Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing this debate. For 17 years, he has been limpet-like in this campaign for justice for Equitable Life victims, as have other Members of this House. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who asked some very pertinent questions of the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I am sorry once again to have to stand up on behalf of my constituents who have faced a clear injustice over many years. I know at least four constituents who have been impacted, and it is likely that there are many more. I want to touch on a slightly wider theme: the injustice caused by what I can describe only as a series of financial scams and the weak response of successive Governments. This is not just about the Equitable Life scandal. Since I first entered this House in 2015, I have spoken up on the loan charge scandal, the Football Index scandal, the London Capital & Finance scandal, and now the Equitable Life scandal. The common theme of all those scandals is that the victims suffer financial hardship.

One constituent affected by the Equitable Life scandal was estimated to have had over £20,000 taken from him. “Taken” is the key word; it was not lost. That is what campaigners who were fleeced when Football Index collapsed made sure to tell me: “Use the word ‘taken’, not ‘lost’, Ruth.” A wallet is lost behind a sofa; money is taken from a wallet by a crook.

My constituent is not alone. Many people have had money taken from them as a result of this scandal. As other Members said, many are now much older. My constituent is in his 80s, and that is precisely the stage of life when people need money for social care, for their families or simply to enjoy their remaining life. It should be a time when people can relax, but they cannot. In too many cases over the past 30 years, the actions of private companies have led to constituents suffering.

During the Football Index scandal, one of my constituents had £10,000 taken. During the collapse of London Capital & Finance, a constituent had £120,000 taken. In both cases and that of Equitable Life, it is clear that the regulators, which exist to protect our constituents, failed to act.

Why does that matter? First, our constituents end up having money taken from them and their lives turned upside down. Secondly, the Government have to step in and provide financial compensation—taxpayers’ money—but it is too often inadequate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East said, some do not get any money at all. It is right that the Government provided compensation for my constituents and others who suffered as a result of this injustice, but we should not have got there in the first place.

The Equitable Life scandal is a reminder of what happens when regulators fail to act and private companies operate in an underhand manner and get away with it. Over the past decade, too many regulators have become hollowed out and either have failed to act at all or have acted too late. I feel somewhat nervous about even my own party in government talking about doing away with regulators. We sadly need regulators, because there will always be scammers.

It is the Government, taxpayers and ultimately the victims who end up picking up the tab when operators act against the honest aspirations of hard-working people. Far too often in these scandals, the private companies and directors get off scot-free. In many cases, they get to make more money and go on to fleece someone else.

The Equitable Members Action Group continues to campaign on behalf of those affected, and has argued that there needs to be greater transparency from the Treasury about the remaining money that has not been allocated to victims. I hope the Treasury can meet and engage with those campaigning on this injustice. I hope the debate serves as an opportunity for this House to remember the importance of having regulators that are able to act and to act swiftly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. We know that issues of injustice can take an awfully long time to reach a resolution in Parliament. It is important that people who have or feel that they have suffered an injustice at the hands of the state should have worthy champions who have the doggedness and stamina to continue to make their case, so I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing today’s debate.

As has been noted, the issue goes back through this Labour Government, previous Conservative Governments, the coalition Government, the Brown Government, all the way back to Blair. Let us take a moment to think about the individuals who have already been waiting two decades and more for what they would see is a full resolution. As a Member of Parliament myself for periods of that time, I have had a sense that this matter is unfinished business.

I was interested to listen to some of the comments. One issue that was raised, most notably by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), was on regulation and the role of regulators. On the different perspectives and remedies, I think I am closer to the one suggested by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made the point that regulators are being hollowed out. I would say that on average they have greater scope, greater funding and more people. There is an issue with their focus, but more importantly, the structures to hold regulators to account are insufficient. There is no annual review of each regulator that is performed as effectively as in other areas, so I would encourage the hon. Member to press that point to improve our system of regulating the regulators.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I respect the shadow Minister’s views, but adequate powers and adequate resources go together. Too often since I have been in this place I have heard again and again that regulators would like to have done more and simply do not have the capacity. They do not have the staff in place. That is my view.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not want to go too far off the topic, because I am a bit of a nerd on regulating regulators. We can find time later to talk about that. It was an important point, as was the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I am glad he did not make a party political point, but it is a relevant point that the Labour party’s position in opposition was that the compensation was not sufficiently substantial.

I want to make three broad points in the lead-up to questions on each to the Minister. The first point I want to establish is that making changes to the settlement is not set in stone; it is a matter of Government choice. I want to give an example, which I raise solely for the purposes of talking about choice on pensions, not to talk about the decision that was made, because it is about choice. This is about mineworkers’ pensions. The incoming Labour Government made the choice in the case of the mineworkers’ pensions to move the surplus that had been accumulated in their fund to the mineworkers rather than back to the taxpayer—back to the Government. So it was a use of otherwise public funds that resulted in a boost to mineworkers’ pensions of about 30% to 32%. That was a choice.

I just ask the Minister to consider this. It was a choice by the Government to boost pensions that were already being paid “in full”, and yet the Government seem to have no choice about people who had an 80% decline in their pensions. It might strike some as odd, with a different set of values, to treat one differently from another. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that, but the point that I am trying to make is that this is a matter of choice for the Government.

My second point leads from a quote given by the Minister’s colleague, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said on this matter in September 2026:

“There are no plans to reopen any decisions relating to the Payment Scheme or review”.

That is an interesting phrase, because part of the conditions around those decisions are couched in different wordings of the phrase—that the settlement amount was determined in consideration of the “position of public finances”. That was stated way back in 2008 and also when the settlement was announced in 2011. It was alluded to again in 2016. Given that the Minister’s colleague said there are no plans to reopen any decisions, can the Minister confirm that it is still the case that considering the state of the public finances is a live factor that is encapsulated in that?

What I mean by that question is, should there be a change in the public finances, would there then be scope for the Government to change their mind? That is an important point. I do not want to lay out a false hope, but the settlement amount was decided specifically in consideration of the public finances at the time. Times now may be better or worse, but they are certainly different. When we hear the Minister’s response or read the statement made by the Minister’s colleague saying that there are no plans to reopen any decisions, it is important that it is clear that they are still open to consideration if the public finances change.

I want finally to return to what the hon. Member for Leeds North East said in his excellent speech about unallocated and unspent moneys. He said that if funds have been allocated but are not needed to meet the liabilities for which they were intended, then they should be used to compensate people who have still not received full redress. That really is a question about what those unspent funds would do. That partly encompasses the reserve and partly encompasses unallocated moneys. In the big scheme of things, it would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that it is the intention that those moneys in that envelope will be reallocated to policyholders, rather than being swept back into general taxpayer money.

The last thing we want to come out of this debate is the Minister being unclear with Equitable Life policyholders, who in some cases have lost 80% of their pensions already, or suggesting that if there are moneys left in the envelope, which was set at a particular level at a particular time because of the state of public finances, any surplus moneys will be squirrelled away and given to the Government again. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer those three questions.

Income Tax (Charge)

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

As Chair of the Transport Committee, I will focus my remarks on transport, a sector that is essential to delivering the Labour Government’s missions on growth and decarbonisation and to improving our health. On those, the Conservatives dodged the tough decisions and kicked the can down the potholed road. As the Chancellor said, just as in 1945 and 1997, it is up to the Labour party to clear up their mess.

I welcome the investment for the HS2 tunnel to Euston, the trans-Pennine route upgrade, East West Rail and the Marston Vale line. I am delighted that combined authorities, local councils and directly elected Mayors will receive funding for supertrams and mass-transit projects. The £485 million for Transport for London for rolling stock on the Piccadilly and Elizabeth lines will be particularly welcome in my constituency and across London, but also in Derby and Goole, where the jobs are being created and protected. My Committee will take great interest in how those projects are delivered. We hope that they will be completed on time, on budget, and in a way that will help the UK to catch up and compete with the best transport systems around the world.

Colleagues on both sides of the House have told me about the importance of local bus services, whether for work, study or shopping, and they are a lifeline for town centres. I welcome the £1 billion funding boost, and the fact that bus services are being put into the hands of local communities. I am pleased that a bus fare cap has been retained and that next month’s cliff edge has been avoided, but I hope that the Government will soon come up with a long-term solution for the revenue funding of buses across England, outside London.

Motorists will welcome the freezing of fuel duty. The previous Transport Committee, however, concluded that the Government

“must start an honest conversation with the public”

on how to maintain funding for roads and other essential public services as electric vehicle use increases and the use of fossil-fuel vehicles decreases. That will mean a decline in fuel duty for the Exchequer, so I hope that the Front Benches will work together on this challenge, which will only become ever more urgent.

As for the role of transport in decarbonisation, I am pleased that the Chancellor is increasing air passenger duty on private jets, but I hope that the Government will also address the electricity grid capacity challenge to ensure that there is adequate power when and where it is needed, to provide—among other things—confidence in electric vehicle take-up. This was a major infrastructure issue ducked by the last Government.

I am pleased that the Chancellor has seized the mantle of investment to put our country on a strong footing for the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for her pertinent question. That is exactly why we are piloting these measures, and we want to make sure that we get it right. I am interested in her suggestions, and I would be happy to consider them in greater detail.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The Government have been talking a lot about sick note culture. As this is Mental Health Awareness Week, does the Minister agree the record long waits that many people face in getting adequate mental healthcare is delaying their return to work and keeping them on benefits longer?

[Mel Stride]

The approach we are taking with our call for evidence is to try to find a system in which the fit note approach is improved, and part of that must mean getting treatment to people earlier rather than later. That is exactly why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor came forward with 400,000 additional talking therapies within the NHS for exactly that purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

Local authorities, with their local ties and knowledge, are best placed to identify those most in need. To assist local authorities with identifying those who may be in need of additional discretionary support, the DWP has introduced data shares with local authorities, which enables them to proactively identify individuals in need, as well as the supporting guidance for the scheme.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The Government were able to switch on, and then switch off, the £20 universal credit uplift quite easily and efficiently. What conversations did the Minister have with Treasury colleagues about doing the same again for those on universal credit in the latest package of measures, rather than imposing another bureaucratic headache on already overstretched councils?

[David Rutley]

We have important guidance in place to support local authorities, but they are best placed to provide support for people in their individual localities. That is why the household support fund has been designed with that in mind.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

It was vital that the Chancellor, the Cabinet and the Government looked at all the cost pressures arising in the economy. Once we knew what was happening with the energy price cap, it was possible for the Chancellor to start looking at what the options might be. We also needed to look at what payment mechanisms could be used to get the funding out to people. It is therefore entirely right that this package was put together and that it should have the impact that my hon. Friend has so clearly set out.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

T5.   My constituent is a paramedic and was on the frontline throughout the pandemic. He told me how much he was struggling with the cost of living crisis and how he feels cheated out of the household dream that if people worked hard, they could enjoy a good quality of life. He speaks for millions of NHS staff and many others. Does the Minister still think it was a good idea to raise taxes for working people this year?

[Dr Coffey]

As the hon. Lady knows, the levy that was introduced is there to support the NHS, particularly in tackling backlogs, but also to support adult social care, and I am sure her constituent could benefit from the outcomes of both. The hon. Lady should also be aware that next month the threshold for national insurance will rise, which will mean that 70% of working households will see a cut in the amount they pay in tax and national insurance.

Universal Credit and Working Tax Credits

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the 17,296 adults in claimant households in my constituency who are about to be hit by the universal credit cut, nearly 40% of whom are in work. Before the pandemic, the majority of local universal credit claimants were working, due to the high levels of low-paid work in Hounslow borough and its environs. Many of my constituents who are now unemployed worked in live events in the arts or at Heathrow airport, and the downturn in international aviation since covid has exposed the over-dependence of our local economy on Heathrow. This means that Hounslow has gone from being an area of very low unemployment to having one of the highest levels in the UK.

Behind every one of the 17,296 local claimants there is a person, often with children, and for them the proposed cut will have a very real impact on their households—households already living in poverty. Many have told me what it will mean. One said that the payment makes

“a lot of difference and helps us to eat”.

“Helps us to eat”, in the 21st century in the UK, is disgraceful.

On the one hand we have had Ministers’ weak attempts to defend this cut, but why do they not also mention the countless acts of wasteful spending we have seen over the last 18 months, such as a test and trace system that does not really trace and unusable PPE? We should also not forget the wider context of this cut. As the Government push through this £1,000 cut per claimant, they are also increasing taxes on working people through the national insurance hike and forcing councils to increase council tax, while today we hear of the rise in inflation to 3.2%. Furthermore, in high rent areas such as my constituency, the benefit cap and local housing allowance levels mean that many of my constituents are using the money from their standard allowance, which should be for food and utilities, to pay the rent. As the Leader of the Opposition highlighted at PMQs today, a full-time worker on the minimum wage will need to work for nine more hours to make up for the £20 cut.

Cutting UC on top of all this is not only cruel, but economically incompetent. Some £15 million will be taken out of our local economy in my constituency. We know from research that when there is more money in poor people’s pockets, it goes to local businesses and local shops—businesses that themselves employ people and pay tax. It is such a shame that the Chancellor and his Ministers are not here to lead for the Government in this debate rather than the DWP team, who we hear privately share our concerns about the impact of this cut.

Coronavirus Outbreak: DWP Response

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Thursday 26th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the report, and the speech made today by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).

The impact of the covid pandemic has exposed so many of our constituents, who never thought that they would need to apply for benefits, to the Department for Work and Pensions. They have experienced what many have had to put up with for years—politically driven viciousness towards those who, through no fault of their own, need help from the state to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. I do not blame DWP staff, who work hard to support increasing numbers of people in distress, but those staff are having to implement these terrible policies.

There are about 13,000 households on universal credit in my constituency as of last month. That is 50% more compared with the same month a year ago. There are also almost 5,500 households on legacy benefits and tax credits. That is an estimate. I am particularly concerned about people who have no recourse to public funds. We have no local data, but I know there will be many hundreds of such adults and children, given that the national estimate is 1.4 million adults and 175,000 children impacted. With no right to state help, apart from discretionary funds from already overstretched local authorities, there are real concerns about those people.

There is a particular impact on lone-parent families, especially with black, Asian and ethnic minority backgrounds. The Local Government Association has called for NRPF to be suspended, because these are people who, in the main, were working. They had a right to work and a right to live here, but their jobs have gone, particularly in my area, where so many jobs depend on Heathrow. That industry has been hit particularly hard. The Unity Project, which works with NRPF families, reports that 54% of its families assisted had no work during lockdown.

I want to cover a couple of cases and the experience of my case workers. People are using universal credit for the first time and having real trouble navigating what is a complex system, even for those with a high level of IT and literacy skills. The Work and Pensions Committee report mentions the difficulty facing self-employed workers owing to their specific needs. The minimum income floor has been suspended and they are worried that it might be brought back. Many self-employed workers who were excluded, particularly in the creative and arts sectors, have also been denied access to universal credit owing to the savings threshold. Savings are not some sort of indulgence; for many, they are the fund being built up for a deposit, so that they can get on the housing ladder, now that 100% mortgages are something of the deep past.

I want to discuss a case in respect of the benefit cap, which affects so many in my constituency, where rents are between £1,500 and £1,800 a month for a modest flat. Rents are high because we are in west London. The £27,000 benefit cap does not leave much change after the rent is paid, so let me illustrate that by way of the example of a lone parent, recently separated, with three children, one of whom is a tiny baby. Her rent is £1,300 a month. Her partner left her while pregnant and she claimed universal credit. She was awarded £1,731 a month, which meant that, after she had paid the £1,300 in rent, she was left with £431 a month, or £99 a week plus child benefit, for everything for her and her children, including a baby, which of course means additional costs. The two-child limit meant that she was not entitled to any more benefit once her third child arrived. She was left with the same amount to live on.

I am particularly concerned about those subject to sanctions and the reintroduction of the requirement for claimants to phone their DWP advisers or risk sanctions. That particularly impacts on those with learning disabilities or mental health issues. We know that mental health problems have escalated this year. Many need access to IT, but they have been dependent on face-to-face support to help them with their benefit claims and their journal. That support was often given in places such as libraries and other public spaces, but those have been closed for much of the year because of lockdown rules.

In conclusion, I support the Committee’s recommendations. I also oppose any attempt to cut the £20 a week increase for universal credit. I want to see an increase in legacy benefits in line with the £20 uplift to ensure that those on older legacy benefits, such as jobseeker’s allowance, are not missing out. I would have scrapped the benefits cap that penalises private renters, particularly in high-cost areas such as London, and suspended the savings cap. All that would mean money in the pockets of low-income families. That would not only help them: as we know, low-income families are far more likely to spend any additional pound in the local economy and that supports others. It is a win-win.

Inequality and Social Mobility

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 12th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

rose—

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make some more progress.

Let me set out how this Government are supporting social mobility and helping people to improve their lot. We know that social mobility support has the greatest potential at the earliest time in life. That is why we introduced 15 hours of free childcare for disadvantaged two-year-olds. This is on top of the 15 hours of free childcare offer for all three and four-year-olds, which we doubled to 30 hours for working parents. This is more provision of childcare than at any time under Labour.

We are investing in our world-class education system. Core funding for schools and high-needs education has risen from almost £41 billion in 2017-18 to £43.5 billion this year. Since 2010, the proportion of children in good or outstanding schools has risen from 66% to 85% in December 2018.

[Amber Rudd]

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that we came in in 2010 to an economic crisis, and the fact that we have seen an increase in people’s wages over inflation in every month for the past 13 months is something that we should celebrate. The fact that we now provide 85% of assistance for people who need it for their childcare costs, compared with the 70% they received previously, should help people to access the work that they want and the support for childcare that they need.

We are also overhauling technical education, with investment of an extra £500 million a year once T-levels are fully rolled out. The UK has a long history of providing world-class university education. We have four of the 10 top universities in the world, more women than ever before are studying STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—subjects at university, and disadvantaged 18-year-olds are now entering full-time universities at record rates.

For most people, full-time work is the best route out of poverty, so it is vital that we help welfare claimants to find jobs, to progress and to work. That is why the Government designed universal credit, which removes the legacy system’s disincentives to entering employment by ensuring that work always pays more than being on benefits.

Once fully rolled out, universal credit will cost £2.1 billion more per year than the system it replaced.

[Ruth Cadbury]

The Secretary of State talks about rising wages and full-time work, but is she aware just how many families depend on zero-hours, inconsistent and unsociable hours work while their costs, including rent and council tax, are rising? They are having to find childcare out of normal hours and they cannot make ends meet. Those people’s incomes are not improving, given all the other costs that they face.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

The question is a good one, and we will always look at alternative forms of communication.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Too many young people who are sofa-surfing or, worse, sleeping rough are doing so because of problems due to universal credit delays and sanctions. When will the Government do an assessment of the impact of these delays and sanctions on vulnerable young people?

[Will Quince]

That is why, in recent Budgets, we have put an additional £1.7 billion into the universal credit system.

Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 General Committees

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) and Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and I thank all colleagues for coming along to this important statutory instrument Committee this morning.

It is really important that we reach a negotiated settlement with the EU, but it is our duty, as a responsible Government, to prepare for all eventualities, including leaving with no deal. This SI is one such contingency measure and will ensure that regulations governing chemicals and genetically modified organisms for contained use continue to be operable in a no-deal scenario.

I shall take this opportunity to reiterate that this instrument will deliver on our commitments to protect workers’ rights as the UK leaves the EU by ensuring that health and safety regulation continues to provide a high level of protection in the workplace and for those affected by workplace activities. It will also deliver on the Government’s commitment that as the UK leaves the EU standards of protection for people and the environment will remain at least as high as they are at present.

Together with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we oversee a number of key regulatory regimes that affect the chemicals sector. Since the referendum, our joint programme has conducted particularly intensive work to ensure that there will continue to be a functioning regulatory regime for chemicals, with associated enforcement activity, in any exit scenario.

These draft regulations form part of the work being done to adjust our legislative framework in readiness for leaving the EU. I appreciate the technical nature of the regulations and that this instrument, as a composite of several different regulatory regimes, makes things particularly complex. The decision to present the proposals as a single instrument was for the benefit of the House—to reduce pressure on parliamentary time and to ensure that we can deliver an orderly exit. I ask hon. Members to please be assured that the proposals are sensible, proportionate and necessary.

If approved, the regulations will make necessary amendments to three retained EU regulations as well as EU-derived domestic legislation affecting the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. As stated, their purpose is to amend the relevant legislation to ensure that there is provision for an independent UK regulatory regime that maintains existing standards and protections. The Government’s priority will be to maintain a legal framework to ensure the continued effective and safe management of chemicals to safeguard human health and the environment. That framework needs to be flexible enough to respond to emerging risks, while still allowing trade with the EU that is as frictionless as possible.

The first of the three retained EU regulations to be amended is the biocidal products regulation, which governs the placing on the market and use of products that contain chemicals that protect humans, animals, materials or articles against harmful organisms such as pests or bacteria. It is in place to ensure that those chemicals are safe for humans, animals and the environment, while improving the functioning of the biocidal products market. That market covers a wide range of products, such as wood preservatives, insecticides—for example, wasp spray—and anti-fouling paint to remove barnacles from boats.

Secondly, the classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures regulation ensures that the hazardous intrinsic properties of chemicals are properly identified and effectively communicated to those throughout the supply chain, including at the point of use. That is done partly through standardised hazard pictograms and warning phrases associated with specific hazards, such as explosivity, acute toxicity and carcinogenicity.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

The Minister said that this SI would protect workers’ rights. Could she a bit more specific on exactly how?

[Sarah Newton]

I would be delighted to. As I will go on to explain, the regimes will be administered by the Health and Safety Executive, so the draft instrument will protect workers’ rights by ensuring that we continue to have some of the safest workplaces in the world—we have a proud tradition of that. I am delighted that the team from the HSE that worked so hard on the draft regulations, and the lawyers that helped us to introduce them, are here today. They have done a fantastic job. I am sure we all agree that the HSE does a very good job, day in, day out, of promoting the wellbeing and safety of people in the workplace. The draft instrument will protect workers’ rights by protecting workers from exposure to harmful chemicals.

Lastly, the export and import of hazardous chemicals regulation implements the Rotterdam convention and requires exports of listed chemicals to be notified to the importing country. For some chemicals, the consent of the importing country must be obtained before export can proceed. These regimes rely on EU processes to take and implement collective decisions. However, much of this business already operates at national level. Decisions at EU level are taken on the basis of evaluations and assessments undertaken by member states, or following consideration of scientific opinions reached by relevant expert committees. Under a no-deal scenario, the instrument will provide for these evaluations or opinions to inform a national decision, rather than informing UK input into an EU decision.

The HSE acts as a UK competent authority within the EU regimes for chemicals regulations, and therefore has capability and capacity that can be built on to enable it to take full UK regulatory authority responsibility. For example, across the whole of the EU, the HSE processes about an eighth of the biocidal active substance approvals and about a third of the biocidal product authorisations.

It is necessary to put in place arrangements for the HSE to recover its costs for work across the wider chemicals regimes, including on plant protection products. That is currently done by EU institutions, and a fee is charged. This approach to cost recovery is in line with HM Treasury policy and is a well-established procedure for charging industry for the various work and advice provided by the HSE—for example, on applications for approval of first aid training on offshore installations and pipelines, or the evaluation of safety cases made under the control of major accident hazards regulations.

The instrument also contains a small number of technical operability amendments to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2014, which affect the use of GMOs in contained sites, such as laboratories, and currently refer to a number of European directives and regulations. These references, some of which are the responsibility of other Government Departments, will be updated to the corresponding repatriated UK domestic law. There are no policy changes or updates to duties, and all existing protections covering human health and the environment will be maintained and will continue to work in the same way post EU exit.

The UK chemical sector is our second biggest manufacturing industry and second largest exporter. It is also integral to the provision of essential products and technologies on which society relies. The draft instrument will provide clarity for the chemical industry and regulators, ensuring that the legal requirements for chemicals regulations are clear immediately after exit, and that certainty for consumers that the use of chemicals in the UK will continue to be desirable and safe.

Before closing, I stress that the devolved Administrations have provided consent for the elements of the draft instrument that are considered to be devolved. I hope that colleagues of all parties will join me in supporting the draft regulations and I commend them to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ruth Cadbury Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

Last Thursday, my hon. Friend held a powerful debate in Westminster Hall covering some of this area. The Government take the issue very seriously. We are providing additional funding for 47 local authorities that have the highest numbers of care leavers at risk of rough sleeping. That funding will allow them to appoint specialist personnel advisers to provide additional support to small caseloads of those at risk. I am also keen to look at opportunities to open up the jobcentres to care leavers six months before their 18th birthday in order to look at all the different opportunities and support available to them.

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Given that care leavers are, by definition, vulnerable and have a host of challenges, including in housing, getting into work, and skills and training, what discussions is the DWP having with local authorities so that rather than drip-dripping a few special projects the Government actually address the chronic underfunding of local government that has let care leavers down, among many others?

[Justin Tomlinson]

Our whole strategy of supporting care leavers, which was set out as part of the care leaver covenant, is about closer partnership working with not only the Department for Education but local authorities, to ensure that there is consistent support across the board. As I said in my previous answer, I want to start that earlier, giving young care leavers the maximum time to prepare for the transition as they reach 18.