Terms and Conditions of Employment

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I do not think so. There is a financial deterrent to going down a route that is not appropriate, and to not following the code. As I say, we are striking a balance. There are situations in which, as a last resort, businesses need to do something more drastic; for example, a business might be in peril and unable to survive without making the kind of changes we are discussing, and such cases have come before tribunals. If the question is whether it is right that everybody shares a small burden—say, a reduction in salary—one person cannot hold out against that, and prevent a restructuring that is in the interests of the many, rather than the few. The provisions have been used in the past to save businesses and therefore jobs. That is what we are trying to protect, while also protecting against a rogue employer using such opportunities irresponsibly and unfairly.

The code will apply to all employers, regardless of size. We expect all employers in relevant scenarios to adhere to it. As I said, employment tribunals will have the power to apply an uplift of up to 25% of an employee’s compensation if an employer unreasonably fails to comply with a code that applies.

In accordance with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the Secretary of State consulted ACAS on a draft statutory code before publishing it. Between January and April 2023, the Government publicly consulted on a draft code, enabling trade unions, employers and other interested parties to contribute their views. Careful consideration was given to those views, and as a result, changes were made to the draft code. The Government are very grateful to all respondents to the consultation for their considered and helpful responses. An updated draft code was laid before Parliament on 19 February, and a Government response to the consultation was published on the same day. The draft code was then debated in both Houses of Parliament. I am pleased to say that it was approved. The Government will introduce separate legislation to bring the code into force before summer recess.

The Government are going even further by bringing forward this order, which will increase the deterrent effect of the code by adding a protective award where there is non-compliance with the collective consultation requirements in schedule A2 to the 1992 Act. The protective award is compensation awarded by an employment tribunal when an employer does not consult with its employees before dismissing 20 or more of them within any 90-day period at a single establishment. Schedule A2 to the 1992 Act sets out the list of claims for which an employment tribunal can make a 25% adjustment to compensation if one of the parties has unreasonably failed to comply with a code of practice made using powers in section 203 of the 1992 Act. The relevant code of practice that will be impacted by this change is the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement. The change will mean that where an employment tribunal is making a protective award, and it appears to it that the employer has unreasonably failed to comply with the code, the tribunal may increase that award by up to 25%. The change was called for by respondents to the consultation, including trade unions, and will increase the deterrent effect of the code.

There are calls to ban the practice of dismissal and re-engagement, or to restrict the practice in a manner that effectively amounts to a ban. The Government believe that we must preserve companies’ flexibility, so that they can manage their workforce in times of crisis. The UK’s flexible labour market is key to economic growth and helps business to thrive, so it is right that we have mechanisms to enable us to save as many jobs as possible. The code is a proportionate response to controversial fire and rehire practices, balancing protections for employees with business flexibility. The vast majority of employers want to do the right thing by their employees. For most employers, decisions to change terms and conditions, or to let members of the workforce go, are not taken lightly.

The UK is a great place to start and grow a business. It has a strong labour market, and its success is underpinned by the balance between labour market flexibility and worker protections. It is vital that we continue to strike the right balance, while clamping down on poor practice. The Government intend the code and the order to be in effect before the summer recess. I commend the order to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Employment (Allocation of Tips)

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dean Russell]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point, which gets to the heart of this: the fairness here is to not just the workers, but the businesses. Most businesses do the right thing and pay a decent salary. The Minister can correct me on this, but I believe that legislation taken through a while ago means that tips cannot form part of a salary. So businesses should be paying a decent wage. When some organisations do the wrong thing, what they are doing is anti-competitive; they are making profit off the backs of their workers by keeping their tips, and the businesses doing the right thing in giving 100% of the tips to the staff are less competitive. My approach is therefore far fairer to the majority of businesses that do the right thing, and to the workers. It is also far fairer to the customers, who thought that the money was going to the staff and did not realise that a percentage of it, or in some instances all of it, was being taken from them.

My Bill will ensure fairness—that is the key word we should all take from the Bill and from today’s debate. It will ensure that all tips, 100% of them, are paid to staff. Agency staff will be included in that; when I originally talked about this Bill, some had a concern about a two-tier system for workers. The Bill will also ensure that a policy is in place—a code of practice—so that businesses ensure that their staff know where they stand. Businesses will be able to be clear with everyone who works for them how the tipping practice will work; I will not go through the full list, as the Minister did an excellent job of listing it earlier.

This measure has been a journey. I mentioned my work on the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, but, as with all journeys, I began this trek much earlier. In many ways, this began with the fantastic work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid) when he was a Secretary of State. He put in place the work enabling the Government to look at how we could make sure tipping was fair, so this measure is built on the shoulders of giants. I will not list them now, but many Members have been involved in making sure my Bill came to fruition. Many organisations were also involved, and I thank UKHospitality, especially Kate Nicholls, who has done a fantastic job; and the Night Time Industries Association, which has done brilliant work. Conservative Members do not often talk positively about unions, but the GMB has done fantastic work, and I should give another mention to ACAS. Lots of businesses, employers and employees have also really pushed for this to come to fruition.

I want to thank some current and former members of the Government, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who was incredibly supportive when I originally tried to bring my legislation in as a presentation Bill. At the time, we were going to make it part of the Employment Bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen, but many of the policies that were going to be included did happen through various other routes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt), who was a fantastic supporter and an able Minister.

Of course, I also thank the Minister before us today and his team. He has been excellent in making sure that this is pushed forward and, through him, I would like to thank his team. Some of them were my team in my short time as a Minister, so I know the passion they had about making sure that we got this right. During my brief time as a Minister, I had to hand over this precious baby of mine, the tips Bill, to a colleague to make sure we could keep it moving forward through the House. That was when I was able to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, who has an incredibly important hospitality industry in her constituency. I could not think of someone more able and more energetic to make sure that we got the Bill through. Through her work and our work with Lord Robathan, we made sure that it got through and received Royal Assent. Many Members will not know that on the day it was given, I was fortunate enough to meet the King that morning in Parliament—I am sure that is a rare story and one for a pub quiz sometime in the future.

The other person I would like to give a huge thanks to is the lady who rarely gets a mention in here but who is behind so many of these incredibly important Bills: my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). She does an incredible job in giving us guidance on how to navigate the complex system of getting a Bill through Parliament and in giving us confidence that it is possible. She has made sure that many Bills have got through and gone on this incredibly important journey, including many others in which I have had involvement in different ways, such as those on flexible working, maternity care, leave and so on.

My Bill will help about 2 million hospitality workers across the UK. That is an incredible number. When I have spoken about this to people around the House or to my constituents, I have found that so many more people will talk about its importance: customers who want to make sure that money for which they have worked hard and which they are giving as a thank you gets to the people they are giving it to; and colleagues who have family members who work as waiters or waitresses, or who work in bars, as this will make sure that they get the money that has been gifted to them. Many colleagues have spoken to me about their experiences of working in hospitality while at university or when they were younger. That has shown me how the hospitality sector plays an important role in our society: it provides a type of apprenticeship to many of us before our careers. We learn a lot about our culture, society and community, as well as about people, through hospitality. That is why I have been so passionate about saving our night-time economy, including music venues, in Watford and across the UK. Music venues have been at the heart of our society and I fear they may be damaged in the future, but I hope the Bill may play a small part in helping them.

The Bill is also about fairness. It is impossible to legislate for fairness in society—it is a gut feel—but fairness is at the heart of what it is to be British. We believe in fairness in all parts of our society. At its heart, the legislation goes back to the fact that when someone gives money as a gift to someone else, they expect them to get it. That is what this Bill will ensure, and I am grateful to the Government for that.

I want to raise a couple of related points with the Minister to ensure they are covered as the legislation moves forward. We need to ensure there is a communications strategy before October so that workers know their rights, how to access them and what is covered. Businesses also need to know that the legislation will not be a burden. During the early stages of the Bill, I was mindful that it must not be a burden and more red tape for businesses. The majority of businesses get that and understand it. Those that were doing the wrong thing will, no doubt, kick up a fuss. Over the coming weeks and months, we will probably hear about businesses trying to get around the regulations by forming new practices. I hope the Government will clamp down on those, and name and shame the businesses involved; I will certainly be happy to do that to ensure that fairness is the heart of the regulations.

The Government have a role to play in supporting the hospitality sector as a whole as best they can. Businesses in the sector are important parts of our communities; they are in the heart of every village, town and city. Hospitality is often the reason people visit an area, it is often the first port of call for a job and a career, and it plays an important role in entertainment and culture. No other industry has such an important and broad role, so I want to ensure it is fair. I thank the Government, the Minister and colleagues across the House who have been incredibly supportive, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn. Finally, may I say a huge thank you to my constituents in Watford? If they had not put me here, the Bill may not have been making progress today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I am absolutely willing to acknowledge that some recommendations from the Taylor review have been progressed, but no significant action has been forthcoming. A lot of MPs have said that; indeed, even the hon. Member for Watford said it was regrettable that there was not an employment Bill. I am simply pointing out the fact that an employment Bill was promised in this Parliament. We found time to legislate on a whole manner of other issues, some of which have, frankly, been with a view to creating a wedge at the general election, whereas we know that the legislation framework we have around employment law is not necessarily fit for the 21st century and the kind of economy we now have.

The UK exited the European Union in January 2020 to the cheers and trumpets of Brexiteers who promised that Britannia unchained from Brussels would lead to an improvement in workers’ rights. In reality, and from what I can see in Glasgow, all that has happened is that employers in the hospitality and tourism sectors now just have fewer workers.

In citing the briefing from Unite, I want to thank it for the work it has done to engage with employees and to gauge their opinions about tipping policy. For context, those who have responded are already engaged trade unionists with a track record of activism and a decent understanding of policy. That is what makes the answers particularly striking. When asking whether an employee’s workplace passed on all tips to its staff the answers were: yes, 63%; don’t know, 21%; no, 11%; and some 5% indicated that tips were only accepted by card on an employer-operated tronc that employees paid tax on. Those statistics paint a picture of the sheer scale of the issues workers face, especially when it comes to tipping in hospitality.

On tipping policy, some other issues need to be ironed out and considered further, namely whether backroom staff, such as those who are integral to preparing and producing a meal, not just delivering it to the table, be tipped, and whether the tips are being distributed equitably. All workers need to be eligible to receive tips, whether they are on a zero-hours contract or are permanent. Progress has been made on extending tips to agency workers, but in reality we now operate in a gig economy. It is vital that the legislative framework that comes from this place reflects that.

From the Government’s response to the consultation, 40% of employers admit that they do not issue tips to agency workers despite that being an obligation under section 27H of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hon. Member for Watford was spot on when he said that the comms to employers and employees must be very clear in the run-up to October this year. There must be something that can be done, for example, with employees who still receive a payslip. Could the Government bring forward measures to require all employers to put some sort of small note on payslips to make clear that the laws on tipping will change in a couple of months?

The legislation we are piloting through the House today makes the point that our legislative framework does not reflect the reality of the UK economy and labour force in 2024. More needs to be done to protect workers, especially those on zero-hours contracts. Arguably, that point should weigh heavily on the minds of shadow Ministers who, if polls are to be believed, might shortly be assuming red boxes and Whitehall offices in the coming months.

As we approach the cigarette end of this Parliament, attention turns to the incoming Government and their ambitions for workers’ rights. It would be fair to say that the small c conservative approach to workers’ rights from the official Opposition has not necessarily been wholly welcomed by those in the Labour movement. Only last week, Unite’s general secretary, Sharon Graham, was on record as saying:

“It looks like all the warnings Unite made earlier about the dangers of Labour rowing back on its pledges for the New Deal for Workers have been proved right. This new Labour document on the New Deal, issued to the unions on Monday, is a row back on a row back. It is totally unrecognisable from the original proposals produced with the unions. Unrecognisable. Workers will see through this and mark this retreat after retreat as a betrayal. This new document is turning what was a real new deal for workers into a charter for bad bosses. Labour don't want a law against fire and rehire and they are effectively ripping up the promise of legislation on a new deal for workers in its first 100 days.”

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I assume the hon. Gentleman will be coming back to the motion before us.

[David Linden]

I am very happy to inform you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am talking on employment legislation, which I believe is germane to this debate.

Unite’s general secretary goes on to say:

“Instead, we have codes of conduct and pledges of consultation with big business. Likewise, the proposal to legislate against zero hours contracts is watered down to almost nothing…In truth this new document is not worthy of discussion. All unions must now demand that Labour changes course and puts the original New Deal for Workers back on the table.”

That was a warning shot to the Labour party that it, too, must be more ambitious and not leave the task of protecting workers’ rights to the valiant efforts of Back-Bench MPs who happen to be lucky in the private Members’ Bill draw.

I am sure that you will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will draw my remarks to a close, and say, yes, the measures before us today have the potential to put up to £200 million a year back into the pockets of hospitality staff and could benefit more than 2 million workers across the hospitality, leisure and service sectors.

That is a legislative achievement to be rightly celebrated in this place but it comes against a backdrop of increasing legislation that restricts the rights of trade unions to exercise functions of collective bargaining. It is no surprise, therefore, that the UK now has some of the most restrictive trade union laws in western Europe—something that has worsened over the past decade. Workers deserve better, and today is another baby step to improving things, but it largely goes against the grain of Westminster policy formulation when it comes to workers’ rights. And it is frankly little wonder that the Labour movement in Scotland, so ably represented by the Scottish Trades Union Congress, has now concluded that legislative competence for employment law should be devolved to Scottish Ministers. Failure to do so—be that by Labour or the Tories—will lead Scots to conclude one thing and one thing only: that Westminster is not working for working people.

UK Trade Performance

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kemi Badenoch)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the UK’s trade performance.

When I am overseas, as Secretary of State for Business and Trade, other countries speak with nothing but admiration and respect for what we are achieving in Britain. As the chief executive officer of Nissan Global recently remarked:

“It is surprising to hear people asking why they should choose the UK”—

because, in his words,

“we have both great people and great talent here.”

Certainly, in the firms that I have visited up and down this country, I am proud to see our employers and exporters firing on all cylinders. Yet, when I return to Westminster, some people seem unaware of the progress that we have made as an independent trading nation. Today, I want to put that right.

The latest trade data, published by the Office for National Statistics and also by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, should give everyone in this House cause for celebration and renewed pride in our country. They confirmed that the strategy the public voted for on 23 June 2016 is delivering. Leaving the European Union was a vote of confidence in the project of the United Kingdom, and we are seeing results. Since that referendum, the UK economy has grown faster than that of Germany, Italy and Japan, and contrary to gloomy predictions, our manufacturing productivity has grown more than that of Germany, France, Italy and the USA.

According to the latest UN statistics, the UK, outside the EU, became the world’s fourth biggest exporter in 2022, overtaking Japan, the Netherlands and France. The value of UK exports was £862 billion in the 12 months to February 2024. That builds on progress we have made in growing our exports outside the confines of the EU. Exports are now 2% above 2018 when adjusted for inflation. Services exports are at an all-time high. A summary of these figures, along with the most recent business and labour statistics, were published on gov.uk in April. Together, they definitively disprove the claims of those who prophesied a catastrophic economic collapse when we left the EU to become a sovereign nation.

Today, we are selling not only more services to EU countries than ever before, but record amounts of services to the rest of the world, too. We are the largest net exporter of financial and insurance services in the world. Far from an exodus of businesses out of the UK, European firms have doubled down on their commitments to the UK. In 2020, Unilever chose to headquarter exclusively in London over Rotterdam. Since 2022, Cadbury has brought more chocolate production back to the UK from Germany. In the same year, Shell moved its headquarters out of the Netherlands and into the UK.

We are tearing down the barriers to trade. Since the start of 2022, we have resolved barriers all over the world, estimated to be worth more than £15 billion to UK businesses over a five-year period. In 2023, this was equivalent to removing around £1 million-worth of trade barriers every single hour. British pork farmers are benefiting from newly agreed access to the Mexican market, which is worth £80 million over the same period. Our work on bottle labelling for UK gin and whisky has driven up exports to Chile by tonnes. We have ended the US ban on British beef and lamb.

We are working to deliver a strategy on a situation that faces the whole world, not just our friends and neighbours in Europe. This is crucial if we are to lock Britain into the future of where global growth will be. In 2022, the EU took more than 60% of UK goods exports. In 2023, this was 47%, because UK goods exports to the EU remained broadly flat, while exports to non-EU countries rose by around 70% in real terms.

We are going further to seize the benefits of an independent trade policy. We have deals with 73 countries around the world, with more to come under this Government, plus the most comprehensive trade deal to which the EU has ever agreed. Later this year, we will join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, one of the world’s biggest trading blocs. This will mean that more than 99% of UK goods will be eligible for zero tariffs in some of the Asia Pacific’s most dynamic economies. British business is set to benefit.

As well as service exports, where Britain excels, our top goods sales were in cars, mechanical-powered generators, medicines, pharmaceutical products and aircraft components. We have one of the world’s largest manufacturing sectors. Productivity in our manufacturing industry has grown faster than in every other G7 nation since 2010. Hundreds of businesses in steel, chemicals and other sectors stand to benefit from the newly introduced British industry supercharger, which is bringing energy costs down for key industries. Our £4.5 billion advanced manufacturing plan is opening new markets and removing obstacles to growth while helping to crowd in new funding for plants and factories throughout the UK. Every penny the UK Government spend on manufacturing is matched fivefold by the growth creators of the private sector. This pro-investment approach is working: the UK’s automotive sector attracted £3.7 billion-worth of greenfield foreign investment in 2022 alone.

The Labour party will remember Mr Alastair Campbell, who asserted during the referendum that if we leave the EU, Nissan will leave. Nissan is still here. The two new 100% electric models are set to be built at its Sunderland this year. More Minis are rolling off production lines in Oxfordshire today, thanks to a £600 million investment from BMW. These are firms that look for opportunities the world over and decide that the UK is the place to be. Listening to some of the remarks made in this House and elsewhere, people would think that our country was not worth investing in at all. Let us be clear: the British ingenuity and industry that made this country prosper in the past still exists today, and even if those on the Opposition Benches cannot see it, international investors certainly can.

The statistics published by my Department show that the UK’s inward FDI stock has reached more than £2 trillion. Our FDI stock is the highest in Europe—more than Germany, France and Italy combined. The most recent OECD data show that our employment rate is higher than that of the US, France and Italy.

The regulatory freedoms that we gained by leaving the EU have allowed our smarter regulation programme to cut the red tape that has been holding them back. We have already reformed the working time directive reporting requirements, saving businesses up to £1 billion per year. We recently announced that we will raise the thresholds that determine company size, reducing burdens on smaller businesses, and remove low-value and overlapping reporting requirements.

Those changes will make reporting simpler and deliver savings of around £150 million per year to UK companies, with small and medium-sized companies benefiting by around £145 million. It is no surprise that the most recent NatWest SME business activity index shows that output is increasing strongly, driven by renewed manufacturing sector expansion, and companies’ activity expectations remain upbeat. These things do not happen by accident, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome those figures.

I have no doubt that this statement will disappoint some people, as it does not align with the story that they want to tell of a nation riven by injustice and economic stagnation, clinging to Europe for any hope for the future. That is not to say that everything is perfect—of course there is still more to do—but we are not alone in our problems. Ministers in other countries are quick to remind me about supply-chain issues affecting everything from getting car components to stocking supermarket shelves. They tell me about how they are coping with problems in the jobs market, as societies from Germany to Japan get older.

Only when I am back in the UK am I told that all these issues are down to Brexit. Far from it. Our plans are working, and Britain is thriving as an independent sovereign home of free enterprise and free trade. That is what the recent figures published by my Department, by the ONS, and by the UN tell me. It is what our businesses, exporters, employers and investors all tell me, and I hope that hon. Members present can see it too. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I understand the point that my right hon. Friend makes. This is something that we have heard from some bodies in industry. The auto sector is giving us two different messages. Some people want us to bring the mandate forward and make the change faster; others want us to delay it. It is a very tricky balance. We understand the concerns. We do not want to put additional burdens on business, so he is right to make that point. I have made representations to the Transport Secretary, but this is his policy area, and he will make the ultimate decision.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

With these selective statistics, the Secretary of State would clearly make a good cherry-picker, while clutching at straws at the same time. The reality is that we still have a cost of living crisis, and I would welcome her to my constituency to tell people there how rosy things apparently are in the UK. Real GDP growth in the UK—growth since before the pandemic—is just 1%. That is one third of the EU average figure, and one eighth of US growth.

The here and now figures are even worse. The UK economy shrank in 2023, whereas there was significant growth in the G7 and the OECD average. Now is probably the only time in living history that the UK economy has been on a par with Germany’s—but sadly that is because Germany is also an international outlier in lacking economic growth. Volumes of UK goods imports and exports are 7.4% smaller than in 2018—the biggest five-year decline for which comparative records exist.

The Secretary of State is right that exports to the EU are up, but imports from the EU are also up, so the trading deficit with the EU has increased by more than 5%. Allianz Trade has estimated that the introduction yesterday of new customs and checks procedures on animal and plant products and goods entering the UK will cost British business £2 billion a year. UK Energy also estimates that energy bills are £1 billion a year higher due to post-Brexit trading arrangements.

Instead of talking up the minimal savings from what the Secretary of State calls “cutting red tape”, I wish she would tell the truth about the trading cost increases resulting from Brexit red tape for businesses in the UK, not to mention the impact of labour shortages. This Parliament is set to break a lot of records: we have the biggest drop in living standards, the longest decline in GDP per capita, the steepest five-year decline in volume of trade, and the stock market shrinking at its fastest pace in history. Which of these record-breaking achievements for broken Britain is she most proud of?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question; I will check my diary to see if I am available for the event, but I am glad that he raises the issue of trade with Japan. We signed an upgraded FTA with Japan after leaving the EU, so these roll-over deals are no longer roll-over deals, because we are adding more into them, especially the digital trade chapters. These are deals fit for the 21st century—the age we live in—rather than the 20th century.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

It is good to see the Secretary of State in the House again. I know she has a difference of opinion sometimes with the Office for Budget Responsibility, but can she confirm that the OBR’s figures for March 2024 show that the UK has the lowest trade intensity in the G7? There was important progress, as she has reported today, but much of it rests on progress in our services trade, which provokes the question of why we are not pursuing services-only trade agreements in a more expansive way, not least as the Minister for Trade Policy was unable to confirm whether any comprehensive free trade deals would be signed before the election when he came before the Committee yesterday. He said that services-only deals were not allowed under World Trade Organisation rules, which of course is flat-out wrong.

The question I want to put to the Secretary of State is about our goods trade. The Office for National Statistics figures show that our goods exports have fallen by about £31 billion over a year. The risk is that that number will be hit even harder by the chaos at the border. The new border operating model involves data that is submitted by traders, but then not shared with ports; sometimes two hours’ notice is needed for a journey that only takes 90 minutes; there is no standardisation of inspection charges; and British Chambers of Commerce says that many businesses will be hit by thousands of pounds-worth of customs bills that they did not know they were on the hook for.

The question is this: did the Secretary of State warn her colleagues in Cabinet that there would be complete chaos, and that the EU checks that we are introducing would be a disaster? That is what small business is saying to me, and I know it is what small business is saying to her.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable.

Clause 1

Quashing of convictions for relevant offences

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I beg to move amendment 25, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(za) the conviction took place before the coming into force of this Act,”.

This amendment makes it clear that clause 1(1) will quash only convictions occurring before the coming into force of the Act.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, page 1, line 9, leave out paragraph (b).

Government amendments 27 to 28.

Clause 1 stand part.

Government amendments 29 to 33.

Clause 2 stand part.

Government amendment 34.

Clause 3 stand part.

Government amendments 35 to 41.

Amendment 3, in clause 4, page 3, line 34, at end insert—

“(4A) Notification under subsection (4) must include a written summary of—

(a) the compensation schemes available to a relevant person following a quashed conviction under section 1(1);

(b) the relevant heads of loss under which a relevant person may claim compensation; and

(c) a tariff of compensation available relating to each of the heads of loss mentioned in paragraph (b).”

Amendment 4, page 3, line 34, at end insert—

“(4A) Notification under subsection (4) must include a written commitment from the Secretary of State that—

(a) the period of time between a full and valid claim for compensation and an offer of compensation will not exceed four weeks; and

(b) if the offer is not made within the four week period mentioned in paragraph (a), a fixed penalty amount will be added to the ultimate compensation sum for each day by which the four week period is exceeded.”

Amendment 5, page 3, line 34, at end insert—

“(4A) Notification under subsection (4) must include a written commitment from the Secretary of State to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that the period of time between a full and valid claim for compensation and an offer of compensation will not exceed four weeks.”

Government amendments 42 to 44.

Clause 4 stand part.

Government amendments 45 and 46.

Amendment 6, in clause 5, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) Notification under subsection (3) must include a written summary of—

(a) the compensation schemes available to a relevant person following a direction to delete a caution under section 5(1);

(b) the relevant heads of loss under which a relevant person may claim compensation; and

(c) a tariff of compensation available relating to each of the heads of loss mentioned in paragraph (b).”

Amendment 7, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) Notification under subsection (3) must include a written commitment from the Secretary of State that—

(a) the period of time between a full and valid claim for compensation and an offer of compensation will not exceed four weeks; and

(b) if the offer is not made within the four week period mentioned in paragraph (a), a fixed penalty amount will be added to the ultimate compensation sum for each day by which the four week period is exceeded.”

Amendment 8, page 4, line 18, at end insert—

“(3A) Notification under subsection (3) must include a written commitment from the Secretary of State to use reasonable endeavours to ensure that the period of time between a full and valid claim for compensation and an offer of compensation will not exceed four weeks.”

Government amendment 47.

Clauses 5 and 6 stand part.

Government amendments 48 to 51.

Clause 7 stand part.

Government amendments 52 and 53.

Amendment 70, page 5, line 39, after “as” insert “Pathway,”.

This amendment would provide additional clarity by ensuring that the application called Pathway, which was rolled out as a pilot version of Horizon, is explicitly referenced as a Horizon system for the purposes of the Bill.

Government amendments 54 and 55.

Clause 8 stand part.

Government amendment 56.

Amendment 71, page 6, line 26, at end insert—

“(3) This Act expires at the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which it is passed.”

Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.

Government new clauses 2 and 3.

New clause 1—Provision relating to Northern Ireland—

“(1) The Secretary of State must consult the First Minister and deputy First Minister about making provision for quashing any conviction in Northern Ireland for an equivalent “relevant offence” (see section 2) alleged to have been committed in Northern Ireland.

(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations to apply the provisions of this Act, with any necessary modifications to take account of the law and legal system in Northern Ireland, to secure the quashing of any conviction in Northern Ireland for an equivalent “relevant offence” (see section 2).

(3) Unless the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly advise to the contrary, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of regulations to be made under subsection (2) no later than one week after the day on which this Act is passed.

(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.

(5) Subject to subsection (4) of this section, section 7 of this Act applies to other regulations made under this section.”

This skeleton clause would require comparable provision to be made to quash convictions in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in England and Wales.

New clause 6—Statement on quashing convictions relating to Capture software—

“The Secretary of State must, no later than 30 days after the day on which this Act is passed, make a written statement to Parliament outlining action the Government intends to take to secure the quashing of convictions of persons carrying on a Post Office business while using the Capture software from 1992 onwards.”

Government amendments 23 and 24.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Rosie. Given the nature of this debate, in moving the Government amendments, I will also use my speech to discuss the other amendments that have been tabled.

First, I will address the Government amendments in the name of the Secretary of State relating to Northern Ireland: 23 and 24, 26 to 44, and 46 to 56, as well as new clauses 1 to 3. I am grateful to the House for agreeing to the Government’s instruction motion to enable debate on these important amendments. The Government have listened carefully to representations across the House regarding the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. We recognise the unique challenges faced by the Northern Ireland Executive in bringing forward legislation to quash convictions to a similar timeframe as the rest of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

If my new clause had been selected for debate, I would probably not seek to press it. I am not in a position to do anything more, but I thank the Minister for his assurances on independence.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As the new clause was not selected, we probably should not be discussing it.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My apologies, Dame Rosie. I will move on with pleasure.

Penultimately, I turn to new clause 6. I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham for all his work seeking justice for the former sub-postmasters and, indeed, on the Horizon compensation advisory board. My officials have been working closely with him, as have I, and he will be aware that we have set in train the process of appointing an independent forensic investigator to look into the Capture software, now that the Post Office has addressed concerns about it. Obviously, this relates to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who is no longer in her place.

This follows on from the useful meeting that the right hon. Member for North Durham and I had with a sub-postmaster and his wife who wanted to talk to me about his experiences. My officials have spoken to other affected sub-postmasters, too. New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to make a statement within 30 days of Royal Assent. As the Committee knows, we aim to complete the Bill’s passage very quickly, so a statement may be due quite soon. In practice, we feel it would be too soon, and time is needed to identify and appoint the right person for this role, and for the investigator to complete their work and offer an independent conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the Committee that this debate has to finish at 9 o’clock. I know some of the points are very detailed, but I am conscious that I have the four Members who are standing and the shadow Minister to get in. Colleagues should bear that in mind, because I cannot impose a time limit. It is about making sure that everyone has a chance to speak.

[Liam Byrne]

Thank you, Dame Rosie. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship.

I will be very brief, because some of my points have been covered through interventions. There has been good progress since the Bill was published, which is testament to the Minister’s leadership and his officials’ support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, the more that we have heard in the inquiry and through the media since the Bill’s publication, the more horrified and more determined we have become to hold individuals, including the former chief executive of the Post Office, to account. It is pretty clear to many of us that the evidence she gave to the Select Committee on 3 February 2015 and 24 June 2020 has been flatly contradicted by the Channel 4 revelations that were published on 27 March. I hope the Select Committee will be able to bring options for the House to consider as soon as possible.

I wish to touch on three points quickly: the speed of redress, the stress of redress, and the scope of this scheme. The point about speed is lit up by a single fact: the total budget for compensation is about £1.2 billion, but as of last Wednesday £196 million has been paid out. The implication of that is that 80% of the compensation budget has not been paid out, after all this time, and all the heartbreak, trauma and scandal. This Bill will correct that imbalance substantially; about £780 million of the budget is earmarked for overturning convictions and this Bill allows us to move that money much faster. However, I remain concerned by what the Minister said today about the lack of any service level agreements for paying more out for the overturning convictions scheme. I would have expected a timetable for paying out that redress alongside this Bill today.

We should be concerned about that because the track record of making payments is not good. For example, if we look at the claims in the Horizon shortfall scheme submitted by the original deadline in November 2020—three and a half years ago—we see that 362 people have still not been paid, which is a sixth of applicants. If we look at the late claims, all 667 of them, we see that three quarters of them have not been paid. That is why the Select Committee looked hard at how we could introduce some strictures to ensure that people were paid much faster.

Since then, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who has more experience in this House than pretty much anybody else, and indeed the Minister, raised serious and wise concerns about the risks of putting a legally binding deadline on the entire timetable. I have listened to those concerns with care, which is why the way that my amendment on this has been drafted takes aim at one part of the process: the timeframe between a legitimate claim being submitted and a first offer being made. The Minister’s target is four weeks and we are getting close to that now, but the reality is that a significant number of people are still not being paid within that timeframe.

In some of the anonymised evidence the Minister provided to the Committee, we can see that 13% of claimants in the GLO scheme are waiting more than 40 days, with 2% waiting more than 100 days. If my amendments, as I have drafted them, are not right and still run risks, I appeal to the other place to work harder on this to ensure that there is some legally binding stricture on the Department that means that when, God forbid, the Minister is no longer in his position, and we do not have his emollience and tenacity to rely on, his successor, whoever that may be, is bound by some kind of timeframe that ensures we are not still having this debate in years to come.

To check the point, I contacted a number of Select Committee witnesses this morning and found that there was some evidence that the speed of claims was improving. However, new issues were emerging; I am told that the time taken to table a second offer when the first is rejected is, frankly, not fast enough. There have been delays of up to three months or more in offering dates through remediation hearings, so the process is still running too slow. If I have failed to persuade the Committee today, I appeal to the other place to help us to find some legal mechanisms to ensure that there is stiffer timetable to which the Department must adhere.

My second point is about the stress that many people will face when putting claims in. Many people will not put claims in because legal assistance is not available before the claim is submitted. Many people, such as Christopher Head, are going out of their way to provide pro bono assistance to people in putting claims together, but often it will take hours and hours of work to get a claim form in and many people simply will not be up for that, as they do not have the patience and they want to put this behind them. They certainly will not have the legal assistance available to them. That is why I hope the Department will consider publishing some kind of tariff to help people ensure that they are claiming for the full amount. The Minister may well say that there is a risk that people will then under-claim, but I checked that with some of the lawyers this morning. Their response was expressed in rather unparliamentary language, I am afraid, Dame Rosie, but the upshot was that such an objection was utter nonsense.

I know that a lot of thought is going on in the Department about the way to do this, and I welcome the letter from the Post Office publishing average offers around the heads of loss that have been set out. Obviously, there will be bandings that are more appropriate, and perhaps that is a way to publish these things. Obviously, there is a judgment the Department is relying on—the Dyson judgment—and the neutral evaluation, which is not publicly available, for good reason. However, my plea to the Minister is this: let us try to make much clearer to claimants the full measure of redress that they should have available. If there are issues in people needing extra help before the claim form is put in, please let us make sure that that help is available right at the beginning of the stage and not simply made available once the claim is in and a contest is under way about what should be paid.

My final point is about scope, which we have already got into. There is a case for the Government to think again about the cases that have already gone to the Court of Appeal and were refused or were not given leave to appeal. The best evidence for that is the Chair of the Justice Committee’s excellent letter, in which he says:

“The Bill is in effect treating cases where the CCRC had credible evidence that Horizon data might have been essential to the prosecution case less favourably than those that the CCRC considered had no credible evidence and therefore no basis upon which to refer to the Court of Appeal.”

That is an extremely important point.

I can see what the Minister is trying to do. He is conjuring here with very radical legal remedies, and that is not something we want to be expansive, but the risk we are running is that we leave an injustice that takes years and years to work through. He has addressed some of the points the Chair of the Justice Committee made in his letter, but he has not addressed that one in writing. The objection and the goal of my amendments still stand. I will not press my amendments to a vote, because we are trying to maximise the spirit of collegiate working. I accept that my amendments, particularly on the issue of speed, may not yet be at the state of perfection that they would satisfy everyone in the Committee, especially those Members with more experience of working on these cases than I have.

However, the problem is there: people are not being paid fast enough; they are not being supplied with the right amount of information up front at the beginning of their claim; and the scope of the Bill has been drawn too narrowly. I look forward to working with the other place to try to get amendments in place that can improve the Bill and commend the consent of Members from all parties.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill (Instructions)

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

Bill to be considered in Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before the House resolves itself into Committee, I draw the House’s attention to the instruction motions on the Order Paper. They are subject to selection by the Chair, and Mr Speaker has decided to select the motions in the name of Secretary Kemi Badenoch, to allow the Bill to extend to Northern Ireland, and in the name of Marion Fellows, to allow the Committee to make provision in the Bill for it to make provision relating to Scotland.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill that it has power to make provision in the Bill for it to extend to Northern Ireland.—(Robert Largan.)

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have met the Scottish justice Minister twice online; the reason I met the Northern Ireland Ministers physically is that they came here to Parliament to meet us.

May I push back on something that the hon. Lady said a few moments ago? She said that this Parliament is sovereign. Absolutely, it is sovereign, but on these matters, her Parliament is also sovereign. [Interruption.] Clearly, as she said earlier in her remarks, there is legal controversy on these matters—she has admitted that herself. This Parliament is taking the legal risk in that area, but is the hon. Lady aware of her Lord Advocate’s position on this particular matter? These are her actual words:

“It is important to recognise that, in Scotland, there is an established route of appeal in circumstances such as this…and that due process must be followed.”—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 16 January 2024; c. 14.]

Does the hon. Lady not believe that in that situation, her Parliament should act to overturn these convictions?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am quite anxious that we do not have too many long interventions so that, if hon. Members want to catch my eye, there is plenty of time for debate.

[Marion Fellows]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I hate to disagree with you—as you know, I do not do that—but there will be no more time for some Members to speak on this Bill if it does not include Scotland. In his intervention, the Minister said that the Scottish Parliament is sovereign—well, there is a surprise. We on the SNP Benches all want Scotland to be sovereign, but it is the people who have sovereignty in Scotland, not the Parliament.

We are dancing on the heads of pins, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is not my intention. It is very clear—so clear that it is transparent— that party politics is involved in all of this. Six days ago, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade described the Scottish Parliament as lazy, and asked why it did not put through its own legislation. Believe me, it can and it will if it has to, but why should Scottish postmasters wait longer for justice? On Second Reading in this place, I said that there was likely to be to-ing and fro-ing, and that it would probably be July before this Bill is passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows]

I just want to ask the Minister: what did the Scottish postmasters say to you—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Lady knows she must not refer directly to the Minister in that way, but do so through the Chair.

[Marion Fellows]

I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. What did the Scottish sub-postmasters say to the Minister this afternoon? Were they pleased, were they happy and did they feel they were getting justice through this action?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will make some progress, if I may.

I note that the First Minister stated on Thursday 18 April that the Scottish Government are prepared to introduce legislation to the Scottish Parliament to overturn convictions—I understand from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that that legislation has actually been drafted—and I believe it is possible and necessary for the Scottish Government to do so swiftly. Our position on Scotland’s inclusion in the Bill is very clear. The Government made a statement on 22 February to that effect, and I have written to the Scottish Government on this point. Indeed, the First Minister’s comments, together with the proposed draft amendment to the UK Bill that the Scottish Government have published, suggest that they should be in a position to do so.

The UK Government remain committed to supporting the Scottish Government to progress their own approach to their legislation. I have met Scottish Government Ministers multiple times since this Bill was introduced, and officials at the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice hold weekly meetings with officials in the Scottish Government to discuss these issues.

In conclusion, I remain of the view that the Scottish Government should introduce their own legislation to quash convictions in their jurisdiction. As such, the Government oppose this motion.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows]

As far as I am concerned, and as far as the SNP is concerned, politics does not come into this. It is about getting justice for Scottish sub-postmasters and postmasters across the rest of the United Kingdom at the same time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I want to make it clear that interventions need to be questions to the person making the speech.

[Marion Fellows]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Lady has got it!

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Lady knows that I agree with her a lot more than either of us would ever admit, but on this matter, there is clearly a difference of opinion. The decision on whether the route to exoneration should be through the Scottish Parliament or through this place is a political choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marion Fellows]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At no time have the Scottish Justice Secretary or the Scottish Parliament said that they will not pass legislation—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Michael Shanks) has finished his speech. If the hon. Lady would like to make a few comments, she can. She does not need to do so through a point of order.

Lesbian Visibility Week

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Nia Griffith]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central has said, there is real need to approach these things in a calm and appropriate way, and to respect everybody’s different ways of manifesting their humanity.

What for me is very telling is the fact that I came out when my relationship broke up. It is almost impossible to hide grief. It is ironic that, having spent a considerable period not being open and trying not to make it obvious that we were in a relationship, it was when we did not “need” that hidden approach any more that I came out. It is incredibly difficult to explain to people why you are in such a state of grief if you do not explain the relationship. What was interesting about that was not only the reaction of very supportive friends, which was great, but finding that some people had never guessed; I was quite shocked and surprised by that. It was strange to realise that we were more hidden than we understood, because people did not see lesbians. That shows the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week.

Perhaps because society is so male-dominated and women are marginalised in many respects, or perhaps because women are more likely to be seen doing things together, holding hands or going on holiday with other women, we were not even noticed. One of the important aspects of raising lesbian visibility is enabling people to be their natural selves and enabling other people to recognise that. Of course that has meant over the years that women were perhaps not the subject of homophobic legislation. In many ways, it reflected the role of women as society was then and that women were very marginalised and not seen. That is perhaps part of the wider picture of where women were.

There have been workplace stereotypes: women have to dress in a certain way and behave in a certain way towards heterosexual men, or they are expected to do so. When they do not, be that as lesbians or as heterosexual women, it can be interpreted negatively, which has often held lesbian women back over the years. It is a form of discrimination and stereotyping that has had pernicious results.

It is not enough for us to hope that attitudes can change. Hope is not enough. We all have a responsibility to challenge, and to use our legislative powers to strengthen our challenging through legislation. We were proud, as a Labour Government from 1997 to 2010, to do a number of important things that helped LGBT rights, including ending the ban on LGBT people serving in our armed forces, ending discrimination against lesbian and gay partners for immigration purposes, and giving LGBT individuals and couples the right to adopt children. Of course, we scrapped section 28, which was very important for people like me, but we also banned discrimination in the workplace and in vocational training with the introduction of the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003.

We also included homophobia in the definition of hate crimes. Sadly, we have seen a rise in hate crimes in recent years, to which I draw the Government’s attention. In particular, I ask that more should be done to tackle homophobic, including transphobic, hate crime.

Of course, we created civil partnerships and awarded statutory rights to fertility treatment for lesbians on the NHS but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow said, there is a long way to go on equal and fair access. I hope the Minister has listened to what she said today, and to what she said to the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, and I hope progress can be made on this sooner rather than later.

Although we have made progress, we know that, in many respects, there is a lot to do to stop attitudes regressing in this country but also internationally. Women are hardly noticed or recognised in many countries and, if they are, they are certainly not allowed to be in same- sex relationships.

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. With others in this House, I hope I can play my part in securing greater lesbian visibility.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

There are also inspirational figures outside Parliament, such as Dame Kelly Holmes, mentioned by the hon. Members for Jarrow and for Brent Central, who is raising the profile of those who find their true selves later in life. I was particularly touched by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). I know that at times it can be incredibly emotional for her to tell her story, but I am honoured every time I am in the room to hear someone being so open about their experiences. It is inspirational. The UK is undeniably richer for the contributions of these women, and more LGBT role models continue to appear every day. As others have righted raised, lesbians have contributed importantly to the way of life in this country: in our armed forces, serving to keep our country safe; in medicine, helping us to make medical advances; in education; and in all walks of life. Their contributions have been extraordinary.

Many Members will have heard me say on numerous occasions that I am committed to improving the outcomes for lesbians, and all LGBT people. We especially recognise that lesbians often face specific challenges. The hon. Member for Jarrow talked about how she often felt lonely. As Minister for loneliness, I was really keen that we had a specific campaign and focus this year on loneliness experienced by members of the LGBT community, as they often find that journey incredibly challenging, particularly if they are in rural areas.

Other challenges may include difficulty in access to IVF, mental health challenges, domestic abuse or hate crime. I was distressed to hear the experiences of hon. Members who have faced hate crime. Having been queer- bashed myself, I know how terrifying it is and the lasting effect such an incident has, not just when it happens but years later, with flashbacks. I reassure all Members of the House that I and the other equality hub Ministers regularly engage with our counterparts across Government, as well as relevant civil society groups, on a range of matters that relate to this important area of work.

The equality hub is working with a range of businesses and professional membership bodies to identify how employers can best support women’s reproductive health in the workplace, for example, as part of the delivery of the workplace elements in the women’s health strategy. We are holding roundtables and working with employers from a range of sectors to develop case studies and tips on good practice, to improve the support available for women’s reproductive health. This will help inform the development of resources to promote and support employer good practice, highlighting those organisations that are leading the way on these issues.

A number of important points were made about IVF. There were a number of changes and future ambitions within the women’s health strategy for England to improve the variation in access to NHS-funded fertility services.

Colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have begun work to improve information provision on fertility and fertility treatments, including on the NHS website, and have launched a tool that provides greater transparency on local provision of IVF. Our initial priority is to remove the requirement for female same-sex couples to self-fund six rounds of artificial insemination before being able to access NHS-funded treatments. My colleagues in DHSC are working with NHS England to take that forward, along with other commitments that are deliverable through the integrated care boards.

I accept that this work is taking longer than expected, which I realise is disappointing to those affected, but please be assured that it remains a priority for delivery. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is currently reviewing its fertility guidelines and will consider whether the current recommendations for access to NHS-funded treatments are still appropriate, and we expect that review to be published next year.

With regard to the statutory instrument, I am assured that colleagues in the DHSC are working on it, so that it can be presented to the House, but I will update the hon. Member for Jarrow when I have had further discussions with DHSC Ministers.

Let me come on to some of the other points that were raised by Members today. Mention was made of the equal marriage debates that we had in this Chamber. Ahead of that debate, I remember Members receiving emails and letters from people almost suggesting that if we extended marriage to lesbian and gay couples, the sky would fall in the next day. Well, we did it, and the sky is still up there. What I noticed though was that, very quickly, everybody was waiting for their invitation to an equal marriage reception.

Turning now to the issue of hate crime, we need to ensure that we all call hate crime out, and I am glad that hon. Members have done so. I am in regular discussions with my colleagues in the Home Office and will continue to raise the points that hon. Members have mentioned today.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) talked about the voices of lesbians being silenced. I simply cannot understand why anybody would want to do that. Lesbians have as much right as anyone to stand up for recognition and for their rights. It is important that we all enter this challenging debate in a calm and measured way. A toxic debate serves no one. We can have a grown-up debate in which we disagree and agree, but we should do so with dignity and with respect. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) said, this should all be about the people whom we love, so let love be at the centre of that debate.

I was glad that colleagues raised international issues. Unacceptable things are happening around the world—in places such as Uganda and Ghana. I pay tribute to the work that the all-party parliamentary group on global lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights is doing to focus attention on this area. It is right that we join our LGBT alliance friends around the world to encourage progress in this area so that people do not have to live in fear.

I will address the issue of conversion practices that the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) mentioned. No one in this country should be harmed or harassed for who they are, and attempts at so-called conversion practices are abhorrent. We are clear on our stance that they are harmful and that they simply do not work. That is why we are committed to publishing the draft Bill. I know that it has taken time, but it has been a very challenging issue to get right. I am committed to our doing it.

I gently say that I was slightly disappointed by the shadow Minister’s conclusions to her speech, trying to make out that this Government have not worked hard on LGBT issues. I am proud to serve in a Government who introduced equal marriage, proud to serve in a Government who have brought about an HIV action plan to eradicate new infections by 2030, proud to serve in a Government who allow gay men to donate blood, and proud to serve in a Government who instigated the LGBT veterans independent review, so that there can be more support for those who were treated so disgracefully.

Today, though, I will end on a positive note by again thanking the hon. Member for Jarrow for securing this debate today and bringing awareness to the extremely important topic of our lesbian citizens during this important Lesbian Visibility Week. As outlined, the Government are committed to making sure that the UK is a safe place where lesbians are given the opportunities to thrive and live a safe and happy life.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Kate Osborne to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) must really not use such language. I think she should withdraw that comment.

[Kate Osborne]

I am not sure which bit you would like me to withdraw, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The bit referring to hate language.

[Kate Osborne]

Okay, I withdraw it. But it is astonishing to claim that Lesbian Visibility Week is marginalising lesbians. It is because of Lesbian Visibility Week that we are here in this Chamber, bringing to Parliament the issues that lesbians face. The reality is that trans-inclusive lesbians like me are very much in the majority of cis lesbians, so I take offence at any insinuation that I am marginalising or misrepresenting lesbians. As a cis lesbian, I will not shy away from my trans-inclusive lesbianism and feminism. This year’s theme is “unified, not uniform”. To embrace that, we should all be celebrating the wonderful diversity among the spectrum of LGBTQIA+ women.

I thank the Minister for his constructive contribution and his support for the LGBTQIA community and I look forward to receiving his response regarding IVF. I also thank Labour’s Front-Bench spokesperson for setting out that Labour will treat all LGBTQIA+ people fairly and with dignity and respect.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the importance of Lesbian Visibility Week; and believes LGBTQIA women and non-binary people should be recognised for the work they do and the joy they bring.

Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the covid-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths; and calls on the covid-19 inquiry to move onto its module 4 investigation into vaccines and therapeutics as soon as possible.

We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory, and possibly ever: the excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. Its causes are complex, but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a covid vaccine is a large part of the problem. I have been called an anti-vaxxer, as if I have rejected those vaccines based on some ideology. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I have not: in fact, I am double vaccinated and vaccine-harmed. Intelligent people must be able to tell when people are neither pro-vax nor anti-vax, but are against a product that does not work and causes enormous harm to a percentage of the people who take it.

I am proud to be one of the few Members of Parliament with a science degree. It is a great shame that there are not more Members with a science background in this place; maybe if there were, there would be less reliance on Whips Office briefings and more independent research, and perhaps less group-think. I say to the House in all seriousness that this debate and others like it are going to be pored over by future generations, who will be genuinely agog that the evidence has been ignored for so long, that genuine concerns were disregarded, and that those raising them were gaslit, smeared and vilified.

One does not need any science training at all to be horrified by officials deliberately hiding key data in this scandal, which is exactly what is going on. The Office for National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations—it no longer does so, and no one will explain why. The public have a right to that data. There have been calls from serious experts, whose requests I have amplified repeatedly in this House, for what is called record-level data to be anonymised and disclosed for analysis. That would allow meaningful analysis of deaths after vaccination, and settle once and for all the issue of whether those experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths.

Far more extensive and detailed data has already been released to the pharma companies from publicly funded bodies. Jenny Harries, head of the UK Health Security Agency, said that this anonymised, aggregate death by vaccination status data is “commercially sensitive” and should not be published. The public are being denied that data, which is unacceptable; yet again, data is hidden with impunity, just like in the Post Office scandal. Professor Harries has also endorsed a recent massive change to the calculation of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate excess deaths. It is now incredibly complex and opaque, and by sheer coincidence, it appears to show a massive excess of deaths in 2020 and 2021 and minimal excess deaths in 2023. Under the old calculation method, tried and tested for decades, the excess death rate in 2023 was an astonishing 5%—long after the pandemic was over, at a time when we would expect a deficit in deaths because so many people had sadly died in previous years. Some 20,000 premature deaths in 2023 alone are now being airbrushed away through the new normal baseline.

Shocking things happened during the pandemic response. In March 2020, the Government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with certain disabilities should have “do not resuscitate” orders, known as DNRs, imposed upon them. A document summarising the proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals; it was mistakenly treated as formal policy by a number of care homes and GPs up and down the country, who enacted it. At the same time, multiple hospitals introduced a policy that they would not admit patients with DNRs, because they thought that they would be overwhelmed. The result was that people died who did not need to die while nurses performed TikTok dances.

The average time to death from experiencing covid symptoms and testing positive was 18 days. It is a little-known fact that the body clears all the viruses within around seven days; what actually kills people is that some, especially the vulnerable, have an excessive immune response. Doctors have been treating that response for decades with steroids, antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections and other standard protocols, but they did not do so this time. Even though the virus was long gone, doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols because covid was a “new virus”—which it was not. They sent people home, told them to take paracetamol until their lips turned blue, and then when those people returned to hospital, they sedated them, put them on ventilators and watched them die.

The protocol for covid-19 treatment was a binary choice between two treatment tracks. Once admitted, ill patients were either ventilated in intensive care or—if they were not fit for that level of care—given end of life medication, including midazolam and morphine. The body responsible for that protocol, NG163, which was published on 3 April 2020, is called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE. Giving midazolam and morphine to people dying of cancer is reasonable, but there is a side effect, which is that those drugs have a respiratory depressant effect. It is hard to imagine a more stupid thing to do than giving a respiratory suppressant to someone who is already struggling to breathe with the symptoms of covid-19, but that is exactly what we did.

Can the Minister explain why midazolam was removed from the same updated guideline NG191—the antecedent of NG163—on 30 November 2023? As it was removed, is it now considered and admitted that it was a mistake to ignore the warnings of so many experts about including that specific drug, midazolam, in NG163 when it was introduced? It has been confirmed in letters from Ministers to families whose loss of loved ones was down to this protocol that Ministers are now saying that doctors and nurses should have treated the individual patient with their own knowledge, rather than strictly following NICE guideline NG163. If legal cases for unlawful killing are brought, can the Minister tell us who is going to be taking the blame? Will it be NICE, will it be NHS England or will the individual doctors and nurses be held to account?

Interestingly, NICE has now removed these alternative protocols, including NG163, from its website, although every other historical protocol is still there for reference. Could the Minister tell us why NICE has removed this protocol from its website? Is it ashamed of the harm it has caused? It certainly should be. What can we learn from this? We learn that very few doctors dare challenge what they are told. Protocols with no authors are distributed, and doctors fall into line.

There is a huge, stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared with those after covid. After a positive covid test, any illness and any death was attributed to the virus. After the experimental emergency vaccine was administered, no subsequent illness and no death was ever attributed to the vaccine. Those are both completely unscientific approaches, and that is why we have to look at other sources of data—excess deaths—to determine whether there is an issue.

First, however, I want to address the phrase “safe and effective”. The fear deliberately stoked up by the Government promoted the idea of being rescued by a saviour vaccine. The chanting of the “safe and effective” narrative began, and the phrase seemed to hypnotise the whole nation. “Safe and effective” was the sale slogan of thalidomide. After that scandal, rules were put in place to prevent such marketing in future by pharma companies, and they are prohibited from using “safe and effective” without significant caveats.

That did not matter this time because, with covid-19 vaccines, the media, the Government and other authorities turned into big pharma’s marketing department, and it is very hard now to hear the word “safe” without the echo of the words “and effective”, but they are not safe and effective. In March 2021, when the majority of UK citizens had already received these novel products, Pfizer signed a contract with Brazil and South Africa saying that

“the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and…adverse effects of the Vaccine...are not currently known.”

That is verbatim from the Pfizer contracts.

These so-called vaccines were the least effective vaccines ever. Is there anyone left under any illusion that they prevented any infections? When he was at the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions on 31 January, even the Prime Minister, in answer to my question, could not bring himself to add “and effective” to his “safe” mantra. In his own words, he was “unequivocal” that the vaccines are “safe”. The word “safe” means without risk of death or injury. Why is the Prime Minister gaslighting the 163 successful claims made to the vaccine damage payment scheme, totalling £19.5 million in compensation for harm caused by the covid vaccines? Have these people not suffered enough already? Those 163 victims are the tip of the iceberg, by the way. It also should be noted that the maximum payment is only £120,000, so each of those 163 victims got the maximum possible award, which should tell us something. The same compensation scheme paid out a total of only £3.5 million between 1997 and 2005, with an average of only eight claims per year, and that is for all claims for the entire country for all vaccines administered. So much for “safe”.

How about effective? On 25 October 2021, the then Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson—even admitted that the vaccine

“doesn’t protect you against catching the disease and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on.”

Looking at the levels of the virus found in sewage shows that the post-vaccine wave was of the same order of magnitude and duration as the previous waves. This proves that the vaccines changed nothing. They were not safe, and they were not effective.

Those who imposed these vaccines knew full well that they could never prevent infection from a disease of this kind. An injection in the arm cannot do that. Only immunity on the surface of the airways and the lungs can prevent viral infection; antibodies in the blood cannot. In Dr Anthony Fauci’s words,

“it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.”

He continued:

“This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?”

They knew that the so-called vaccines would never protect from infection, which explains why they never tested for protection from infection.

Only a few days ago, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry rapped Pfizer on the knuckles for the sixth time, and said that its marketing practices had brought the industry into disrepute. It was asked to pay a paltry £30,000 in administrative expenses, with no fine on top. The person heading the ABPI at the moment is also the head of Pfizer UK. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has a statutory duty to carry out this work, and it has handed its responsibility to the industry. This is an outrageous conflict of interest.

Let us turn back to excess deaths. The Australian Government have launched an inquiry into Australia’s excess deaths problem. Australia is almost unique as a case study for excess deaths; as it had the vaccine before it had covid, its excess deaths are not so easily blamed on the long-term side effects of a virus. Like us, it saw a rise in deaths, which began in May 2021 and has not let up since. The impact was evident on the ambulance service first. South Australia saw a 67% increase in cardiac presentations of 15 to 44-year-olds. That increase peaked in November 2021, before covid hit. We saw a similar, deeply worrying effect here. In the UK, calls for life-threatening emergencies rose from 2,000 per day to 2,500 per day in May 2021, and that number has never returned to normal.

By October 2021, despite it being springtime in Australia, headlines reported that ambulances were unable to drop off patients in hospitals, which were already at full capacity. Mark McGowan, Premier of Western Australia, said that he could not explain the overwhelmed hospitals:

“Our hospitals are under enormous pressure. This has been something no one has ever seen before. Why it is, is hard to know.”

In April 2022, Yvette D’Ath, Queensland’s Health Minister, said about the most urgent ambulance calls, called “code ones”:

“I don’t think anyone can explain why we saw a 40% jump in code ones... We just had a lot of heart attacks and chest pains and trouble breathing, respiratory issues. Sometimes you can’t explain why those things happen but unfortunately, they do.”

I think we could explain this if we were to look at the link to the vaccine roll-out. Omicron did cause some excess deaths in Australia from 2022 onwards. However, there was a huge chunk of excess deaths prior to that, which doctors have not been able to blame on the virus. Could those deaths be caused by the vaccine? Very few people dare even ask that question.

It is important to remember how the vaccines were made. Traditionally, the key to making a vaccine is to ensure that the pathological, harmful parts of the virus or bacteria are inactivated, so that the recipient can develop an immune response without danger of developing the disease. In stark contrast, the so-called covid vaccines used the most pathological or harmful part of the virus—the spike protein—in its entirety. The harm is systemic because, contrary to what everyone was told, the lipid nanoparticles, encapsulating the genetic material, spread through the whole body after injection, potentially affecting all organs. At the time, everyone was being reassured that the injection was broken down in the arm at the injection site. Regulators ought to have known that those were problems.

Furthermore, it is now plentifully evident that the drug results in continued spike protein production for many months—even years, in some people. The deaths thus far have been predominantly cardiac, but there may unfortunately be many more deaths to come from these novel treatments, which may induce extra cancer deaths. Dr Robert Tindle is the retired director of the Clinical Medical Virology Centre in Brisbane, and emeritus professor of immunology. This month he published a paper highlighting the multiple potential harms from the vaccines, including harm to the immune system. As anyone who knows anything about biology will know, anything that disrupts the immune system can potentially increase the risk of cancer.

There are other reasons to be concerned about cancer being induced by these vaccines. Cancer is a genetic disease disorder that arises from errors in DNA, allowing cells to grow uncontrollably. Moderna has multiple patents describing methods for reducing the risk of cancer induction from its mRNA products. That risk comes from the material interrupting the patient’s DNA. It turns out that an mRNA injection has very high quantities of DNA in it, and that massively increases the risk of disturbing a patient’s own DNA. Worse still, the DNA that was injected contained sequences that were hidden from the regulator. That is the SV40, or simian virus 40 promoter region, which has been linked to cancer and has been found in the Pfizer vaccines. That was no accident. Yet again, crucial information was hidden from the regulator and the public with absolute impunity. An independent study in Japan, published last week, has found links between increased cancer rates in Japan and those who took the first and subsequent booster vaccines. Perhaps that explains why Pfizer acquired a cancer treatment company for a reported $43 billion earlier this year.

In conclusion, the evidence is clear: these vaccines have caused deaths. Despite that, they have been described as safe and effective. However, for a proportion of people who took them, the vaccines have caused serious harm and death, and they will have raised the risk of cancer for many more. Nor are they effective. The vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, and when the data is looked at objectively, it shows that the vaccine does not prevent serious illness or death. Those are hard truths to face, but we must face them if we want to learn the lessons of the last few years. At some point we will have to face up to all the evidence that is building. It was fairly convincing 18 months ago when I first spoke out, but it is unequivocal now.

It is time to take the politics out of our science, and to put actual science back into our politics. I ask the House to support the motion today, and for Baroness Hallett’s inquiry to open module 4 on the safety and efficacy of the experimental covid-19 vaccines. Given the evidence, I call on the Government once again to immediately suspend the use of all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals, pending the outcome of that inquiry. [Applause.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

No, no, we will have to clear the Gallery if clapping continues; I will order it, if necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention. I call Sir Christopher Chope.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Madam Deputy Speaker, the enthusiasm is unbounded. I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) if she wishes to make the point to me in an intervention that she would have liked to have made to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger).

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is important that the hon. Gentleman answers the first intervention before taking a second.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very wise advice.

I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the Government were reluctant to concede, at the beginning, that there might be risks associated with all this. Now, we have seen that some people have been adversely affected and, in certain circumstances, have even lost loved ones. We would expect the Government to look after people who have been adversely affected, which was the whole ethos of the vaccine damage payment scheme when it was set up. The Government are falling down on their responsibilities on that and, as a result, that is adding to vaccine hesitancy. The proportion of people who are accepting invitations from the health service to have yet another booster is plummeting, because increasingly people realise that in their particular circumstances the risks may outweigh any possible benefit.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Chamber asks for a link. We know that the excess deaths are predominantly in cardiac arrests, heart problems and strokes. We know that the vaccine works supposedly by inducing human cells to produce spike protein, to be attacked by our own immune system and create the immune response. We know that the vaccine does not stay in the arm. It travels all over the body through the blood supply. Blood vessels are lined by endothelial cells. The mRNA goes into them and makes them creates a spike. They are attacked by the immune system. That explodes into the blood supply and that is a blood clot. If it goes to the heart, you have a heart attack; if it goes to the brain or the lungs, you have a stroke or a pulmonary embolism. That is the link. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This is the final warning. It is simply not acceptable for there to be clapping in the Gallery when particular Members speak. If there is any repeat of it, I will ask for the Gallery to be cleared. I just want to be absolutely clear that that is the position I will take, because it is not what happens in the Chamber or the Gallery.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The hon. Gentleman has put on record what he wanted to say in that intervention. All I am saying is that, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, I receive a large number of letters, not just from my constituents but from across the country, from people who have been adversely affected. I do not think anybody is challenging the authenticity of their circumstances or the complaints they make.

I am going to close—I know a lot of other people want to participate in the debate—with one such letter that came not from one of my constituents, but somebody else. She gives her name, but I will not repeat it. She says:

“After receiving my covid-19 vaccination, I experienced severe adverse reactions that resulted in hospitalisation. These reactions encompassed stroke-like symptoms, including seizures, tremors, inability to work or talk, irregular heart palpitations, low oxygen levels, vertigo, brain fog, memory loss, balance issues, tingling, high blood pressure and more. Despite undergoing extensive examinations, a recent diagnosis of Functional Neurological Disorder has highlighted my ongoing struggles with headaches, declining eyesight, and daily seizures.

Before vaccination, I was a healthy 34-year-old; however, now I am severely disabled, unable to work, and filled with uncertainty about my future, especially with the imminent arrival of my baby. Unfortunately my situation is not unique; thousands of individuals are suffering similar consequences. Despite assurances of safety, many have been left with life-altering disabilities or worse. I am writing to urgently request an investigation into cases like mine to address the impact of vaccine-related injuries.”

She goes on to give the batch number, and to quote the rather lame response from the MHRA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I want to be absolutely clear, for the benefit of everybody who is watching our proceedings or participating in them, that if there are any more interruptions from the Gallery and it has to be cleared, I will have to temporarily suspend the House, which may mean that those who want to participate will be denied the opportunity. To be clear, I am trying to create a situation whereby everybody can have their say.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I remind those who have contributed to the debate that it is very important to get back for the wind-ups, including for the beginning of the one by the shadow Minister? I call Kevin Hollinrake.

Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords]

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 19th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Assessment of impact of CPTPP on deforestation and import of certain products—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report containing an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on—

(a) the volume of UK imports of palm oil;

(b) the volume of UK imports of tropical wood;

(c) the rate of deforestation in Asia;

(d) the UK’s ability to fulfil its obligations under—

(i) the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; and

(ii) the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must be published no earlier than a year and no later than 18 months after the passing of this Act.”

New clause 3—Report on the impact and use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the impact of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP on the UK.

(2) A report prepared under subsection (1) must include—

(a) analysis of the likely use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure in relation to the UK, and the likely impact of such on the UK;

(b) details of discussions held with other signatories to the CPTPP regarding the use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure in relation to the UK; and

(c) discussions held with, or agreements made with, other signatories to the CPTPP regarding the exclusion or exemption of the UK from any use of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement procedure.”

New clause 4—Report: accession of new states to the CPTPP—

“(1) Before any decision is made by the Government on the accession of a new state to CPTPP under Chapter 30 of the CPTPP, the Secretary of State must publish a report assessing the potential benefits and impact of the accession of that candidate state on the United Kingdom.

(2) Both Houses of Parliament must be presented with a motion for resolution on the report under subsection (1).”

New clause 5—Review: Investor-State Dispute Settlement—

“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the financial risk of the implementation of the Investor-State Dispute Settlement aspect of the Investment Chapter of the CPTPP, not more than 18 months after the day on which this Act is passed.”

New clause 6—Impact assessment: environmental standards etc—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the procurement Chapters of the CPTPP on—

(a) environmental standards,

(b) food standards, and

(c) animal welfare standards.

(2) An impact assessment under subsection (1) must be published not less than two years, but not more than three years, after the day on which this Act is passed and every two years thereafter.”

New clause 7—Report on business impact of CPTPP—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a plan outlining the steps being taken to—

(a) measure the impact on UK businesses of the implementation of the CPTPP; and

(b) support UK businesses to benefit from the UK's membership of the CPTPP.”

New clause 8—Impact assessment: labour standards—

“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP Labour Chapter not more than eighteen months after the day on which this Act is passed and every 18 months thereafter.

(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—

(a) the impact on the Government’s commitments to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation;

(b) steps that have been taken to ensure adherence to the conventions of the International Labour Organisation in CPTPP partner countries; and

(c) how the experience and impact of implementation might inform negotiation of future trade agreements.”

New clause 9—Comparative analysis of impact on UK businesses—

“(1) Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament a report on the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on the matters listed in subsection (3).

(2) The report must include an analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) prior to the implementation of the CPTPP with the situation post the implementation of the CPTPP.

(3) The issues which must be included in the comparative analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—

(a) tariffs paid by UK businesses to bring in or remove items from the UK;

(b) costs of non-tariff border control measures paid by UK businesses to bring in or remove items from the UK;

(c) inflation in the UK;

(d) the extent of alignment of regulations relevant to UK businesses;

(e) the ability of UK businesses to trade with the EU;

(f) the implications for UK businesses of introducing new trade and climate regulations, including for carbon pricing;

(g) tariff and non-tariff costs facing businesses trading with the EU; and

(h) trade volumes for UK businesses trading with the EU.

(4) Within 10 days of a report being laid under subsection (1) the Government must schedule a debate on the findings of the report in each House.”

New clause 10—Report on economic impact of implementation of CPTPP—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the economic impact of the implementation of the CPTPP.

(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include an analysis comparing the respective situation for each of the matters listed in subsection (3) prior to the implementation of the CPTPP with the situation post the implementation of the CPTPP.

(3) The matters which must be included in the comparative analysis contained in the report laid under subsection (1) are—

(a) the UK’s trade in goods;

(b) the UK’s trade in services; and

(c) UK GDP.”

This new clause would require the Government to publish a comparative analysis of the impact of the implementation of the CPTPP on UK trade and GDP.

New clause 11—Impact assessment: new states acceding to the CPTPP—

“(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish a report assessing the impact of the accession of new states to the CPTPP on the United Kingdom.

(2) In respect of states that have submitted a request to the Depositary of the CPTPP to join the CPTPP since 2019, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament within three months of this Act coming into force.

(3) In respect of states submitting a request to the Depository of the CPTPP to join the CPTPP following the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament within three months of a request being made.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide an impact assessment on the accession of countries that have made and will make a formal request to join the CPTPP.

New clause 12—Impact assessment: UK performers’ rights—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the implementation of performers' rights provisions in the CPTPP.

(2) The impact assessment under subsection (1) must include—

(a) consideration of the impact of performers' rights provisions on qualifying individuals in the UK;

(b) an assessment of the reciprocity of rights across qualifying countries;

(c) consultation with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”

This new clause would mean the Government must publish an assessment of the impact the performers’ rights provisions in the CPTPP will have on qualifying individuals in the UK.

New clause 13—Review of regulatory impact of implementation of the CPTPP treaty on UK businesses—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report on the regulatory impact of the implementation of the CPTPP treaty on costs to exporting and importing businesses in the UK.

(2) A report under subsection (1) must take account of the existing levels of costs to exporting and importing businesses arising from trade regulations.”

This new clause would require the Government to report on the impact of implementation of the CPTPP treaty on the costs to businesses in the UK. The report would need to take the existing trade costs facing such businesses into account.

Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—

“(5) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made before Government has moved a substantive motion to resolve that the UK Accession Protocol should not be ratified.”

Amendment 1, in clause 5, page 6, line 36, at end insert—

“(7A) The Secretary of State must, after a period of three years from the passing of this Act, lay a report before Parliament containing an assessment of the impact of changes made in this section.”

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is a pleasure to speak to new clause 1, which is signed by a cross-party group of MPs who all believe that Parliament should have the right to scrutinise trade deals. It seeks to ensure appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the UK’s position toward the accession of economies that are designated—that word is very specific—as “threats” or “systemic challenges”. It would achieve two things. First, the Government would be required to produce a report assessing the impact of the economy’s accession on the UK, and both Houses of Parliament would have a non-binding vote on the UK’s position regarding the accession of the economy in question. In other words, we would take the temperature of Parliament’s view, even if it disagreed with the Government. That is important, because the public need to know about it, so we should not be frightened of this.

Budget Resolutions

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can make more progress if I am not interrupted, so I do appreciate your advice on that.

Talking about advice, I want to return to Citizens Advice Scotland. It revealed that, in the past four years, it has seen the number of people requesting advice and support on energy bills increase by 14 times. That is a shocking increase. Proper investment in green energy can make sure that people in Scotland never have to face an energy crisis of this scale again.

As I have said, the Chancellor could have helped families with the cost of living by scrapping grossly unfair and unequal energy bill standing charges and using a £12 billion wealth tax to fund a £400 annual energy discount for households; reintroducing mortgage interest tax relief; capping supermarket food prices; and matching the Scottish child payment UK-wide. He could have boosted UK finances, but he chose not to do so. He could have introduced the long-overdue essentials guarantee while scrapping callous policies such as the two-child limit and the benefit cap. One of the most game-changing things he could have done is to finally give up on the failed experiment that has been Brexit, rejoin the EU single market and deliver economic growth.

The Chancellor must help businesses and introduce measures to support the tourism and hospitality industries. We know that businesses have faced a very challenging period with covid, Brexit and the increased costs from all sides, making life more difficult for people across Scotland. That is why the SNP is calling on the Chancellor to reduce the rate of VAT for the tourism and hospitality sector—it is not too late for him to do that; reinstate VAT-free shopping for international visitors; and implement VAT-free streets to support struggling town centres and high streets. If nothing is done to halt their decline and they continue to be ignored, as they have been for too long, communities will suffer and far more tax will be lost in the longer term than it would cost to provide them with some support.

The Government could choose to construct mini enterprise zones, working with devolved Governments and local authorities to agree on which sectors and areas are most in need of support. These sectors could benefit from reductions in VAT or from no VAT at all if the need is great enough. That could be tied to businesses agreeing to pay the real living wage. The chief executive of Marks & Spencer yesterday described operating under the current Government as

“like running up a downwards escalator with a rucksack on your back.”

If the Government can roll out freeports, then why not freeports for people? They could reduce alcohol duty for whisky and other spirits to support Scotland’s thriving whisky sector that adds £7.1 billion to the UK economy. Businesses in Scotland can no longer afford to be held back by the UK’s low-growth economy. The Chancellor should bring in measures to support businesses that have been left paying the price for the UK Government’s disastrous Brexit. It is clear that the SNP is the only party committed to rejoining the EU and giving Scottish businesses the chance to access goods and talent from our 27 closest neighbours.

The Scottish Government are committed to protecting the people of Scotland from some of the worst Westminster policies and are making a real difference to the lives of people in Scotland, despite their limited powers. The cut to the Scottish Government’s capital budget and financial transactions have meant that they have had to take some difficult decisions in this year’s budget, but they are still committed to delivering for the people of Scotland. The SNP fully support the £3.3 billion package the UK Government have delivered for Northern Ireland, and urge the Chancellor to make similar funding available—in line with the Barnett formula—to help the Scottish Government deal with the budget pressures they face.

The Scottish Government are freezing council tax—except in Tory, Liberal Democrat and some Labour councils where those councils think that people should pay more. The Scottish Government are also lifting 100,000 children out of poverty with measures such as the Scottish child payment; providing child winter heating payments to help mitigate additional heating costs for households with the most severely disabled children; providing free school meals to all children in years 1 to 5 and to all eligible children throughout the school; providing all babies in Scotland with the essentials needed for the first six months of a child’s life through the baby box; introducing 1,140 hours of funded early learning and childcare to all three and four-year-olds and eligible two-year-olds; and making bus travel free for 2 million people in Scotland, including all children and young people under the age of 22, eligible disabled people, and anyone aged 60 or over.

That is just a snapshot of some of the landmark policies that the Scottish Government have brought in, and all of them have been achieved against the backdrop of limited powers and being tied to a Westminster system that, as we have seen from today’s Budget, continues to do nothing for the people of Scotland.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just to emphasise what the Chairman of Ways and Means said, it would be helpful if colleagues confined their remarks to about six minutes, so that we can get everybody in with equal time.

I call the Father of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

I was particularly struck by the change to capital gains tax and the reference to the Laffer curve. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that the OBR in particular still does not appear to look at dynamic impacts of tax changes in a way that is essential for the future?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Interventions are absolutely marvellous, but can those who have already spoken be conscious that we are trying to get everybody in with equal time? My advice remains six minutes per speaker. Sir David Davis will notice that he is already slightly over that.

[Sir David Davis]

I have one last thing to say, as I will cut what I was going to say about productivity.

One rule that used to apply in this House was something called a general amendment arrangement, which came after the Budget. That disappeared in 2017, which means that we cannot change the Budget except in a very, very narrow way—this probably should be a point of order rather than part of a speech. I plead with Members on the Front Bench to ask the Chancellor whether we can have a general amendment arrangement at the end of this Budget.