the millennia we have seen systems rise and fall, however powerful and stable they appear. We certainly cannot say that about our system: we look as though we are letting democracy slip through our fingers. Systems fall, however stable, however powerful, and we need some drastic changes. I support the Motion—I see no alternative—and the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I regret that it is even necessary to table it, and that it is not simply obvious.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Best, I visited the basement and was absolutely horrified by it. I took a lot of photographs, and one thing I noticed was that quite substantial waterpipes had rusted through completely at the bottom and had been bound up with gaffer tape so that they could still push water through. They were running over electrical wires, telephone equipment and so on, which was absolutely horrifying. This is a disaster waiting to happen.
Therefore, of course we must fix this building, and as soon as possible. We are in a dangerous situation. This has been put off for long enough, and a full decant is the only option. It is interesting to think that the pandemic was a full two years we could have taken advantage of to fix things here. We need some creative thinking. I also agree that moving our Parliament to another city much further north is a very good idea. It would be very healthy for democracy in our country. However, I accept that it is not going to happen.
We did test remote electronic voting, however, which is quite modern, and we did better than the House of Commons. Yet somehow, we have gone back on that because other people think it terribly important to mix and give each other Covid or flu in the corridors. Well, I admit that those machines work extremely well. Remote voting might be the way forward for other circumstances.
This is a very adversarial way to run a Government. I do not know if it is true that the Front Benches are slightly more than two swords’ length apart so that people could not kill each other when they got annoyed at what was being said. I was elected to the London Assembly, which had a horseshoe shape. That worked much better and was much better for co-operation. Your Lordships’ House does co-operate: by and large it is extremely generous and kind to people who have different views, but this Chamber is not conducive to anything except an adversarial situation. A horseshoe shape is used in Edinburgh as well. I am not sure whether that does help co-operation up there, but it could. I, too, think that we could turn this place into a museum. We could get some very beautiful artefacts in here and make it much more of a destination than it is at the moment.
I do not expect these ideas to be taken up, but we must widen our expectations of what government is and what it can be, and what suits our modern, global ideas of democracy. I do not want us to stagnate and collapse, as earlier civilisations did. Yes, please let us get on with it. Please let us not have more and more debates and more and more delays.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I wish to raise three related points: transparency, cost and risk.
At the outset, a long time ago, we were promised a transparent, open process throughout. Alas, it has been the opposite. A recent Answer to a Parliamentary Question revealed that £212 million has already been spent on R&R, almost all of it on consultants, professionals and salaries, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Alternative schemes and costings have been prepared for different locations and for substantial pieces of work that we have never seen. They lie largely unpublished and unexhibited. A few groups of Peers have had a peep at folders during a visit or meeting but have never been given anything to study. A pop-up display on screens in the Royal Gallery was diagrammatic but had no plans of the proposals.
We are constantly told, as many speakers have said in today’s debate, that we must push ahead, as with every passing week costs will escalate. Curiously, these postponements have brought us a dividend. We have saved £1.5 billion by abandoning the extravagant rebuilding of Richmond House, a 40 year-old public building built to last as long as its great Georgian and Victorian forbears. I am not sure about the view of the noble Lords, Lord Newby and Lord Fowler, on the QEII conference centre. We have saved close to £1 billion by not knocking it inside out to provide a replica Lords Chamber and rooftop restaurant. As a result, the Government and the taxpayer also regain the considerable revenue from letting the capital’s prime conference centre for events.
I turn now to timing. All are agreed that the really important and urgent task is to shut down and replace the outdated cabling and servicing in the basement, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Best. Yet under the grandiose schemes produced by R&R, this job was left until last. It was not to be done until the two new temporary Chambers had been built. This was under the R&R sponsor team, deemed now too distant and renamed in the report as the client team and programme team. Why? Why not be transparent and call it the Palace of Westminster team, so that people know what it is about?
At present, the planning application to Westminster for the northern estate is stalled and that for the Lords has not even been submitted. This was mentioned in the very good speech of my noble friend Lord Colgrain, and I agree with him. However, during all these delays, a parallel process has been taking place and is now completed on time and on budget. This is the £80 million repair and restoration of the entire roof of the Palace of Westminster, using the architect Sir Charles Barry’s fire-resistant, cast iron trusses and tiles. A sound roof is the most vital element of any building in Parliament, and this Parliament is now good for another century.
The spectre of a Notre Dame-style fire is constantly cited, but Barry was even more conscious of these matters, as he was replacing historic buildings destroyed in the great conflagration of 1834. Many large buildings have had their services wholly replaced, but none of them has ever been told it is an 80-year process. We all know Rome was not built in a day, but 80 years for R&R seems excessive, costing £13 billion or more. This is way above the original £4 billion.
The immediate need is for the costs and timings, not just headline numbers, to be published and brought into the open. I urge the Lord Privy Seal on this. Parliament is otherwise in danger of signing a blank cheque for a job that will continue to run out of control. If the whole roof can be repaired for £80 million, there has to be a better and less ruinous way to do the basement. We should also not forget how much was well-spent in the 1980s on restoration of the Chambers, the Royal Gallery, the Lobbies and the committee rooms.
There are several other more detailed points in the report that give cause for concern, but they will be for another day, as we shall no doubt be debating this further. Meanwhile, I look forward to the Lord Privy Seal’s informed and, I hope, positive reply, as she has been involved with the project for some time.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, I take note of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on the history and traditions of this place. I just add that, when the Earl of Devon was first in Parliament, we were in Shrewsbury, and then we sat for a number of centuries in St Stephen’s Chapel, which explains why we sit opposite each other in the manner of a medieval chapel.
I note my entry in the register of interests and my role as a custodian of a medieval building, which has a number of crumbling Victorian and Edwardian extensions, utilities and services. Like this one, that building operates as the home of a working business, housing staff, tourists and visitors and hosting functions and events. We consistently balance the challenges of health and safety compliance, equality of access and the need to preserve and explain important local heritage, with a wholly inadequate budget. I am therefore very sympathetic to the issues here.
The one big difference is that, as a private individual, I am obliged to comply with the rules and regulations of heritage listing, alongside health and safety and public access requirements. I understand that, as Parliament, we are not strictly required to comply with such things, and I would be grateful if the Lord Privy Seal could confirm that fact. I would also like to know the extent to which the Palace of Westminster, in its current condition, complies with such obligations of heritage conservation, access, and health and safety, as I do not believe it does. Just because the soon to be former Administration do not care to comply with the rules, that does not mean that we, as Parliament, should ignore them. We need to set a good example, and we do not.
I think we are all agreed that the condition of this building, and the conditions in which we expect our visitors and parliamentary staff to operate, are a disgrace. We were agreed on that back in 2019 when we passed the legislation to establish the sponsor body, which the joint commission now recommends we get rid of. In the three years since, and despite the hard work of many dedicated people, it appears that we are no further forward with the big decisions that are necessary to see restoration and renewal complete. I reviewed the joint report of the Lords and Commons commissions, and nowhere do I see a thorough analysis of exactly why the sponsor body is due to be disbanded, or how it has failed in the task it was set in the 2019 Act.
I note that much reliance is placed on the findings of the independent advice and assurance panel. Its members are indeed an eminent group, but their review lasted only three days, during which they interviewed some 25 people. This amounts to considerably less than one hour with each person and gives the sense of a review conducted in a considerable rush. Given the huge amount of work that has gone into R&R over recent years, I am not clear that such a brief review provides a sufficient basis on which to take the drastic action currently proposed.
As far as I can tell, the issue that the sponsor body has faced since its formation—something confirmed by my noble friends Lord Vaux and Lord Best—is the complete overpoliticisation of the decision-making process. Issues of whether or where to decant, what adjacencies and proximities to the Chambers should be adopted, and how parliamentary business should be conducted during the works have all become political questions. They should not be so: they are practical, procedural and administrative issues.
I understand many Members, including those of the other place, are concerned that the works programme envisaged by the sponsor body would be too disruptive of the rhythms and traditions of Parliament, but if we have learned anything in the last few years it is surely quite how flexible Parliament can be in the face of adversity. I may be new here, and I may be naive, but I am worried that we are far too precious about our procedures and processes, to the detriment of this building, our staff and the future of Parliament.
I am also particularly concerned that the proposed solution, far from fixing things, will only make them worse. The new mandate under which we revisit the key questions of the extent of the works and the process by which they are achieved will be overseen now by a new in-house sponsor function, overseen by the clerks of the two Houses. This will bring these issues directly into the political sphere and make them only more subject to the vagaries of the relations between the Lords and Commons commissions. They appear to be somewhat like the warring couple, Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, in “The War Of The Roses,” sitting at either ends of a grand and crumbling house that finally burns down. I cannot therefore endorse the mandate for this reason, though I do understand it is a fait accompli, and so cannot seriously object.
As to the new approach outlined in the joint commission’s report, while I salute the important focus on health and safety, I am concerned that the coming years will see yet more sticking plasters and no long-term solutions. The joint commission is going right back to the drawing board, seeking a wider range of options for decant, a broader range of options for delivering the works and different levels of ambition for the programme’s scope. It appears that we are starting all over again.
We have done this. We have agreed to decant and to move to the QEII building, so please can we not just get on and do it? The longer we wait, the greater the risk to ourselves, our staff and our visitors, and to our beloved building.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I begin by echoing the general thrust of the vast majority of comments made in this debate, and the critiques behind them. I must also at the start of my remarks refer to the register, which contains a significant number of entries related to buildings, listed buildings, heritage and such like.
Let us go back to the start. In April 2020 the National Audit Office published its report, Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal Programme. It states:
“For more than 20 years, Parliament has been thinking about undertaking significant works to restore the Palace.”
We can all agree it is worth taking time to think things through. Two years before that, in January 2018, Parliament approved the restoration and renewal programme and in the following year the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 became law. Currently, it seems to me that progress comprises the document around which this debate is being conducted, Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster— A New Mandate, which I hold in my hand; such is the speed and extent of taking this proposal forward.
Almost simultaneously with Parliament approving the restoration and renewal programme in January 2018—to be precise, on 19 April that year—Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, which is a real symbol of France just as Parliament is for our country, burnt down. Mention has been made of it already. Allow me for a moment, even if the circumstances are not exactly equivalent, to compare and contrast. Notre Dame is most impressively being put back together again, and President Macron’s stated aim is for the project to be completed in April 2024, the fifth anniversary of the inferno. Even if that deadline is not met precisely, the work proceeds with pace, conviction and commitment. In this country, I stand here in your Lordships’ House clutching the restoration and renewal document that we are discussing, rather like Neville Chamberlain on his return from Munich brandishing a piece of paper that merely delays the inevitable.
I am afraid I believe that we as Parliament have collectively made ourselves national laughing stocks. As your Lordships will know, there has been quite a bit recently about government and Parliament leading by example. If we cannot put our own house in order, we are not in a very strong position to get others to do so.
As I see it, the Government are the guardian of our national heritage, which is the collective national memory of our nation and an important pillar of our national identity. They set a general framework within which the owners of our listed buildings, whoever they may be and who are the custodians for the time being, then actually have to look after them. In my view, the frame- work is wobbly and inadequate, but that is for another day. In this instance, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that in these circumstances, de facto, government and Parliament are the same, which makes what has happened—or perhaps what has not happened—all the more lamentable.
Anyone who knows about these things knows that, in circumstances such as those of today, inflation is hitting construction costs more aggressively than prices in general, and that delay in addressing structural problems in buildings aggressively and progressively worsens the state of the problem. Having said that, if there is anyone who has the resources to remedy this kind of thing, it is the Government, because Governments of all political views always find plenty of money for fripperies of what they like. Let us be clear, as has been made absolutely apparent in this debate, we are not talking about fripperies.
I will briefly echo the noble Earl, Lord Devon. Speaking as an owner of a listed building—there are more than half a million listed buildings in this country, some of which are owned by private individuals, some by third sector organisations and some by the public sector—we are not encouraged to spend our money on our statutory obligations to the buildings for which we are responsible when we look at what the Government have done in respect of the sad story of the Palace. The Government and Parliament should lead from the front, not rather unconvincingly cheerlead from the back.
We all know that everybody has a view about the Palace and what we should do. I have given my views and, I suspect like many others, I have subsequently modified them, but I will not go into that now. Not everyone will be satisfied. Indeed, everyone may to some extent be dissatisfied, but I expect that everyone can agree that progress has been slow, indecisive and inadequate. Reams of paper have been consumed, hours of meetings have taken place and nothing much has actually happened, and heigh-ho, the Palace of Westminster is slowly and quietly deteriorating.
A strong, imaginative and proper grip needs to be taken of the whole proceedings. Action is needed now, and it needs to be firm. It is plain as a pikestaff that, unless something is done soon and decisively, it looks as though the way this country commemorates Brexit will be by allowing the greatest worldwide symbol of Britishness to deteriorate and disintegrate in front of our eyes.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, if today’s approach to restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster had been taken in 1835, we would not be here in this majestic building. The decision then to establish a royal commission, with a competition for designs, produced 97 entries and Barry’s visionary new Palace. It might have been three times overbudget and taken 24 years to complete rather than six, but it was done.
Two centuries later, as inheriting custodians of the Parliament that was created then and repaired after the war, it is surely nothing less than our duty to maintain and repair it. Of course we must control costs, but we are talking about a capital sum spent over a period of years to renew a world heritage site for a further 200 years.
In an overreaction to the scale of earlier proposals, all ambition truly to renew this royal Palace seems to have gone. Instead, we have a deliberately more modest proposal to deal with the safety of the building first, perhaps last. Of course we must heed the warnings. Our predecessors did not, ignoring the public alarm sounded by leading architects of the day, Sir John Soane and Robert Adam among them, that the Palace was a fire risk. The rest is history.
Of course we must act to protect this building and the thousands of people who work here, but essential repair, though it might be an argument from which the naysayers cannot so easily escape, should not be the limit of our ambition. This building is not fit for today’s purposes—for modern meetings with technology, for greater public engagement, for the number of staff who now have to work here, for the disabled.
If you go to Canberra, you can visit the pokey old Parliament building, which is now a museum. You can still smell the tobacco in it. Up the hill, there is a purpose-built Parliament, with the space and facilities which a modern legislature needs. I am not suggesting—at least not today—that we move out of this place altogether, but we need to do more than repair the building. We know about the importance of public and shared space; a Parliament especially, where meetings and discussion are fundamental to our life and work, needs such space. We know that performance improves when people work in a good environment, yet we cram staff into appalling conditions. My ministerial office beneath the Commons Chamber was overrun with rodents and alarming spores were growing on the walls. A shocked eminent doctor visited me and pronounced my office a health hazard, but it was also occupied by members of my staff because there was nowhere else for them to work. This is true even of Cabinet Ministers’ parliamentary offices, such is the overcrowding.
Piecemeal improvement, which is now to be institutionalised in these arrangements, has led to suboptimal development. The ugly visitor centre that has been added on to the western end of the Palace is a great facility for schoolchildren, but it shamefully obscures the aspect of the Palace from Victoria Gardens. The visitor centre at the United States Capitol is not an eyesore; it has been built underground. By the way, the environment around Capitol Hill is immaculately tidy, free of the litter which blows around Whitehall and chewing-gum mashed into the floors of this Palace—a detritus which is somehow a metaphor for the disregard we collectively have for this special place.
Of course we should decant while the work is done. Disliking the prospect of leaving, or fearing never returning because parliamentarians are approaching retirement age, is neither an honourable nor an acceptable reason to stand in the way of a cheaper and necessary temporary measure.
I agreed with everything the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said. Restoration and renewal cannot just be about health and safety; it needs to support a renewal of our democracy. That requires ambition, not reactionary opposition. If we had vision, for instance, we might consider ideas such as those of the Commission for Smart Government, which I had the honour to chair, to build a new ministerial centre as part of a revamped Parliamentary Estate. Ideas such as this might improve the performance of government.
I suppose I agree, albeit reluctantly, with what noble Lords have said: the proposals put before us are the only way forward now. But this is worse than a menu without prices; we have now been told that what might be on offer for the main course and pudding cannot be seen at all. All we are left with is the starter: the essential safety-critical work, apparently the only thing we can agree on. I am afraid it reflects badly on us. This is not our building; it belongs to the nation. It is an international symbol of who we are, where we came from, and the parliamentary democracy that we stand for and are known for.
That we should repair this building urgently, now, should be beyond debate. But I believe we should do more, lift our sights, and try to show at least a measure of the same leadership, ambition and foresight which a few good parliamentarians and a great architect showed 200 years ago.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, clearly, I know next to nothing about construction, albeit that I oversaw from a distance the construction of two new buildings at my college. So to prepare myself for today, I sought advice from a national expert on megaprojects. I feel compelled to speak because of my alarm at the paralysis we find ourselves in and because of my respect for this building and all that it represents. The urgent start needed is held up by Members of Parliament who know that it will not be completed while they hold their seats. To them, I have to say that if you love it, you have to leave it.
I call on your Lordships and the Minister to declare today our willingness to decant for the sake of doing the job in the most efficient way possible, thereby earning the gratitude of future generations rather than their disbelief that things have been allowed to degenerate to such a level. It is not hyperbole to describe this moment as our Notre Dame. In recent years, there have been about 25 minor fires and a major asbestos leak. Dithering over the role of the sponsor body has cost at least £100 million. Some £70 million was written off when the Commons decided against moving to Richmond House, and there is no plan B. Incidentally, Richmond House, standing vacant with its forecourt by the Cenotaph, would make a far better location for the planned Holocaust memorial than Victoria Tower Gardens, where it is literally bogged down by water, stubbornness, and the usual underestimate of costs and overestimate of benefits.
This project seems fit to join the list examined by the political scientist Sir Ivor Crewe in his study, The Blunders of our Governments. From the poll tax, child support and super casinos to the Millennium Dome, projects fail because they are commissioned by Ministers and designed by civil servants, both of whom move on to other jobs. Policy is separated from reality and from implementation, while in the end there is no penalty for failure, and no one takes the accountability. Meanwhile, in this Motion, we are being sent backwards. Resignations have cost us much needed experience and the whole project has gone back to the drawing board. We need one small outside body to drive it forward; we need to confirm our decant; we want no plethora of options, because people will always favour the cheapest; and we need to hear directly from the professionals.
There are lessons to be learned from history and from the study of megaprojects. Nine out of 10 such projects have cost overruns. The Scottish Parliament cost overrun was 1,600% and the Channel Tunnel 80%. For many of the world’s most iconic projects, it could have been said that if people knew the real cost from the start, nothing would ever be approved. We should brace ourselves now for the disapproval that may come from transparency over expenditure, and we should keep our eyes focused on the future working parliamentary democracy of this country. By way of illustration, does anyone regret the Channel Tunnel or the Sydney Opera House, or indeed our current Palace of Westminster, which itself took decades to construct and ran into the same problems of governance, cost and political disarray that we are facing now, more than a century later?
Instead of learning from the past story of indecision, unwillingness to move and lack of leadership, there is this decision before us today to terminate the sponsor body, apparently because it told the truth about the budget—up to £13 billion—and the need to decant completely for 12 or more years. Decisions of both Houses have been reversed, with no reasoning given for this new model of governance. As the Public Accounts Committee said, this Motion before us will cause further risk and delay; there is no one person or body to be in charge.
Much as we respect them, we know that the clerks do not have construction expertise—indeed, they were never expected to have that as part of their job—nor do the Speakers, not even with a client team and a joint department of both Houses. Why, at the very least, does the Infrastructure and Projects Authority not have oversight of this rather than being excluded? Why was a meeting of interested Lords called the day before the report from the Public Accounts Committee? That report is critical of the fact that there is still no start date and of the new oversight given to the House authorities. We have no evidence as to why the existing governance model was rejected. The sponsor body had already spent £145 million in readiness. Our delay is costing us £60-85 million a year and that is an old estimate.
Every expert has told us that a full decant is called for. Our experience with Zoom during lockdown has shown that Parliament can function in innovative ways, without losing its authority and without changing for ever. We have to accept that we will be a generation who sacrifice our own convenience for the sake of generations of politicians to come. A decision to decant is the kick-start this programme needs. In this House, it has already been approved and we should not resile from it in the face of this Motion. We should not encourage work to minimise the decant or plan for a shorter life expectancy for the completed works, which would mean leaving our successors that recurrent nightmare. The decision should be made now, before the recess. No amount of rejigging of the governance will change the need to decant, not least for the sake of the staff.
We need to move from policy development to project execution. I fear that some of the current debate about governance is really about finding a new organisation that will tell us that the project is cheaper and less risky. The worst-case scenario is that the new organisation will come up with more palatable numbers, and then overoptimistic costs and timelines are approved. The best-case scenario is that the new organisation will go back and redo the work that has already been done, and come up with the same conclusion. The Commons yesterday were also pretty pessimistic about this new governance.
My final thought on governance is that we need to bring together decision-makers, so that stakeholders can debate, align their objectives and find common ground. I tried to piece together an organogram of the new structure, and it ended up looking rather like that tangle of wires and pipes beneath our feet in the basement. I do not really see how it can work efficiently.
A number of individuals are currently putting themselves forward as our next Prime Minister. The one question I would ask of each one is: are you committed to progressing the restoration and renewal of the Palace, and will you convince MPs that they must vacate it as required? I agree with my noble friend Lord Devon that ideally this Motion should be rejected in its entirety, but I envisage that that is not possible.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I was a schoolboy in India, we were told stories about the British Parliament. One of the stories, of course, was of how Guy Fawkes tried to blow the old Parliamentary building up. But then I heard that every year, there was an inspection—just on Guy Fawkes Night—to check whether Guy Fawkes was there or not. Obviously, given the state of this restoration report, I think they all expect Guy Fawkes to turn up only on Guy Fawkes Day to set fire to this place.
That is what traditionalists and romantics think our history is about. What we are suffering from is the fact that there are romantics and the so-called modernisers. The romantics want this place to be exactly as it was and not change anything, which is why we are talking about restoration.
This is a great building. It is a fantastic building, but I have always thought it utterly useless as a parliament chamber. All other parliament chambers you see in the world are much more modern than this: you have a proper seat of your own, a desk, computer facilities, meeting halls and decent catering. You do not have this very crowded place, where deliberately not everybody can find a seat. If there are 800 Members, God forbid that you may think you will get a seat—heavens! You are here not for sitting down but for the gorgeous decorations, history and all those sorts of things. Yes, the pandemic forced us into modernisation, but we are rapidly marching to restore all the old habits. We do not really like modernisation.
Obviously, this report will have to be agreed to because we have no alternative. I do not think any good will come out of it, because 15 years from now we will have another debate like this—I will not be there, because I was 83 last Sunday and I may not be alive—and discuss the same things: what different committees we have formed and whether the House of Commons is refusing to decant. Let us hope that, in the meantime, no Guy Fawkes has set fire to the basement—not so much for ourselves but for the staff who work here. They will pay the cost of our laziness, not us.
If I had any choice—thank God I do not—I would not have thought about anything other than not decanting but building another parliamentary building. At the start of the pandemic, I wrote a letter to the noble Baroness in charge of this thing and said we should start building a new parliamentary building while the pandemic was here so that we would have a building ready for occupation. Had we done something like that, we would all have decanted there, Commons and Lords, and restored this building as one of the most fantastic museums of British history, exposing it to the public and showing all the decorations. I quite agree that this is an incredible building, but a parliamentary building it is not. It is useless as a parliamentary building.
I was surprised to hear that when the restoration took place after the House of Commons Chamber was bombed during the war, it was insisted that the Commons Chamber be restored exactly as it was, so that it would always be overcrowded if everybody decided to turn up. I think this is the only country in the whole world that worships democracy but makes quite sure that the parliamentarians do not have a comfortable life. The parliamentarians love it, because they think not being comfortable is the great strength of British democracy. Being comfortable would absolutely corrupt us like all the Europeans, and we do not like the Europeans. Given that we made that mistake and are not going to move out of here—we may move out, but the Commons will not—all we can do is hope and pray that within the next 50 or 100 years we get this place fully restored and are able to do what is proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which is very important.
We really ought to think of Parliament in a different way, because our democracy is different. This Parliament was refurbished at a time when the franchise was only 10% of the population. Most people in the House of Commons were second sons of Peers, and the voting public were hardly more than 10%. We are in a very different situation now. We should use a much more consultative system whereby our citizens can communicate with us their preferences regarding our proposals and the legislation before us. How many people are aware of what we are discussing? We ought to be able to connect constantly with our citizens so that they can tell us their proposals. We should have a people’s budget in which people can tell us their preferences regarding taxes or expenditure. We do not know any of that, because we are not able to consult our citizens.
Let us concentrate on the positive aspects and, whatever we do for restoration, make this a more fit place for democracy than it has been so far. We know from what is going on in the selection of a new Prime Minister that we are not a very successful democracy.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, this Motion marks the end of a very sorry chapter. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Newby, who clearly outlined how we have got to where we are today. It almost beggars belief that Parliament set up a sponsor body through primary legislation and gave it a clear brief agreed by both Houses, but found itself unable to live with the independent process that it had set up.
I pay tribute to Liz Peace who, as chair of the sponsor board, worked tirelessly with her team to try to make the relationship with Parliament a success. I know there were considerable frustrations that it was not possible to set up a proper liaison committee between the sponsor board and Parliament, so I cannot agree with the Leader of the House that Parliament was not fully consulted. I know that Liz Peace and her team did everything possible to ensure that that was not the case.
But we are where we are, so I want to move forward and look at how we can make real progress on restoration and renewal. First, it is obvious to me that bringing the functions of the sponsor board back in-house is the right way forward under the circumstances. As this process has unfolded, it has become painfully obvious that the parallel with running the Olympics is easy to draw but very hard to sustain. I have seen at first hand how well this model can work, having been involved in overseeing the delivery of the Olympics, but the Olympics was totally different. It had a clearly defined budget and minimal political interference—the exact opposite to where the sponsor body found itself.
It is clear that the two Houses wish to retain ownership of how this precious building is made safe for the present and preserved for the future, and this is unlikely to change. I believe that putting these arrangements in place for just the programme definition period of 12 to 24 months is very unwise, because this is likely to be the best structure going forward. We should set it up accordingly and not just see it as a short-term fix.
We have been told that the commissions are set to delegate authority to a new programme board, a joint decision-making board of the two Houses, but we have been here before. Parliament delegated this role to the sponsor body, but then refused to accept its findings. It is really not rocket science to work out that costs would be lower and the project much more straightforward to deliver if the building closed for several decades.
It is therefore essential that the programme board has strong political leadership and cross-party representation, otherwise it just will not command authority or be able to act consistently across several electoral cycles. It should include representation from the major parties in both Houses and the Cross Benches and be chaired, in my view, by a senior member of the governing party who has the ear of the Government. This is crucial if we want to make sure there is no repeat of the current fiasco.
Giving it real responsibility for delivery of the project is vital, as is keeping the process in-house for the long term. But let us not delude ourselves that in-house automatically means good and efficient. As chair of the Lords Finance Committee for four years, I saw some disturbing examples of work not being properly defined before tender, surveys and advance investigations that were limited in scope, budgets running out of control and virtually no corporate memory.
We must above all else ensure that these mistakes are not repeated on an epic scale during restoration and renewal. But before we start, we must tackle the safety issue in the basement so graphically outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Best. In my view, a first step would be to re-provide above ground crucial mechanical and electrical infrastructure currently in the basement. If we were, for example, to use electricity above ground to heat the Palace rather than the steam boilers in the basement, we could end the highly dangerous practice of mixing steam and electrical cabling underground—a fire risk for which any other building would almost certainly be prosecuted. It would also enable full access to the basement, allowing the underground renovation to be undertaken over a longer period, at a lower cost and with a better outcome.
While the safety work is under way, the commissions and/or the programme board can concentrate on what is the minimum viable way forward for the wider R&R programme. We simply must move away from endless assessments of options in the foreground and political wrangling in the background, since both are barriers to making real progress. Instead, let us recognise that with a project of this kind even the minimum option is enormous in complexity and cost. I would rather, if necessary, now deliver the minimum than keep on arguing about the parameters of the maximum.
Let us now seize the moment to make this building safe once and for all, establish what we are prepared to spend to preserve it for the long term, take responsibility for delivering it and, above all, get on with it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an interesting and very thoughtful debate. Like the noble Baroness who introduced it and spoke to her Motion, I also confess to being a member of the House of Lords Commission.
I first thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his amendment and his comments, which were widely appreciated. Although technically, we are talking today about the governance of the project rather than the underlying principles, let us be honest: it is not the problems of governance that have brought us to where we are today but the deeper concerns that some have raised, and which we have touched on. It is really important that we state our commitment to inclusivity and engagement, to the need to ensure that the regions and nations of the UK have opportunities to benefit from the building and other works that have been undertaken, and that we have some vision of the project—of what we are seeking to achieve as we move forward. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for being clear about the amendment from my noble friend Lord Blunkett and her commitment in that regard.
I support the principle of the Motion and if there were a Division, I would vote for it, but I will be honest: I would do so with a sense of enormous frustration and, I have to say, some qualification. That is as much to do with what has led us to this point as the Motion itself. As I was saying earlier, when we are having this debate, it is hard not to feel a sense of déjà vu—again and again. I feel that I have been here many times.
This building, the Palace of Westminster, as we have heard, is recognised throughout the world and is designated a UNESCO world heritage site, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said. That status is really important. It is our privilege to work here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is not in her place, said. Part of the attraction for the thousands of visitors who come here is that it is a working parliamentary building. It is not just a museum; it is the living heart of the democracy of this country. But it is not our building. It belongs to the nation as the home of Parliament, and we have a responsibility as custodians of this building for future generations.
For me, R&R was never just about replacing the bits that are falling off, not working properly— “Last week, the door fell off in my office”—and so on. It is about something more than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Herbert, said. It is about something inspirational, something special. Every single national project of this kind has always had its detractors. There is never an ideal time to spend that money or to look ahead to what we are going to do to try to future-proof it.
Many consider that this building is now outdated as a home of Parliament. I disagree but, along with all the changes that have been made over many years, we need to look at what changes will be made in the future for future workers in this place. I felt so disappointed. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech—who is back in her place—mentioned those supporters who really just did not want to leave. Let us be honest: if we want to do it properly, it is impossible to do the work on the scale required if we all stay here.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who made the point about creativity in what comes next. Let us think outside the box; let us be enthusiastic about the project. We cannot look at how much this part costs and what we can scale down for that; we have to be visionary and look at how we can achieve it. We have to be mindful of the cost, but not to the detriment of ensuring that we do the work properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, made interesting points about some of the things that could change, but I say to him that we do not need R&R to do some of those. For me, a House-wide catering department is a no-brainer, but we will work on that one. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about moving Parliament completely. I am not necessarily against that, but the work still has to be undertaken on this building because it is a heritage site. If we relocate Parliament permanently, we need to relocate the business of government as well, not just a couple of buildings where people talk.
The need for an overhaul and repair, for restoration and renewal, is indisputable: it has to happen. The Library briefing is very helpful on this saga of dither and delay. It started at the time of the 2016 committee on which I served, which reported in 2018. The noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, was also involved in some of those earlier debates. They have been going on for years and years.
We have referenced Mr Barry’s War, the excellent book by Caroline Shenton about the rebuilding after the great fire of 1834. It would be fair to say that Charles Barry’s mental health suffered as a result of the constant chopping and changing and the problems he had to deal with. It sounds all too familiar when we look at some of the things we are facing today.
When we passed that legislation in 2019, we did not do so in a vacuum. It followed the 2018 Joint Committee of both Houses, which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and other noble Lords also served on. It had pre-legislative scrutiny from another Joint Committee of both Houses on which Members in today’s debate served. We also had earlier reports—such as the one from the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst—for which considerable work had been undertaken to identify the scale of the deterioration of the building.
In passing the legislation in 2019, we went through all of this and decided on the governance model that experience told would best manage the programme. All the reports and investigations have identified the same problems and the same potential crisis points. All recommended that the most efficient, quickest and least costly way of undertaking the necessary work was a full decant of the building.
Working conditions are poor—noble Lords are right to reference that. Our maintenance staff are crucial to the continuation of business, as the House of Commons found when they had to delay a Sitting this week because of a leaking air conditioner.
Only a couple of Members referred to the report from the Public Accounts Committee. I was surprised by that, because it provides helpful guidance on how we got here and how we can get out of the mess we are in.
There are three things I would like to reference, one of which is uncertainty. There should not have been uncertainty. Clearly, the pandemic made things difficult and we had to look at the financial environment; however, it strengthened the case for not wasting public money but spending it wisely. It is political uncertainty, even to the extent of MPs bringing in their own surveyors to check the work we had done, that has increased costs. There are individuals—Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Leader of the House, has been mentioned, but there are others—who are not prepared to accept the decisions and have reopened the issues, taking us to where we are now.
There has been constant changing of scope and other options to be considered or explored, even when they had previously been examined and rejected. Having agreed to a full decant, the House of Commons Commission asked again for a continued presence on the site, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, referenced. That continued presence got bigger and bigger, beyond the Chamber. As the Government withdrew support for the option identified—to decant the House of Lords —and then floated nonsense about splitting Parliament into two in different parts of the country, all that work cost more money. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, referred to a waste of money. That was the biggest waste of money here: the work undertaken that did not need to be.
The House of Commons Commission made the decision to remove the sponsor body without any attempt to look at alternatives or manage the programme differently, or even to consult or discuss this with the House of Lords Commission, which should have been an equal partner in all this. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that there is no cost-free option here. If the public were aware of the cost of delay and the daily, weekly and monthly cost of maintenance, they would be horrified that we are not moving along much more quickly and getting the work done.
I understand the frustrations of those who feel they have not had enough engagement. Communication must be better. However, all projects change, and as this one moves forward not everyone can be consulted on every single issue. There has to be widespread consultation, agreement and buy-in for the general direction, but not every single detail of the work has to be consulted on.
Part of the reason why we are here today is that some have sought to undermine the work. However, despite the real concerns, we need to make progress. This is the only game in town, so we need to make sure that we can move forward. There are opportunities here for better engagement and consultation.
The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has borne the brunt of many of the questions here, but she is on the House of Lords Commission and I consider her to be one of the good guys in this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, made a point about the joint approach by both commissions, and that is welcome. Many of us in the Lords commission have been really frustrated that decisions have been taken on which we have not been consulted. We have been careful in our approach to this; it is no secret that we have felt frustrated when we have been carried along in trying to make things work, even when on one occasion the House of Commons Commission walked out of a meeting that we thought we were having with it to discuss this. So it has been a bit of a saga, but I hope that we can now move forward and that the House of Commons Commission will genuinely want to work with and engage with us.
I have only one question for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, which should be an easy one. In passing today’s Motion, we need an unequivocal, 100% commitment that, when the programme board is established, it will have a membership that is committed to the programme, and that no Member will be appointed to that board if they do not support it 100%. What we cannot have again and again is those opposing the project seeking to undermine it with their positions when taking important decisions.
I am sorry that I have gone over my time, but today’s debate is about responsibility, and this may be the last chance that we ever have to fulfil that responsibility. If we lack that commitment now, it may be too late.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in today’s debate and those who have engaged with the R&R teams over the course of recent weeks. I entirely recognise and understand the frustrations expressed by everyone in this debate. Those of us who have been involved in this—the noble Lords, Lord Newby, Lord Best, Lord Fowler and Lord Carter, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Doocey—all share them. I am not going to pretend that we are not all in the same place. There is no denying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, have alluded to, that we have had problems between the two commissions. Again, there is nothing I can say to dispute that; it has been absolutely true up until now. We have not been a good client, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, rightly pointed out.
Let us try to take this opportunity to reset. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, the commissions have demonstrated more collaborative working, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also outlined. Amazingly, we finally have joint meetings, which we have been trying to get for months—years, in fact. We have published a joint report, and I think we have acceptance of our joint responsibility to safeguard the Palace.
I am not promising—and it would be foolish of me to do so—that there will not be further frustrations and bumps in the road, but I believe we have reached a more constructive place. Unfortunately, that is now going to be on the record so let us hope that it proves to be true and that we can move forward from here. I am grateful that, despite noble Lords’ misgivings and clear frustrations, the overwhelming view from the debate is that we need to move forward and this is the way to do it. Whether we ever wanted to get here, we are here, and we are trying to work together.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that the make-up of the programme board is now going to be critical. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that we have to have people on the board now who want to take the project forward. That must be at the forefront of the minds of all those involved in taking it forward. I hope that is how we will move forward from here.
I shall respond to a few questions that came up during the debate. The noble Baronesses, Lady Wheeler and Lady Smith, talked about the PAC report. I am sure noble Lords know that the accounting officers for the two Houses have responded to the recommendations addressed to the PAC. That response has now been published and is available for people to look at. There is a recognition that important lessons need to be learned that the House authorities are taking on board, including around issues of transparency. Indeed, we believe that the joint commission report is one part of the evidence showing that we are taking those issues on board, and we want to engage further. Obviously, reflections on the PAC report will be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, asked about contingency planning. I assure him that we have a set of business resilience plans in the event of fire, flood or other emergencies that might disrupt the Parliamentary Estate. The aim of the plan is to ensure the continuity of essential parliamentary business with minimal delay, and I can confirm, having been involved, that the contingency plans are regularly reviewed and updated.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to health and safety. That is an extremely important issue which has been highlighted in the joint commission report as a priority. The two clerks, the corporate officers, are the responsible officers and take their responsibilities enormously seriously. For instance, the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 expressly identifies the two corporate officers as responsible persons for areas occupied by their respective Houses, and they have a duty to ensure that appropriate fire precautions are in place, risk assessments have been carried out and appropriate fire safety arrangements have been made. Again, I can say from personal experience that we have regular conversations with the authorities to make sure that our duties are being upheld.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Inglewood asked about our heritage obligations. We abide by the relevant legislation. We follow planning legislation and go through all statutory consent required for a grade 1 listed building.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked who had corporate responsibility if anything went wrong. John Benger, the Clerk of the Commons, told the PAC in the evidence session that he gave that
“if there is a catastrophic failure and if life is jeopardised, it is our legal responsibility”—
that is, the Clerk of the Commons and the Clerk of the Parliaments. He emphasised:
“It is no one else’s.”
So that is where the responsibility lies, which is why, again, we work closely with the House authorities to try to ensure that we uphold our responsibilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is right when he says that our decision today is not about prejudging what may be in the strategic case. A number of noble Lords talked about a whole range of issues that they might like to see in the strategic case that is put to both Houses, but that is not what we are talking about today.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, my noble friend Lord McLoughlin and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones, Lady Deech and Lady Andrews, all talked about decant. That is not a decision for today but, although I cannot make promises to noble Lords, the House of Lords Commission has been clear—I am being honest here—that, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, we cannot quite see how it cannot happen. Still, let us see the strategic case that comes forward, and then it will be up to this House and the Commons to make their decision on the back of it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and my noble friends Lord Colgrain and Lady Rawlings talked about the money already spent by the sponsor body and delivery authority. It is not right to look at this as money wasted. A significant amount of work has been done and is required to prepare for, design and develop the plans for R&R, irrespective of the approach we choose. For instance, spending has included design schemes to RIBA standards, detailed programme planning, decant scoping, public engagement and plans for heritage collections. I would just say that the money spent to date has not been wasted; it has been spent on work that we will still need to build on no matter where the programme goes from here.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked about milestones and next steps. Assuming that we approve this Motion, the plan is to establish the client board, with the first meeting planned for October; to agree the terms of reference of the programme board, including composition and membership, at the client board first meeting, which is of the joint commission in September; and the recruitment of external members with required major programme expertise over the course of the autumn. Until the programme board is set up, the client board—which is the two commissions—will act in its place to ensure that there is no loss of momentum.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked about surveys. Intrusive surveys will commence next Friday, as soon as the House has risen for recess. Over 150 sites will be surveyed over the summer and the programme of surveys will continue into 2023. The aim is that the strategic case will be presented to both Houses by the end of 2023.
Finally, I return to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I recognise and welcome his sustained, principled commitment to these issues and the passion with which he spoke in his contribution. It is right that we consider the importance of sharing the benefits of the restoration and renewal programme. That of course means taking into account the importance of making the building accessible and ensuring that the public are welcomed in, that engagement with Parliament and democratic processes are fostered and that opportunities presented by this tremendous programme of works are shared across the United Kingdom through programmes such as the one my noble friend Lord Lingfield mentioned.
As I said in opening, I hope I have been able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and all Members of the House—a number of whom spoke in support of his amendment—that the changes proposed today do not alter the statutory framework in that regard; nor will the regulations that we propose to bring forward to give effect to the proposals we are considering today. As set out in paragraph 22 of the joint commission’s joint report, the programme will
“continue to have a mandate to consider these areas and how best to address them”.
That commitment remains.
Anyone who has either been in or will read about this debate will recognise the deep affection that every noble Lord has expressed for this incredible, historic building. I understand the strength of feeling about the importance of ensuring that this new way forward is robust and takes us on. The task before us today is to ensure that the project has the structures and processes in place to allow us to deliver the best possible options for this House and the other place.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, rightly observed, whatever your views, I am afraid this is the only show in town so I hope noble Lords—despite misgivings and frustrations—can support the Motion. The Commons managed to pass it without amendment, which we should take as a good sign so that we can start to move forward together.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the indications of support from around your Lordships’ House for my amendment. I am particularly grateful to the Leader of the House for her reassurances. I am taking it that the strategic case will be completely aligned with the 2019 Act of Parliament. In light of that—I take the same view as my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon on agonising about how we are progressing but recognising that we have to—and the excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Best, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill
Wednesday 13th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2022 View all Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text
Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill
Wednesday 13th July 2022
(1 year, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 View all Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 July 2022 - (11 Jul 2022)
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we will take a little more time over this Bill. We are here to debate the Energy (Oil and Gas) Profits Levy Bill, introduced in the House of Commons. It may be helpful to start with a little of the context behind the Bill.
People across this country are facing rising energy costs and an increase in their overall cost of living. Of the basket of goods and services we use to measure inflation, a record proportion are seeing above-average price increases. Indeed, this country is now experiencing the highest rate of inflation we have seen for 40 years, and this is causing acute distress to the people of this country.
In May the Government announced a series of measures to help the British people during this difficult time—a period in which we have seen prices in oil and gas reach new heights. Oil prices have nearly doubled since early last year and gas prices have more than doubled. This is a global phenomenon, driven by factors out of any single Government’s control and in part by Russia’s war.
With increased prices at this global level, profits from oil and gas extraction in the UK have also shot up. These are unexpected, extraordinary profits, above and beyond what forecasters could have expected the sector to earn. Because of these extraordinary profits and to help fund more cost of living support for UK families, the Government are introducing the energy profits levy. This temporary levy is a new 25% surcharge on these extraordinary profits. When oil and gas prices return to historically more normal levels, it will be phased out. However, we have a responsibility to help those who, through no fault of their own, are paying the highest price for the inflation we face.
I now turn to the content of the Bill. As set out in the energy security strategy, the North Sea will still be a foundation of our energy security. Indeed, currently around half of our demand for gas is met through domestic supplies. In meeting net zero by 2050, we may still use a quarter of the gas that we use now. It is therefore necessary to encourage investment in oil and gas, encouraging companies to reinvest their profits to support the economy, jobs, and the UK’s energy security.
It is possible to both tax extraordinary profits fairly, and to incentivise investment. That is why, within the energy profits levy, a new super-deduction style relief is being introduced to encourage firms to invest in oil and gas extraction in the UK. The Government expect the energy profits levy, with its investment allowance, to lead to an overall increase in investment. The new 80% investment allowance means that businesses will get a 91p tax saving overall for every £1 they invest, providing them with an additional immediate incentive to invest. This nearly doubles the tax relief available and means that the more investment a firm makes, the less tax it will pay. It means that the allowance can be claimed when the spending on the investment is actually incurred. This is unlike the allowance under the existing permanent tax regime for oil and gas companies, which can be claimed only once income is received from the field subject to the investment. As noble Lords may know, this can take several years.
I will provide some clarity on what the investment allowance will apply to. First, if capital or operating expenditure qualifies for the supplementary charge allowance, it will qualify for the energy profits levy allowance. Since the levy is targeted at the extraordinary profits from oil and gas upstream activities—that is, the profits that came about due to the global price increases—it makes sense that any relief for investment must also be related to oil and gas upstream activities. Secondly, such spending can be used to decarbonise oil and gas production, through electrification, for example. Therefore, any capital expenditure on electrification, as long as it relates to specific oil-related activities within the ring-fence, will qualify for the allowance. Examples of electrification expenditure on plants and machinery are generators, which include wind turbines, transformers and wiring.
I remind noble Lords that there are other tax and non-tax levers to support non-oil and gas investments, such as in renewables. These levers include the super-deduction and the UK’s competitive R&D tax credit regime. Importantly, returns on these investments are taxed at 19%, rather than 65%, as for UK oil and gas profits.
The Government have been listening closely to industry feedback. Late last month, the former Chancellor met industry stakeholders in Aberdeen to discuss the levy and make sure it works as the Government intend. Since then, the Government made a change to the legislation, which is reflected in the Bill. Tax repayments that oil and gas companies receive from the petroleum revenue tax related to losses generated by decommissioning expenditure will not be taxed under the levy. These repayments are typically taxed under the permanent tax regime, but, since wider decommissioning expenditure is also left out of account for the levy, this change is consistent and fair. I reassure noble Lords that, with this change, the Government still expect the levy to raise around £5 billion over the next year.
Finally, I turn to how long the levy will be in place. It will take effect from 26 May this year, and it will be phased out when oil and gas prices return to historically more normal levels. The sunset clause in the Bill ensures that the levy is not here to stay. Very few taxes have expiry dates set in law, so this provision demonstrates the Government’s commitment to keeping the levy temporary, and it gives oil and gas companies further reassurance, as they seek to plan their investments.
The Bill, and the levy it legislates for, should be seen against the backdrop of the reality that we find ourselves in: people are in hardship across the country, while businesses in the UK oil and gas sector have made profits surpassing their expectations, reflecting the extraordinary global context. Through the Bill, the levy will raise around £5 billion of revenue over the next year. This is not about maximising revenue for the Exchequer but about targeted objectives: to help with significant targeted support for millions of the most vulnerable, and to encourage the oil and gas sector to reinvest its profits to support the economy, jobs and the UK’s energy security. For these reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, this legislation, which is being rushed through Parliament, has the ostensible purpose of addressing the crisis of fuel poverty that is affecting an increasing number of households. The crisis is a consequence of the escalation of fuel prices in the international energy markets. Temporary measures are to be taken to tax windfall profits that are accruing to the domestic energy companies, which are the providers of oil and gas. The Labour Party has called for such measures, and the present legislation should be seen as a welcome response by the Government. Therefore, it might seem surly and ungracious to call this legislation into question, but that is what I intend to do.
Although the Explanatory Notes suggest that the measures are intended to help fund more cost of living support for UK families, they are not directly connected to this purpose. The additional energy taxes or levies have not been hypothecated in this way; that is to say that they have not been pledged in a legally binding manner to serve the purpose of alleviating fuel poverty. The levies will serve to bolster the tax revenues of the Government, which sustain a multitude of purposes. Nevertheless, the Government can expect to derive some significant political capital by imposing the levies.
The current high prices that we are paying for gas and petrol have been determined in the international markets. It does not necessarily follow that our domestic energy suppliers are bound to profit from these circumstances or that their profits will have increased automatically. We are led to believe that their profits have increased; this is true for the US but the figures to prove that it is true for UK companies operating on the UK continental shelf are not yet available. We know that, in 2021, their total profits across supply and generation fell by £133 million, or 3.4%, on the previous year. However, profits increased in the domestic supply market, providing an average profit margin of 4.3%, I believe.
The truth is that the UK’s oil and gas revenues are now a fraction of what they were in the peak period in the mid-1980s, when North Sea oil and gas were plentiful. The supplies are virtually exhausted now, which means that only a small proportion of what we consume comes from domestic sources. Therefore, one should not expect the levies on windfall profits to generate a large amount of additional revenue. The aspersion that the companies have been adding a substantial mark-up in selling what they have been purchasing on international markets is not substantiated. Companies operating in the North Sea are subject to a 30% corporation tax levied on their profits and a supplementary charge levied at the rate of 10%, whereas the standard rate of corporation tax is currently 19%. The energy profits levy, which will take effect retrospectively from 16 May—which is when we were notified of this legislation—will represent a 25% tax on oil and gas profits, bringing the total tax burden on profits to 65%.
In the financial year from 2021, the total receipts from profits on oil and gas from companies operating in the North Sea were £3.1 billion. The Treasury estimated that the additional revenue from the oil and gas levies will be £5 billion in the first 12 months—a highly speculative figure, which may represent an exaggeration. Moreover, as we have heard, the additional revenues are not expected to persist, and the legislation includes a sunset clause that will remove the levy after 31 December 2025, when it is expected that the profits will have declined.
The proposal to impose the levies has been met with the criticism that they are bound to deter investment by energy providers. The Government have met these criticisms by providing some very substantial investment allowances. A new 80% investment allowance will be available to companies in respect of qualifying expenditures. Such expenditures are closely circumscribed to prevent the allowance being used in financial acquisitions, for example, or covering decommissioning costs. It appears that the Government envisage further investment in oil and gas extraction.
However, the allowance will not be available for investment in alternative sources of energy, and here lies the main criticism of the legislation. To encourage investment in fossil fuels flies in the face of the commitments to staunch emissions of carbon dioxide. One can be fearful that these provisions represent the beginning of an attempt to roll back the measures to attain net-zero emissions, to which the Government are seemingly committed.
In any case, one must question the rationale behind investments in oil and gas. Given that the prices of oil and gas are determined in the international markets, and that domestic UK production is now a negligible fraction of global production, there can be no expectation that expanded domestic production could impact significantly on prices.
An economic rationale for an expanded domestic production might be to alleviate the impact on our balance of payments of the cost of our energy imports. Given the magnitude of our balance of payments deficit on the current account in respect of goods and materials, this alleviation would be small in proportional terms.
The truth of the matter is that the UK has failed to take the appropriate steps over the past decade to secure its supplies of energy. Now is a time for urgent action to embark on a viable long-term strategy for the provision of energy. Instead, the current exigencies are encouraging the Conservative Government to attempt to suck from the North Sea what little energy there remains under the waves, and to encourage further attempts at deriving oil and gas by a process of fracturing rocks, which has already been strongly resisted by the citizens of the UK.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, there is just one question that I would like to ask the Minister before I begin. There has been some rumour in the press that this legislation would be passed but not implemented because of the change in the leadership. I hope that is a misreading of comments that have been made, and perhaps it applies to a potential tax on the energy generators rather than on the oil and gas companies involved. I thought that this might be an opportunity for the Minister to clarify the issue.
My party called for a windfall tax on the surging profits flowing to the oil and gas companies because of soaring prices back on 24 October 2021, well before Labour made up its mind to support such a tax and seven months before the Government suddenly effected their U-turn. Because the profit surge was well under way last October, we are calling for the levy to be backdated to that date in October. I know that we have no possibility of amending this legislation, but I hope that this might cause the Minister to think again. Had the levy been put in place back then, many families would have had significant help with their struggles over the winter.
The Liberal Democrats would also have structured the levy differently, to ensure that the 25% surcharge applied to the excess global profits of oil and gas producers headquartered in the UK, rather than just profits from their domestic activity. Those two changes combined would have yielded the Government some £11 billion, rather than their expected £5 billion. It is a real missed opportunity at a time when ordinary people need so much help. For those who doubt that there are excess profits flowing to oil and gas companies, I suggest that they need only look at the share buybacks announced by the major oil and gas players—more than $8 billion a year announced in share buybacks by Shell, and something like $6 billion announced by BP, with both companies hoping that their shareholders will permit even larger share buybacks.
The Government have also missed the opportunity to use this levy to promote green investment. The super-deduction of 80% in effect doubles the tax relief for oil and gas companies increasing investment in oil and gas extraction in the UK. For every £1 invested, they get a tax savings of 91p. I accept that gas has a role to play in the transition to net zero, but it is a temporary role as we switch to green hydrogen. I also accept that the Russian war in Ukraine has raised issues of energy security, so that some extension of the life of existing UK oil and gas fields may be required. But we have no practical plan from the Government to get to net zero or to deal with the issues of energy supply while dealing with affordability. All we have is a vague strategy which is leaving consumers, businesses and investors in a state of confusion and uncertainty. In that situation of overarching uncertainty for any kind of investment, this reward for oil and gas extraction risks tilting investment back towards fossil fuels and away from green energy. It really is shambolic. At the very least, investment in renewables should have qualified for the super-deduction. I would argue that, given the need we have to immediately tackle soaring energy bills, investment in energy efficiency and retrofitting homes and commercial properties—the quickest way to bring down bills—should have been included.
None of us knows who will lead the Government in the autumn, and none of us knows how the money raised from this levy will be spent, but at least we can get some recognition today that it ought to be on those who are suffering the most from soaring energy bills and the cost of living crisis. I hope that we can hear that reassurance from the Minister.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the rumour to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, refers is correct. I will argue the case as to why this should not be implemented if passed by both Houses.
We all support energy transition, and we are all committed to working towards net zero. The fundamental questions are these. What is the appropriate timeline and what is the policy framework we should be pursuing? The answer on policy underpinning has been unchanged since we first developed oil and gas reserves in the North Sea. Security of supply is best delivered through diversity of supply. At the present time, we vitally need to produce gas within a regime of strict environmental standards—gas coupled to policies to promote energy efficiency, as the noble Baroness said, supporting the vital issue of creating effective baseload energy while intermittent renewables and a new generation of nuclear plants are developed. That must underpin energy policy in the UK.
After 20 years and nearly $5 trillion of investment, the world has only 15 million barrels of oil equivalent of wind and solar, against the 237 million barrels of oil equivalent per day which we require. So it will take many decades more to complete the transition. In the meantime, we must encourage investment in gas production in the UK, while insisting on rigorous environmental controls surrounding its production. To have the capacity to invest, the industry must be profitable and be fiscally encouraged to invest its profits in future production.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, is correct that oil and gas companies operate in a highly competitive global market for the marginal investment dollar. Political uncertainty and populist short-term fiscal measures turn those investment dollars away to more stable provinces. Rather than a short-term measure—despite the good words of my noble friend the Minister regarding the sunset clause—there is no political chance whatever that this levy will not be in place until at least 31 December 2025, which is currently shoehorned into the Bill as a sunset clause. There is no conceivable way that an outgoing Government, in the run-up to a general election, will phase it out, whatever the price of gas, nor a new Government court political unpopularity by taking immediate action.
So what has the EPL done? By announcing the energy profits levy on UK oil and gas production, it almost halved the post-tax profits of the industry by increasing the marginal tax rate from 40% to 65% effective immediately, which Lambert Energy Advisory estimates could cost companies up to $30 billion in taxes over the next three and a half years, to the end of 2025. This was despite repeated protestations over the last three months from the Prime Minister that
“The disadvantage with those sorts of taxes is that they deter investment in the very things that they need to be investing in ... I don’t think they’re the right way forward”,
and the Business and Energy Minister, Kwasi Kwarteng, saying:
“I don’t believe in windfall taxes because what you’re taxing is investment in jobs, wealth creation, and investment”.
As Philip Lambert, who has been one of the leading advisers to successive Governments around the world, has rightly summarised through the publications of Lambert Energy Advisory:
“In the end these reservations counted for little when faced with the political pressure from opposition political parties and the general public to be seen to do something about the current energy and cost of living crisis, even though the action taken will make matters worse.”
Again, as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, pointed out, this is not hypothecated. At its core, the issue is that there has been systematic underinvestment over the last decade in the primary lifeblood of the global energy, gas, leading to a squeeze on supply versus ever-rising demand, combined with an inability of policymakers to recognise or act on this fact. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has recently magnified this crisis but did not create it, and in fact made it harder for policymakers to focus on the root problem.
The only solution to high prices and energy insecurity is more investment to create new supplies from a diverse range of sources. Oil and gas still account for more than 10 times the global energy supplied by wind and solar, and without continuous investment this will immediately start depleting rapidly. Even with the intermittent wind and solar industries continuing to grow at the current exponential rates, it would still take about two decades for wind and solar annual generation additions to match current oil and gas annual depletion with zero investment, let alone start meeting growing global demand for energy. Furthermore, the current rate of wind and solar growth may slow, given the rising costs of import materials and supply chain bottlenecks. Therefore, an increase in oil and gas investment is essential to meet the world’s energy needs and alleviate the current energy cost crisis even as other low-carbon initiatives are welcome and progressed.
While the UK continental shelf is a modest contributor to the global energy mix, accounting for about 1% of both the world’s oil and gas production, and UK energy prices are as much dependent on the USA’s energy system as they are on the UK North Sea, it is still a bellwether for the state of the wider industry and matters at the margin. Hence, the EPL is important both as a signal of wider trends and for its impact matters in its own right. In that regard, despite the UK Government’s rhetoric couching it as an incentive for investment, make no mistake that the EPL is bad for investment in the UKCS. It confirms the UK’s existing reputation for fiscal instability and political opportunism with regards to oil and gas, having already drastically changed the UKCS tax regime rates multiple times in just the last decade. Its policymakers are introducing an additional layer of tax which will come on top of the natural windfall that the sector would pay anyway due to high prices. The EPL is designed to disallow offsetting of historic tax losses only two years after the industry endured severe losses from the crash in commodity prices in 2020 from the Covid crisis, when the UK Government provided the industry with no tax support.
I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, will argue strongly against what I have just said, but this contrasts with Norway, a country I am sure she praises—she shakes her head, but it does at least claim to take a very strong line on environmental policies and in that context, I think it is worthy of comparison. Across the median line, the basic marginal tax rate and principles that have underpinned its approach to investment have remained unchanged for the last two decades. Recent structural changes were carefully signalled in advance and designed to allow a smooth transition, and its Parliament did not hesitate to support the sector in 2020, unlike here. They were confident that the support would be paid back in the long term through greater profitability from a healthy industry. They invested some $10 billion of support. Consequently, despite much higher marginal tax rates than in the UK, Norway retains greater investor confidence than the UK and is already attracting heavy investment in new production with a much healthier independent E&P sector, which is really relevant to gas production in the North Sea. Whatever the details of the law which we are considering today, the mere fact of the EPL’s introduction will certainly impair foreign direct investment in the UKCS because of its reputational impact. It was already very difficult to attract long-term investment into the UK oil and gas industry at a time when three out of the four major party leaders in our county have either called for, or signalled they are open to, an end to new oil and gas investment.
The oil and gas sector globally, but especially in the North Sea, has limited access to new incremental equity and debt capital. Indeed, it is a net repayer of equity and debt capital, so almost all its capital expenditure is funded out of operating cashflows. Hence, the UK Government removing $30 billion from the capital pool in the next few years via the EPL will impair the sector’s ability to spend and to pay out to equity investors, especially for those who are leveraged and still have to meet their debt obligations. There will likely be reluctance, even among those who have the choice, to divert cashflows from other geographies to the UK to make up for this. While the construction of the EPL is in theory designed to encourage more investment, it is questionable whether it will do so even for those who are already committed to the UKCS.
Regrettably, I stand to say this is a bad tax at the wrong time. It will have a negative impact on investment at a critical juncture in our early steps towards a net-zero economy and it should be scrapped.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is good to see the Minister advancing and defending a policy that the Government so vehemently rejected not so long ago. The Bill is not what it seems to be. A large chunk of the £5 billion that may be raised is to be handed back to the oil and gas companies through the 80% investment allowance. The Explanatory Notes do not say how much that would be; there is no information. Neither is there any requirement that the gas and oil produced with that investment should be used in the UK—after all, we are short of energy. Companies can claim the investment allowance on assets that they do not legally own. In other words, they can claim it on leased assets. I can tell noble Lords, having worked in the oil industry as an accountant, that accountants would be very busy concocting transactions so they can claim this £91 in every £100 for the allowance.
The Government’s treatment of renewables is absolutely lamentable. At the moment, for every £100 of investment, renewables receive £25 in various reliefs. In 2023, that goes down to £4.50. Of course, if the Government think that this 80% investment allowance is so good that it will stimulate additional investment, why not extend it to all the other sectors too and see whether it achieves that? Of course, it will not.
The Government are handing billions to the oil industry. The real reason for that is that it has given vast donations to the Conservative Party: some £1.5 million since 2019, and this is its pay-off.
The 25% levy, or the windfall tax, is actually low. The companies are collecting extraordinary profits without making extraordinary effort or taking additional risks. In my writing, long before the Government or any other political party came around to it, I called for a 90% windfall tax—Greenpeace talked about 70%—which would have generated a lot of money for insulating homes and putting solar panels on every single public building. The 25% windfall tax is simply a gesture by the Government to manage public opinion. It will not really have much impact on oil and gas companies, which have highly diversified income streams. Only about 5% of BP’s consolidated production is based in the UK. The 25% levy will account for less than 2% of its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization—in accounting circles, the acronym for that is EBITDA, in case anybody is wondering about that particular expression. This small 2% charge will hardly worry any major oil producer, especially BP. In the first quarter it had profits of $6.2 billion, and it handed over $4 billion to shareholders in the last 12 months. BP reported an average refinery profit margin of $18.90 per barrel during the first quarter of 2022. That is nearly three times the $6.70 per barrel margin reported in 2020. This windfall tax will hardly make a dent in that kind of profiteering. BP has now paid tax on North Sea operations for the first time in the last six years because the Government have showered that industry with all kinds of relief, and that is the result. It has now paid $127 million in tax on profits of $12.8 billion. It will hardly be affected by this levy that the Government are telling us about.
Only about 3% of the consolidated production of Shell is in the UK. Its share of the windfall tax, in terms of impact on EBITDA, is barely 1.5%—hardly worth worrying about. The Government are just making a gesture. Shell tripled its profits to $9.1 billion in the first quarter of 2022 and has just completed an $8.5 billion share buyback programme. It is awash with cash; its refining profit margin rose in the second quarter of this year to $28 per barrel, from $10.23 a barrel in the first quarter and $4.17 a year earlier. That is seven times more profit from refining, and the Government are hardly making any dent in it. Shell has paid no corporation tax on its oil and gas production in the North Sea for the fourth consecutive year.
In the broader context, the yield from the windfall tax is too low, and a vast amount of it is being handed back to the same industry. No questions are being asked about how these oil and gas companies have managed to dodge taxes. There is no investigation into the transfer pricing and profit-shifting techniques used by these companies to dodge UK taxes or any review of the government policies permitting them. In 2019, the UK collected $1.72 in tax per oil barrel; in contrast, Norway collected $21.35 per barrel. Yet the UK Government are mounting no investigation into why they are giving away vast revenues.
Oil and gas companies are also rigging the market. They not only produce but buy, sell and speculate on gas and oil that they have produced themselves. BP alone employs more than 3,000 traders to do exactly that; this speculation has generated $2.3 billion of profit. There is absolutely no transparency about it or any disclosure of the accounts. No accounting standard or government department demands it, so these companies are buying and selling products which they produce, speculating and pushing up the price. That should really be looked at.
There is profiteering at all stages of the entire circuit of producing and selling oil, gas, petrol and electricity, but no windfall tax on all stages. Between June 2021 and June 2022, the refiners’ margins on petrol increased by 366% and margins on diesel increased by 648%. Why is there no windfall tax on the refiners?
On 8 July, the Competition and Markets Authority said:
“Increase in ‘refining spread’ added 24p a litre to fuel over the last year”
and:
“The ‘refining spread’ tripled in the last year, growing from 10p to nearly 35p per litre.”
That is a massive amount of profiteering, yet there are absolutely no checks on it. The RAC and other motoring organisations tell us that major retailers are incredibly slow to pass on falling wholesale costs, yet very quick to pass on rising ones. Again, the Government have done nothing about this, thinking that these organisations will somehow regulate themselves. They have got used to picking our pockets and are carrying on doing so, with the Government’s help. There is profiteering by banks, supermarkets, electricity generators, water and other companies; why are there no windfall taxes on them but a tax on oil and gas companies operating from the North Sea? I hope the Minister can answer these questions.
The Minister will also have noticed that Spain is now levying a windfall tax on banks and utilities to provide free train travel to help people and alleviate pressure on energy demand and petrol prices. Why do the Government not do the same?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the very powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I apologise to the Minister for missing the first few seconds of her speech; we had a very long group in Grand Committee on the Procurement Bill.
I must commend the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on bravely—in the “Yes Minister” sense—highlighting the importance of stability in government policy, using the example of Norway, which is known for such stability in its policy-making. It has a modern, functional constitution and a Parliament that reflects the view of the people, elected by proportional representation, producing what is generally agreed to be a fine quality of governance. I point out that, whatever the final belated delivery of this very modest—as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, just highlighted—tax on the oil and gas industry, the renewables sector has seen instability in policy. The sudden pulling out of the rug on the feed-in tariff saw many small, independent businesses—solar installers and small-scale hydro—see their businesses disappear overnight because of government policies and the installation sector was encouraged to build up several times by government policies before having the rug pulled out from under it. So I commend the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, on being terribly brave in criticising his own Government.
Now we find ourselves in the strange situation that a Government on their way out are finally seeking to tax oil and gas companies that have made huge profits, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, just outlined—not through innovation, positive activity or investment, but because of a perturbation in the global energy markets and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, highlighted, President Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. These are profits made on damaging products that impose heavy costs on us all. We have been experiencing those costs today: of course today’s temperature is just weather, but we are seeing a great deal of notable, extraordinary weather on this overheated planet, for which the oil and gas sectors bear the greatest responsibility.
This tax applies only from 26 May, which means the bumper profits enjoyed by companies such as BP and Shell in the first quarter of 2022 are not covered. The Government say that this is a temporary tax; it was brought in belatedly, long after the Green Party, and then others, called for its introduction. They say it will be dropped when prices “normalise”, whatever that means, or, by the terms of the Bill, on 31 December 2025 at the latest.
Of course, it could also be by government fiat. I would be interested to know if the Minister can tell me the position of the field of Conservative leadership candidates on this dirty profits tax. I had not heard the rumours that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has, but I have not heard any affirmative statements either. Do they intend to maintain the Government’s current policy? We have heard very little about any environmental issues in the leadership debate—astonishingly, given that our nation remains the chair of COP and in the recent integrated defence review identified the climate emergency as a major threat.
The i reported, and I have no reason to disbelieve, that not a single Conservative leadership candidate attended the emergency briefing led by the UK’s Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, which outlined the catastrophic impacts of a warmer planet—an updated version of the one that converted Boris Johnson, at least rhetorically, to the cause in 2020. I am sure the party is aware of the fate of the climate change-denying Government of Scott Morrison in Australia—which has so many similarities to our current one—and must be concerned about how the public will see the huge black hole at the centre of the Conservative leadership debate.
With this tax, as with so many of the Government’s so-called green measures, what is on the wrapper does not reflect what is in the tin. There is nothing extraordinary about the tax rate being temporarily introduced; it simply reflects, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies notes, a return to levels
“broadly typical of the historical rates of North Sea taxation since the 1970s”.
Perhaps that is some of the stability the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, was looking for. That is without counting the super-deduction so many noble Lords have already covered, which means that investing £100 in the North Sea for new production will cost companies only about £8.75. The remaining cost is met by the Government. That is the money of so many hard-pressed citizens, struggling with the cost of living crisis, going into new oil and gas. Dan Neidle of Tax Policy Associates, commenting on this, said that applying this for three years simply did not square with long-term investment planning. He says,
“Short term allowances don't incentivise investment, they just give money away.”
That is that £91 being given away by the Government to the oil companies.
Many commentators have noted that investments can take decades to produce results, and indeed are expected to. That immediately demolishes any claim about this gas being simply a bridging fuel towards renewables. Instead, what that public money would be doing is adding to the carbon bubble, and I note the latest figures from the respected analytical group Carbon Tracker, which show that global stock markets are currently financing companies sitting on three times more coal, oil and gas reserves than can be burned without beating the 1.5 degree Paris climate target. In its latest report, it also revealed that the embedded emissions in the fossil-fuel reserves of companies listed on the global stock exchange has grown by nearly 40% in the last decade, despite the growing urgency of the climate risk.
Given that a third or more of the money raised goes straight back to oil and gas producers, that suggests that it is the largest companies, the giant multinational companies that can most afford to pay, which are most likely to profit from this provision, while smaller firms may not be in a position to do so.
I am sure I can predict with some degree of certainty, since these issues have been much canvassed, what the Government are likely to say in response—“energy security”—and they will probably know what I am going to say, at least in a general context. I think it is worth highlighting that we are part of a global energy market. This is not gas that is going to go into our market; it is gas that goes into the global market. I have seen in one or two places the Government trying to say, “Well, you know, supply and demand—more supply means the price goes down.” According to 2017 figures, the UK has 0.106% of the world’s natural gas reserves, so the claim that this will make any difference to the global price does not add up. Coming back to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, there is also the fact that we get we get most of our external gas from Norway and that has a carbon footprint significantly lower than that in the UK.
I come back to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, about the economic context. I think one useful way of framing this is by a recent report the Common Wealth think tank, which noted that workers in the UK would be paid £2,100 a year more on average if wages had grown in the same way as company dividends in the past two decades, in our rentier-dominated economy. The Common Wealth think tank joined in a May Day statement with other groups—including the Women’s Budget Group, reflecting the gendered nature of inequality in the UK—that pointed out that this current cost of living crisis, which is often dated to the start of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is a long-term trend. The economy has been arranged for the benefit of the few, at the cost of the many—not coincidentally in a political system that is funded largely by the same few. We get the politics they pay for.
I cannot but conclude that this belated, limited, inadequate gesture reflects the political place of the oil and gas companies in our current political system. It is deeply disappointing that the renewables sector is not getting similar incentives—I will not go into detail as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka has already covered this very well.
I come finally to one point about how much the failure to head towards renewables is costing people in this cost of living crisis. We have seen recently the new contracts for difference let, and that is expected to cover about 12 gigawatts of power for the coming year. Had that been done 12 months ago, it would have saved average household energy bills about £100 a year. That is what delays a costing moment by moment, day by day. The renewables sector had ready, and was prepared to go ahead with, 17.4 gigawatts of energy, but the Government did not offer all the contracts that could have been offered. That is going to cost consumers on their bills every day.
This is a belated, inadequate measure, and every government failure every day—this focus towards oil and gas—is costing people in their bills, as well as costing us the planet. We are not doing the long-term, steady renewables policy that could deliver the future we all need.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, on his forensic analysis of the market. It was quite astounding. He is an accountant, so he has to be right—we know that, in the western world. I thank him for that, and I look forward to the now extended half-an-hour reply from the Minister to his questions.
I have to say that one of the things that I like about the Bill—let us start off with the positive things—is that to some degree it is fiscally responsible. The Government are spending something a mere £37 billion—the Minister will correct me—on trying to solve the crisis in price increases, and here we have a Bill that, while it is not hypothecated, puts some £5 billion estimated back into the Treasury to pay for that. One of the reasons I welcome the Bill is because now, whenever I see a Conservative Party letterhead and that tree that is its logo, I think of it as the magic money tree. That has gone from rhetoric aimed at the Opposition Benches to the Government Benches because of the first round of the Tory leadership competition, where we had absolutely zero fiscal responsibility of any sort whatever. Maybe these are the last vestiges. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will be rewarded by the fact that, if one of those now remaining eight candidates —or six or whatever it is—get in, this will probably disappear due to low tax and high spend. It will be interesting to see.
My noble friend Lady Kramer is absolutely right. At the end of the day, the core of this is the fact that households are having to pay huge amounts of extra money for their energy, and it is a real challenge to them. I quoted this figure in Grand Committee yesterday in a debate on an SI. Looking at myself, my standing order to Octopus Energy at the beginning of the year was £212 a month; this month, I paid £355. That is a huge increase, and one which I am fortunate enough to be able to afford—although even I blinked. However, to many of the households in this country, not least the 3.5 million households that were in fuel poverty before these prices even rose at all, it will be a huge challenge.
One of the sad things about that £37 billion that is going into trying to solve this crisis in the short term is that it is money just to stand still. There is no investment in there in energy efficiency or putting our housing stock right—all those challenges that we need to meet. It is just money that is coming through the Treasury and, importantly, out to households again. However, if these high energy prices continue, that will not have solved that problem one little bit.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned Scott Morrison, it was like a voice from the past. I thought I had forgotten that name forever, and I wish that I had. I hope that Anthony Albanese, who has now taken over, will now very much change the southern hemisphere’s look at climate change.
I come back to Norway, which seems to have dominated this debate to a degree. The great thing about Norway, of course, is that it has a sovereign wealth fund, one of the largest in the globe, which is invested internationally and well, and is a great asset, whereas we in the United Kingdom have no sovereign wealth fund whatever, despite having depleted those resources in the North Sea. I am not pointing the finger at anybody or at any particular party, but one of the tragedies is that we have not used that ability to invest in our future.
No doubt this is a tilt back to the carbon economy rather than the clean economy—one of energy efficiency led by renewables. I would like to ask the Minister a question. I read through what was allowed or not for investment—the noble Baroness will excuse me if I did not read it sufficiently well—and I wanted to understand whether investment in new fields in the North Sea was allowed. Would it include that, depending on how long this levy lasts for, or is it just around—I say “just” carefully—greater extraction from existing resources?
I would also like to ask the same question that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, did. Although I understand that this £5 billion is a net figure after the investment incentive, I would be very interested indeed to understand whether that is the case or what the Government are forecasting with regard to the take-up of that investment.
On a minor point—I do not want to take the House’s time up on it hugely—it seemed to me when I read through the Bill that it took up a huge amount of space to make sure that nothing recycled was used. I can sort of understand all that, but it does not say a lot about the circular economy to a degree. I would hugely prefer recycling rather than new equipment, but maybe that is a small thing.
This industry is moving towards carbon capture and storage, which is perhaps more beneficial—I am slightly sceptical about CCS, but the Climate Change Committee tells us that it is a key part of meeting net zero. Is investment in carbon capture and storage included in this?
Contracts for difference were mentioned by someone—was it the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan? Sorry, it was the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Sorry I mixed the two up—their views and speeches are so similar. Where we have contracts for difference, this problem of excess profits is solved. The Treasury, through the contracts company, is doing very well at the moment, because the strike price on contracts for difference is well below the current wholesale or reference price for electricity. If we have those sorts of mechanisms—introduced by a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change—we solve these things automatically. I think there are ideas to apply that to the traditional power sector as well, which would indeed be interesting.
As my noble friend said, we see ourselves—no doubt, along with others in the House—as progenitors of this legislation, to which the Government were very late to the table, but we are at the crossroads, a fork, in energy policy. There are the siren sounds of, “Hang on a minute. Let’s take the route back to fossil fuels to put this right. Guys, it’s only temporary; we’ll invest in new fields, but we will still be in transition.” There is a real danger here. We have seen that in the leadership contest for the government party at the other end of the Corridor, during which this issue has not been seen as sufficiently important by candidates and their campaigns. We really are at a fork.
Lastly, I put a challenge to the Minister. Just to make sure I am wrong, can she confirm that the Government will not approve the coal mine in Cumbria?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for introducing this important Bill. It is legislation that we could and should have debated many months ago, had the then Chancellor, the current Chancellor and the rest of the Cabinet not railed against Labour’s longstanding proposal for a windfall tax on oil and gas profits.
The Labour Front Bench facilitated three votes on this issue in another place, with Conservative MPs voting against the proposal on each occasion. Ministers told us that a windfall tax would be unfair. It is not. The revenue raised will fund vital support for households across the country in the face of spiralling bills. They told us that the energy companies were against it. They were not. Energy bosses were clear that their increased profits had not been expected and would not be missed. They told us that it would stifle investment. It will not. Firms said that plans were already in place and were unlikely to be scaled back in the face of a higher tax burden. When the inevitable U-turn came on 26 May, with the announcement of the creatively named “temporary, targeted, energy profits levy”, we welcomed it—subject to seeing the detail.
The Bill before us creates the legislative underpinning for the levy. We will not oppose it, but that does not mean we fully endorse the Government’s approach. The levy will be charged only from the date of the policy announcement, rather than being backdated to a point where both wholesale prices and company profits began to rise above what would be considered normal.
The Government’s preference was not to apply a tax measure retrospectively, but can the Minister confirm whether the Treasury has calculated how much could have been derived from a levy between January and May 2022? Can she also confirm that the Treasury commencing the levy at an earlier date was indeed an option? Although it is not a fiscal measure, your Lordships will remember that in March, during consideration of the economic crime Bill, the Government introduced rules relating to entities disposed of prior to the Bill’s introduction. This levy can be phased out if and when prices return to normal; otherwise, the Bill contains a sunset of the end of 2025.
In another place, much debate focused on what the Government mean when they talk of normal prices. The Chief Secretary suggested that the Treasury would be looking for parity with the prices seen in 2019 or 2021, rather than the “artificially” low prices of 2020. Can the Minister confirm exactly what figure the Treasury has in mind as a trigger for phasing out the levy? Do the Government believe there is any realistic prospect of those prices being seen before the 2025 sunset, or is the expectation that inflated energy bills are here to stay, at least into the medium term?
The Treasury’s announcement of a windfall tax came alongside the scrapping of its proposals for a “buy now, pay later” loan to households and the introduction of a £400 discount instead. It soon emerged that owners of more than one property will be entitled to multiple reductions. That includes the then Chancellor, Mr Sunak, who said he would donate the extra money to charity. He urged other wealthy people to do the same.
Instead of leaving it to individuals’ discretion, why has the Treasury not performed another U-turn and closed that loophole in this Bill? Do Ministers really believe that it is fair for those who can afford multiple properties to receive more support? The cumulative cost of this decision is likely to be in the region of £200 million. Would that money not have been better spent providing further support for the least well off households beyond that already announced? We are, after all, expecting another significant hike in energy bills from October. That is about real people; it will place household budgets under further pressures at exactly the point at which temperatures start dropping and people fire up their heating.
There are several other issues with the detail of these proposals. This calls into question the Government’s line that their delay in adopting this levy was so that they could work through its practical implications. The decision to include investment relief was not an inherently bad judgement. While we believe that the Government has massively overstated the investment implications of a windfall tax, it does make sense to carry out such an assessment. However, the way that the investment-related tax reliefs have been drawn up is problematic. The super-deduction style of relief will see an astonishing 91p returned to oil and gas producers for every pound that they invest. Much of the revenue raised by the levy will therefore go straight back into oil and gas producers’ pockets, rather than serving the stated purpose of helping consumers with their higher energy bills.
Those tax reliefs mean that, from next April, fossil fuel investment will be subsidised in the tax system at a rate of 20 times the investment available for renewable energy schemes. Much of this investment was going to happen anyway. These schemes have been in the pipeline for years and many firms had already scaled up their ambitions when wholesale prices started to rise and profits grew. This means that the investment tax relief is unlikely to produce any meaningful benefit in terms of future energy supply or energy security. There are also fears that funds could be used for exploratory fracking.
Some analysts believe that as much as £4 billion may be lost to subsidised investment that is happening anyway. Again, does the Minister not think that this could be better spent elsewhere? That £4 billion could provide generous further support for consumers, begin reversing the Government’s neglect of energy storage, or boost the UK’s green energy capabilities. Are these not worthy causes? Doubling our onshore wind capacity by 2030 would power an extra 10 million homes. Insulating 19 million homes over the next decade would slash household bills, while drastically improving the quality of the nation’s housing stock. Further investment in offshore wind, solar power, tidal power and hydrogen could improve our energy supply and help in our fight against climate change. These are the Labour Party’s priorities. They should be the Government’s priorities too.
Instead of helping people through the cost of living crisis, the Treasury has designed a windfall tax which hands money back to the oil and gas giants, incentivising further exploitation of fossil fuels. The British public will be grateful for the limited help that they are receiving with their bills, but they will also see through the Government’s claim that they are on their side. It took too long for the Treasury to act, and there is still much work to be done in the UK if it is to weather this cost of living storm.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. In closing, I will focus on responding as far as possible to the many and varied points raised.
As I said at the beginning, the global context of high oil and gas prices has driven extraordinary profits for UK oil and gas producers. It is both fiscally prudent and morally right therefore that, through the Bill, we introduce a temporary and targeted levy on these extraordinary profits, which will help fund more cost of living support. At the same time, companies must have ample incentives to continue to invest and the Bill has been tailor-made to account for this. The new 80% investment allowance will provide them with an additional, immediate incentive to invest. This means that, overall, businesses will get a 91p tax saving for every £1 invested.
Turning to the points raised in today’s debate, the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about revenue that could have been raised had the levy been in place between January and May this year, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Bennett, made similar points. It is not standard for the Government to publish assessments of the fiscal and economic impacts of measures that are not being introduced and it is not clear that doing so in this case would be a beneficial use of public resources. I would also add that since the beginning of the year, three significant things have changed. The situation in Ukraine altered considerably, inflation is considerably higher than previously expected and the Government had concrete information on the indicative levels of the autumn and winter energy price cap, allowing us to design the levy and the related cost of living support to meet the scale of the challenge we faced.
As for whether an earlier commencement date for the levy was an option, as noble Lords would no doubt expect, the Government carefully considered several options. Indeed, following thought and with time to consider, the levy has a more appropriate tax base. The result is that it is not depressed by historical losses and has an investment incentive that is not only more generous but more effectively targeted at new investment. The Government are also very careful when it comes to the retrospective application of taxes. Although this tax will apply from 26 May—the date it was announced—there needs to be careful consideration whenever the question of retrospection is raised, particularly in relation to tax.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also asked about the Government’s plan to phase out the energy profits levy if oil and gas prices return in future years to historically more normal levels. As the former Chancellor told the Treasury Select Committee, the Government are discussing that with industry. The former Chancellor also mentioned the Brent crude price over the last five or 10 years, which is along the lines of $60 or $70 a barrel. Similarly, companies have communicated to their shareholders what they would consider normal oil prices; they tend to use numbers in the range of $60 or $70, so that gives a sense. The situation is complicated because prices have changed at different rates, with gas, for example, reaching a peak in March. However, as the noble Lord mentioned and other noble Lords noted, there is a sunset clause of just over three years in the legislation as a backstop. If prices come back to the range that the former Chancellor discussed, one might expect the levy to fall away sooner.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, also mentioned that fossil fuel investment will be subsidised in the tax system at a rate of 20 times the incentives available to renewable energy schemes. Other noble Lords expressed concern around the investment incentives in the Bill and whether these challenge our commitment to net zero. Having an element of independence of oil and gas in our energy system is important, and sourcing gas locally, through the North Sea, makes us less dependent on imports. As set out in the Government’s energy security strategy, the North Sea will still be a foundation of our energy security, so it is right that we continue to encourage investment in oil and gas. Our oil and gas have lower emissions intensity compared to imported liquid natural gas.
As I noted in my opening speech, in meeting our net-zero target by 2050 we might still use a quarter of the gas that we use now, so to reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels we must fully utilise our great North Sea reserve. However, that does not in any way contradict our commitment to our net-zero targets. I take issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, claiming that this Government are in any way climate change denying. The UK has decarbonised its economy further and faster than any other G7—
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
Just to clarify, I was referring to the Scott Morrison Government of Australia when I said “climate change denying”.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I believe she was comparing that Government to this one. This Government have legislated for our net-zero targets—the first major country to do so. We have decarbonised further and faster than our G7 counterparts, and we have shown global leadership on climate change and wider nature and biodiversity through our chair of the G7 and COP 26. I know that noble Lords will continue to push the Government to do better, go further and do more. That is absolutely right and appropriate. The noble Baroness believes in effective campaigning; I am not sure that an effective way to campaign is not to recognise some of the progress made on the journey.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, said that investment will be subsidised in the tax system at a rate of 20 times the incentives available to renewable energy schemes. We do not recognise these figures. Oil and gas companies within the ring-fence regime are already paying tax on their profits at more than three times the rate of other companies, so any tax relief is reducing a higher tax bill. Although oil and gas companies save an additional 45p in tax for every £1 they invest—91p in total from the levy—they will pay tax at 65% of remaining profits. In contrast, outside the oil and gas ring-fence regime, profits on companies such as those in the renewables sector are taxed at 19%. So if a company made £100 in profit it would pay £65 in tax in the oil and gas regime but only £19 if it were outside the regime. If it then reinvested £25 of that profit, an oil and gas company would still pay more than twice the tax of a normal company—just over £42 compared with just under £13 for a company outside the regime.
The noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Teverson, expressed concern that a large proportion of the estimated £5 billion of revenue raised in the first 12 months of the levy being in place would be lost to the investment allowance. I reassure noble Lords that the £5 billion estimate is net of the effect of the investment allowance.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness tell us the cost of giving this 80% investment allowance? She said that the £5 billion is net; what would it have been without that, so that we know what the cost is?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I will come on to that in just a minute. Relatedly, I was just about to answer the question about whether the money going into the tax relief might be dead weight, in that the investment would have happened anyway. The Government expect the combination of the levy and the investment allowance to lead to an overall increase in investment.
In relation to the noble Lord’s question, the OBR will take account of this policy in its next forecast. I think we will see some more detail from its assessment then. I hope that the net additional investment that we expect from the design of the levy provides some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Moynihan.
The legislation also includes an anti-avoidance provision to prevent any recycling of existing assets getting the allowance. I think that is about the targeting of the allowance and avoiding dead-weight costs, rather than not being supportive of the general concept of recycling assets.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I appreciate the point the noble Baroness made about recycling, but there is nothing whatever in the Bill to prevent an oil and gas company leasing a used asset, saying that it is a new investment and claiming this allowance. That asset need not even be owned by a company in the UK—the lessor could be somewhere else in an offshore tax haven. It could be an affiliate of the same company that pays, acquires a right and then uses it. The Bill does not prevent that, does it?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the investment allowance has been carefully designed to ensure that it incentivises investment but does not provide relief for investment that would have taken place otherwise.
I will pick up on a couple of further points from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who had a few questions. To clarify, the allowance does apply to new as well as existing fields. It will not apply to carbon capture, usage and storage, as it applies only to upstream activities, and carbon capture, usage and storage is not an upstream activity. However, it would apply to the decarbonisation of those upstream activities. I hope that makes sense.
On energy storage, the Government published an energy security strategy in April to increase domestic energy production and accelerate the move away from gas towards low-carbon energies such as nuclear, renewables and hydrogen. It builds on delivery over the past decade, including giving the go-ahead to the first nuclear power plant in a generation and a fivefold increase in renewables. The Government will ensure a more flexible, efficient system for both generators and users by encouraging all forms of flexibility, with sufficient large-scale, long-duration electricity storage, to balance the overall system by developing an appropriate policy to enable investment by 2024.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the £400 energy discount and whether that may apply to second homes. The Government’s intention is for the Energy Bills Support Scheme to reach as many households as possible from October, while minimising the administrative complexity of the scheme. We consulted on the basis of delivering the £400 via domestic electricity meter points. While he is right that some households have second homes or multiple meter points, it will be important to balance this against the timely and efficient delivery of the scheme. I know noble Lords have expressed concern about the targeting of the support that the Government will provide. I just say that, in contrast to calls from other Benches—for example, around a different route, which could be to reduce VAT—the flat-rate payment provides a better targeted level of support to those households that are most vulnerable. I think that is something that we should support.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked for reassurance that the proceeds of the levy will go towards support with the rising costs of living. As her noble friend said, the support announced this year is worth £37 billion. Our estimate for the first year of the levy is around £5 billion. While there is not a direct ring-fence, it was announced at the same time as the additional measures in May, which were about £12 billion of that £37 billion. The extra support that the Government are giving people actually outweighs the revenue being raised from this levy. The distributional analysis published alongside the May package shows that it was highly progressive, and around three-quarters of total support will go to vulnerable households. As noble Lords will also know, we made it clear at that point that next April’s uprating of benefits will use the normal September CPI—as we expect that level of inflation to be higher than it will be the following April—to account for ongoing high energy costs for those households on the lowest incomes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the noble Lords, Lord Tunnicliffe and Lord Teverson, and others asked about energy efficiency. I talked about the £37 billion of cost of living support, and I reassure noble Lords that the Government are spending £6.7 billion in this Parliament to improve energy efficiency and decarbonise heat in buildings. Over the next three years, the Government are investing a further £1.8 billion on low-income household energy efficiency, on top of the £1.2 billion spent since 2020. This will improve around 500,000 homes, saving households on average £270 a year on their energy bills long term, at current energy prices.
Some £471 million has been spent to date on the social housing decarbonisation fund and sustainable warmth programme, estimated to save households an average of £350 to £450 a year on their energy bills. We are also consulting on expanding the energy company obligation to £1 billion per year for improvements to fuel-poor households. The Government agree with noble Lords about the importance of improving energy efficiency, as well as providing immediate support to households with the cost of living.
I cannot answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on the coal mine in Cumbria, or all the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, but maybe I will write to them both and copy in all noble Lords so that they get satisfaction on those points.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I was slightly mischievous in asking the question, because clearly the Minister will not be able to write and give me the answer, although I would like her to. The Government have clearly put off this decision yet again, and I just think it would be a really good sign if they made up their mind and did the right thing. Perhaps they could make that decision, at least before we have regime change.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, if the noble Lord is happy to consider that message received, maybe I will direct my letter just to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, which I may be able to answer with more success.
I have a final point, which is quite crucial to why we are all here today, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who asked whether we will implement the levy we are legislating for. I assure all noble Lords that we will. We expect Royal Assent to be quite swift after we finish with the Bill this evening, and the levy will come into effect not just from that point but retrospectively from 26 May.
The noble Baroness noted the separate issue of the electricity generation sector. The Government continue our work to explore whether certain parts of the energy generation sector are receiving extraordinary profits, partly due to record gas prices. We are consulting with that sector both to drive forward the energy market reforms and to evaluate the scale of any potential extraordinary profits, and we are considering the appropriate steps to take. That work is proceeding separately and more slowly, but this levy—once noble Lords have agreed to it this evening—will absolutely go ahead.